Welfare Drug Testing Bill in Florida (Page 3)

OK, so some person grew up in a household where drugs and alcohol were a daily part of life; parents, aunts and uncles all using on a daily basis, giving it to the kid from an early age, and triggering their genetic vulnerability. They have no supports, and drop out of school and go on welfare. They have an epiphany for whatever reason (the state mandates testing, they get in trouble with the law, a close friend dies of an overdose, whatever). They have no resources to fund their recovery, they want to become clean and become a productive tax-paying citizen, but you don't want to pay for it. So what do you imagine will happen to their attempt to get clean and sober?

I'm not sure I get what you are saying... I don't want to legalize drugs for tax....

It will be just like alcohol.... they already have a model. Alcohol is legal for sale, alcohol production other than beer is not.  Tobacco is legal... and is taxed heavily for reasons having nothing to do with tobacco use. Yet the South still grows it and people can still smoke it.... but how much again does taxes from tobacco use generate annually?

Right now States make zero off drug use... at least on the books. Do you actually believe they will leave a loop hole in their revenue streams when they write the legislation?

Colorado made something like 13 million in fees alone last year. It only cost 2-3 to administer the program... the rest went right into general coffers.

Not just Florida, but I believe nationally abuse of prescription drugs in significantly on the rise. So besides all the wasted dollars spent on testing, now you have to have some administrative people monitoring all those positive tests to see if they have a legitimate prescription for those oxy's, and if the doc who prescribed is legit. And people who abuse substances not easily detected still abuse them. 

I don't favor legalizing more drugs, even MJ (a shift from my own youth, despite never using), but I think this is a politically motivated grandstand idea that does not really address the problems associated with substance use. If you argue that alcohol and tobacco are OK because they are legal, then the issue is not one of loss of productivity. And people can abuse designer drugs that the law has not caught up with. If you argue the issue of lost productivity, how are you supposed to catch the drinking (nicotine can be picked up from testing for a while after use). And if you believe we should be dictating how people spend their welfare dollar, why don't you just hand out the resources that you think the money "should" be going to?

Recovery is free. It does not cost money, it only requires a change of mind. Just because it seems popular for celebrities to check into rehab regularly... does not mean that is the only way to change one's life.

We all have choices in life.

Being fortunate to grow up in an upper middle class college town, most of the drug use that I saw was the "status symbol" drug of the 80's, cocaine.  I wouldn't mind seeing drug testing for anyone who gets government assistance: FHA Loans, SBA Loans, Federal Student Loans... you name it.  If the theory is to stop drug use, why not?

I peed in a cup for the 8 years I was in uniform. I'll pee in a cup everyday, it won't bother me.  I don't do drugs, so it's not my problem.

You don't get it since I didn't write it very well    I had one train of thought in my head but another while typing and for that I apologize. I'm thinking mostly logistically though

For the record I think most medical marijuana laws could be titled "we calling it medical until all the old people die and stop voting against it" 

I understand how it is in Colorado pretty good, I"m sure there are many things that I don't though, so if I'm wrong on something please point it out to me. 

Your alcohol analogy is pretty good,  Most people can brew their own beer/wine. But setting up a still and doing hard liqueur is a big no no.. While it's cited as a health risk, it has more to do with the large amount of tax that is put on alcohol other than beer/wine.  So if you are comparing pot to beer/wine someone would be able to grow their own on a small scale without having to pay any tax. The only way you are going to be able to tax it is if (like colorado) there are approved places to buy it, and people are actually buying it there. If I'm growing a small amount in my yard, either if that is legal, or not and  I'm taking my chances so I can use and sell a little.  I doubt myself or others with the same idea will be filling the necessary paperwork to make sure we are paying that sin tax. While at first the state makes a decent amount of cash off of sin taxs, but after a while the revenues start to decline if I've read correctly how others states have handled sin taxes, (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana).

So the problem starts to repeat itself,, and the problem I'm referring to is the budget shortfall. That money is nice to begin with but if the problem (shortfall) isn't fixed, then there will be another Sin to be taxed.

I guess it comes down to a couple of things. I"m just very conflicted when a federal law and a state law conflict like it does with the drug issue. And I dislike states coming up with new ways to tax things as a way to bring in money when it usually a spending problem that should be address. 

Hope I'm a little clearer, and again sorry for the rambling confusing post

All the best

I'm going to echo gearboy here... you've never been around addicts, have you? I'm a prosecutor, and I see people with addictions (alcohol, meth, heroin, crack) every day. Yes, some people -- a very, very small percentage -- can just "will" away an addiction, but most people need multiple trips to rehab. Fortunantly, I'm not an addict, and I can't imagine a life dependant on a drug, so I don't presume to understand exactly, but I don't imagine a heroin addict enjoys turning tricks to get her next fix. It's an ugly life.

Ya... we are on the same page. I'm of the limited government, personal liberty mind set. And that is what my problem is with sin tax.... it isn't filling a need, it's expanding government. government spending is the problem.

And to be real honest... I don't like free loaders or taking advantage a system that is supposed to help people.... but all the numbers show that welfare is small potatoes. It is such an easy target, but really is nothing compared to corporate welfare and government waste fraud and abuse. But is does sound really good on TV.

CLEARLY... really... where is that? I have over ten years clean of ALL mood and mind altering substances. You don't have a clue where my shoes have been. I know full well there is not one way that works for every addict. But the difference between you and me is that I EARNED my experience on the subject where as you seemed to have read yours from a book.

Wow.. you got me all figured out from a couple of posts. Nice trick.

I deal with addicts every day of my life. Difference between me and you is I help others to change their life because others helped me change mine, where as you prosecute symptoms. How many people have you helped stay clean today?

Yes. A book. Oh, and nearly 20 years of working with addicts in a variety of treatment programs, adults and adolescents, many with dual diagnosis.

Yes, I have met a FEW people who managed to get sober with little assistance (though it is rare, and many end up more as "dry drunks" than truly sober and clean). Most, however, need some help. Some of it free (AA/NA), some need more intensive services. I believe my analogy still stands, as there a few very talented people who naturally have excellent singing voices, just like some people can simply decide to stop using and succeed. But most are just fooling themselves. Even your response to trishie indicates that you recognize that people do not simply "decide to get clean" - it takes supports and help to get there.

I am also puzzled by your comment that I did not address previously: "There is definitely a case to be made that those on drugs will continue to need assistence until such time as they stop taking drugs.  " So, we should give active unemployed addicts assistance but not provide resources for them to get clean and be employable? It takes more than just being clean to hold a job, as I assume you know. One has to be able to stick to a schedule, be able to follow up with commitments despite other issues and emotional states, etc - things which are part of the skill set of getting and staying clean.

Obviously you don't think that us as a society and human beings have a moral responsability to help those in their greatest time of need.   I certainly hope that those that are so quick to judge and apply the label of lazy, wasteful, and hope that those people would silde of the face of earth are never in that situation.

You should be puzzled because I never said that. Go back and look at what I said. I am being pretty plain here.... never once have I said I didn't need help.... I'm alive today because when I asked, it was there. What I did not need is government subsistence and government programs by a for profit industry.

Bottom line is that it is not the government's job to make the gutter comfortable. I have no problem with the law. My paycheck is dependent on a clean urine sample when ever they ask. And I have no problem with one of the most wealthiest countries ever to providing help to those that need it. We should. But there is a huge difference between a hand up and a hand out.

I do think there should be a restriction for government assistance. If we as a society think that we should help a fellow human being who has an addiction then maybe we could take the money and use it for some kind of recovery program but I don’t think we just give people money just because. I do think there should be some kind of regulation or restrictions. Part of freedom and the pursuit of happiness is the freedom to choose for our self and freedom to fail.

Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime.

There are restrictions in place, perhaps not enough i would agree with that, but this thread started in regards to a very particular one that in my opinion is a waste of money and to a certain degree unethical.

I agree that we shouldnt just give money away, but we should help us those in need and assist them to improve themselves, if they dont do it then that is somethign else, but we should always try and not just not treat them as the previous poster suggested.

This is the issue I think that many republicans and liberals disagree on.  Liberals believe that it is the government's responsibility to provide these types of social programs, while republicans believe people should do these types of things through their own means.  I don't believe anyone is saying these people should not be helped, but they do disagree on the method. 

I'd like to see some data on gov't social programs that have stayed within budget and met their planned goals, before I am convinced that they can be successful with programs such as welfare. I don't think anyone has really measured this type of thing from a non-biased stand point as of yet.

Read the post to which i replied.  I can accept the debate of the best way to help those in need to become an integral part of our community and society, but ignoring the problem and not doing anything is inhuman and in the long run detrimental to our society.

My apologies - I had been responding to Velocomp's comments; you jumped in with your own strong opinion, which I mistakenly thought had come from the poster I was responding to.

And great for you on getting sober with AA/NA. I assume that is what you have obliquely referred to. Surely, then, in the decade you have been working the program (if you still are), you have seen people who did not maintain sobriety until after more intensive treatment programs. Which makes your hostility towards them odd.

One could argue that the current welfare system as a whole and the abuse of it will be detrimental to our society.

You're saying a particular group of people need help, and that the gov't should be helping them. I may not have been clear, but I was saying that many people believe they should be able to decide who and how to help as a personal choice rather than having to use their money taken and given away.  Many believe that the money spent on people using illegal drugs could be spent better elsewhere, and that since it is their money they should be able to decide.

Fair enough. Stop having an argument with me you seem to want to have, and I will stop being so flip in my responses and we can have a discussion instead of an argument.

I did not intend to open this can... but here we are. I am not ashamed of my life... but I do not put it out for entertainment either. If you want to know what I do I am happy to discuss it in private. I can only go by my experience. I know perfectly well that there is not one approach that works for everyone. Some people can do it themselves, some people get help from friends family and church, some rehab therapy, some actually change through the Dept. of Corrections... I have the utmost respect for anyone that can identify a problem in their life and change it through what ever means available. And I have respect for those that try to do what they can to be that help. It seems you are one of those.

There was a time when the dregs of society were thrown away with no hope for change. We do not live in such times. Addiction is a well known problem and recovery from it is readily available to those that want it. I know full well how hard it is to change, but I also know it is a choice. For those that fall on hard times, there is help. For those that are not naturally blessed with skills and abilities like most of us, there is help. For those that can not fend for themselves, there is and should be help.

For those that are not willing to change, that is their choice. For those that are willing to live on the bottom wrung of society, that is their choice. It is not my job as a tax payer to buy padding for that wrung. It is not my job as a tax payer to fund your life of choice. There are SOOO many people out there that need legitamate help, and we simply can not pay for it all. So I have a hard time with those people, even though they may be the minority, taking limited resources away from those that need it and want it.