Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Another controversial law in FL
So my friend Rick Scott signed into law mandatory drug testing for all welfare recipients. It's been on CNN and stuff and is a hotly contested issue whether or not this is fair. My position:
From a social standpoint, I get the concept. We the taxpayers shouldn't be funding people's drug habits etc. etc. Trust me in my line of work I understand that some welfare recipients do in fact use their money for this purposes.
However, from a legal standpoint, this isn't the way to regulate it. (1) It's a waste of money because there is no follow-up testing. So, all one has to do is get clean, then apply for welfare, and then they can still use the money for drugs (if that's what they were going to do). The law simply doesn't achieve the intended result. (2) (and this goes back to whether State employee drug testing is okay), a drug test has been considered by courts to be a search. To have a search, the govt must have probable cause. Just because one is on welfare does not equal probable cause that they are on drugs. A similar law in Michigan was struck down for this very reason.
Soooooooo DISCUSS!
Re: Another controversial law in FL
I am ALL for drug testing welfare recipients! I am not familiar with how he is doing it, but this is how I think it should be done:
1. Random screening that will be told when you go to pick up your welfare check or when it is brought to your house (I think these checks should be picked-up/delivered in person so that the state can be sure that the correct person is receiving the check).
2. Have it paid out of the welfare fund. Many accountants have shown that this comes out to a few dollars (if not less) per person per month.
3. If you fail the UA, you then do not receive your check for that month. You will be REQUIRED to test again the next month, and so on until you can pass two months in a row. If someone wants to go out and get high every day, that is perfectly fine, just go get a job and contribute to society!
4. Eventually, the money not handed out to drug abusers, will MORE than cover the cost of the drug testing.
Now that that is covered: I think it is INSANE that marijuana is still illegal. If only for the financial recovery of our economy and the ability to relieve our overcrowded prisons, it is worth it in itself. Can you imagine how many people would PASS UAs if it was legal? I am waiting for one GOOD reason as to why it is still illegal. For those that argue the "moral" stand point, my friends that are high cause a LOT less trouble than those that are drunk, so that means nothing to me. Put these small time drug dealers out of business, so we can focus on the big dogs dealing the stuff that actually KILLS people! Plus, medical marijuana would get a lot of people off of medications that are made in a lab, instead of grown naturally in the ground. ONE city in CA taxed medical marijuana sales only for two months and made like $390,000! Why is this still even an issue!!! Sorry, those topics were related.
I love you.
haha - but thank you for hitting all of the great arguments! if only the rest of the "Refer Madness" world could take their heads out of their... you knows... then we'd be able to start chipping away at this STUPID amount of debt and focus on the actual DANGEROUS drugs. don't forget - alcohol is a MUCH worse and addictive drug for you than THC by a land slide.
See chart: http://g.psychcentral.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/chart1.lrg_.jpg
(obv this is just one study) - but notice the Drug Specific Mortality is ZERO for Cannibis
But I do agree - if you are on welfare you shouldn't be buying any drugs - including pot - so for this i would say do it, test these people. but for including THC in work tests (obv depending on the nature of the job) - get rid of it!
9 Glorious Months!
My Photography Blog!
Not everyone on welfare uses drugs - some, especially those recently hit hard by the downturn - are hard workers down on their luck who loathe taking a handout. So, from that perspective, it seems that the law is pigeon-holing those who need help and putting them through the further embarrassment of being tested for drugs because they find themselves in need. For those who fall into that category, I feel bad for them.
That having been said, it is nonetheless a fact that a vast majority do abuse the system and collect money while not taking care of their kids, buying dope, and what not. And we are ultimately the ones who are paying for it. I don't rightly know the best way to do it,but here are a few of my thoughts:
1. I don't have a problem with random drug testing, as long as it can be shown that they are adminstered to everyone on the rolls, and not just certain groups.
2. I think that should someone fail a test, their benefit eligibility should be reviewed, and a probation period and mandatory re-test required. If they fail a second test, then suspend the benefit on a monthly basis until the person tests clean.
3. I think also as important as testing for drugs is offering some kind of parenting classes. So many "lifers" on welfare were never taught proper child rearing, and so their kids grow up seeing welfare as a viable option for every day living,not the stop gap emergency measure it was meant to be. A new cycle begins...
The only issue I have with the whole "cutting off the money of drug users" thing, is what happens to the children of these mothers and fathers who fail the tests? Chances are, they are barely being cared for as is if the parents are drug abusers, and then with no money at all coming in, who will suffer first and most? Yep, the kids. So, who will take them in? Where will they go? Where will they live if parents are evicted? It's quite likely that left to fend for themselves, or even encouraged by parents desperate for money, that some of these little ones may turn to an early life of crime, and then a new cycle begins.
Hmmm...There are serious consequences to every tough decision, which is why however states decide to attack this issue, they need to do so thoughtfully and carefully. Yes, welfare does need reform, but it needs to be done without high emotion and in a well though out manner.
Stac,
The kids are always my first concern and thought when it comes to this issue. I completely understand that part, and I not having a lot of insight into how social workers do their thing, I'm not sure how that point would be handled. I hate to see more kids put in the states' hands, but at the same time, are they getting proper care in the home they are in? It is such a tough issue. I think that is a big reason why drug testing isn't done on welfare recipients. And, I hate to see the government have there hands in anything more than they already do. I think government should be on the back burner of all operations in this country, rather than the forefront as they seem to be today. In my experiences, government always seems to make situations worse, rather than better, because they are no longer working in the interest of the citizens of this country, but rather whoever is funding their campaigns. It is sad.
As far as the people that are recently having hard times, this drug screening in no way to me need to be applied to those receiving unemployment or disability.
Weeeeellllll....I work AT the welfare office, so I have some opinions on this subject
I can see WHY people want it, but I think it needs to be done in a very careful way. The majority of the people on welfare are not drug users. I think if they are going to require drug testing it should be done randomly and if you fail, your benefits are closed for a minimum of 3 months and until you can pass a drug test after that, at which time you must reapply and go through the motions again (clients hate when they have to do this). I think for families with children, the drug user should be taken off of the case and a representative should be appointed to ensure that those children are still getting the food and necessities they need.
It's a slippery slope, there are definate ups and downs to it. But there needs to be follow up, so, like Rachel said, people don't get clean just to get their benefits and then go back to using.
10/11: Dx PCOS, 2000mg Metformin
My Blog
April Nesties March siggy challenge: Next Vacation, Anguilla!!
I guess my main concern is, as Stac and Linds said, by requiring drug testing of these people, you're basically creating a class of "suspect" individuals, which is at best embarrassing, and at worst a violation of privacy (against search and seizure, etc.) I don't know the answer, but I just don't believe that what Florida is doing is it.
Drug addiction is a disease, and perhaps it would be better to spend the $$$ that is being used on testing to provide people with some actual skills (counseling, directing them to NA/AA, parenting classes, etc.).
p.s. I haven't touched marijuana in a million years, but am 110% in favor of legalization. No comprendo the haters who want it to remain illegal
Quite a lively discussion - I love it :-))
It is a treat to engage in a spirited discussion where not everyone holds the same position, yet treats everyone's views with respect. A novel concept. Think our elected officials could learn a lesson or two from us?
I completely agree!
Though I also agree with Rachel that the way Florida is going about this is all wrong. I definitely think it is worth the money to identify drug users on welfare. But, if you are going to violate someone's privacy, I think you also need to be ready to provide therapy to help stop this habit, i.e. spend money in both identifying and treating this illness. I think this issue deserves much more thought and discussion than the governor gave it as this is a HUGE investment for the state.
Post-Wedding Life Blog!
A10 Siggy Challenge: Next Vacation Destination: San Francisco!