Comments on: State To Appeal Welfare Recipient Drug Testing Court Order http://www.northescambia.com/2011/11/state-to-appeal-welfare-recipient-drug-testing-court-order Local News for Molino, Bratt, McDavid, Century, Walnut Hill, Cantonment Fri, 10 Apr 2026 21:33:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David Huie Green http://www.northescambia.com/2011/11/state-to-appeal-welfare-recipient-drug-testing-court-order/comment-page-1#comment-106318 David Huie Green Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:51:07 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=73381#comment-106318 REGARDING: "In recent days, Scott has sounded exasperated with the continued legal wrangling over the policies" One wonders sometimes if he thought the governor spoke and everybody else shouted, “YES SIR!!” If so, he's probably wondering if he got his money's worth. He really SHOULD have known legal wrangling comes with the territory. David sympathetic but amused REGARDING:
“In recent days, Scott has sounded exasperated with the continued legal wrangling over the policies”

One wonders sometimes if he thought the governor spoke and everybody else shouted, “YES SIR!!” If so, he’s probably wondering if he got his money’s worth.

He really SHOULD have known legal wrangling comes with the territory.

David sympathetic but amused

]]> By: Michelle http://www.northescambia.com/2011/11/state-to-appeal-welfare-recipient-drug-testing-court-order/comment-page-1#comment-106103 Michelle Mon, 07 Nov 2011 00:11:48 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=73381#comment-106103 It's a small price to pay for these adults to take care of their children on the tax payers dime. But you know there are a lot who abuse the system in fraudulant ways. Save money for other things and weed the bad ones out!! It’s a small price to pay for these adults to take care of their children on the tax payers dime. But you know there are a lot who abuse the system in fraudulant ways. Save money for other things and weed the bad ones out!!

]]> By: David Huie Green http://www.northescambia.com/2011/11/state-to-appeal-welfare-recipient-drug-testing-court-order/comment-page-1#comment-106097 David Huie Green Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:48:28 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=73381#comment-106097 REGARDING: "Rick Scott’s “wife” owns - - - " Why are you putting "wife" in quotes? is she only called his wife but really something else????????? David the confused REGARDING:
“Rick Scott’s “wife” owns – - – ”

Why are you putting “wife” in quotes? is she only called his wife but really something else?????????

David the confused

]]> By: Scott http://www.northescambia.com/2011/11/state-to-appeal-welfare-recipient-drug-testing-court-order/comment-page-1#comment-106074 Scott Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:26:17 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=73381#comment-106074 Rick Scott's "wife" owns the company that does these required test. Imagine that!! Rick Scott’s “wife” owns the company that does these required test. Imagine that!!

]]> By: Molino-Anon http://www.northescambia.com/2011/11/state-to-appeal-welfare-recipient-drug-testing-court-order/comment-page-1#comment-106050 Molino-Anon Sun, 06 Nov 2011 05:07:28 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=73381#comment-106050 If it's okay to drug test people asking for assistance and the "law" deems it important enough to make people on welfare do so... I say all government and state officials should be drug tested also or get out of office. You can't tell me there's not one state official not on a controlled substance... or a judge not on a controlled substance. Most of the elite class in state held positions are there today because of illegal drugs, or their great grandfathers bootlegging during prohibition. This is just one more way to put a noose around the necks of a certain economical class of people, so the state and its officials can subvert the funds to their own causes. Totalitarian... Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.... nuff said. If it’s okay to drug test people asking for assistance and the “law” deems it important enough to make people on welfare do so… I say all government and state officials should be drug tested also or get out of office.

You can’t tell me there’s not one state official not on a controlled substance… or a judge not on a controlled substance.

Most of the elite class in state held positions are there today because of illegal drugs, or their great grandfathers bootlegging during prohibition.

This is just one more way to put a noose around the necks of a certain economical class of people, so the state and its officials can subvert the funds to their own causes.

Totalitarian…

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible….

nuff said.

]]> By: peecuppy http://www.northescambia.com/2011/11/state-to-appeal-welfare-recipient-drug-testing-court-order/comment-page-1#comment-105966 peecuppy Sat, 05 Nov 2011 05:05:28 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=73381#comment-105966 Requiring people to pass drug tests for welfare is ultimately a useless endeavor. The majority of the time, if someone engages in the use of illicit substances on a regular basis, they more than likely know how to subvert a drug test. It sure tends to be that way in the workforce, why should it be different for people who have nothing better to do with their time than watch TV, surf the web, and leech off the system; especially since those tests more than likely wouldn't be observed collections. Requiring people to pass drug tests for welfare is ultimately a useless endeavor. The majority of the time, if someone engages in the use of illicit substances on a regular basis, they more than likely know how to subvert a drug test. It sure tends to be that way in the workforce, why should it be different for people who have nothing better to do with their time than watch TV, surf the web, and leech off the system; especially since those tests more than likely wouldn’t be observed collections.

]]> By: David Huie Green http://www.northescambia.com/2011/11/state-to-appeal-welfare-recipient-drug-testing-court-order/comment-page-1#comment-105963 David Huie Green Sat, 05 Nov 2011 04:00:48 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=73381#comment-105963 REGARDING: " So far, 2% of all those tested came back positive. 2%. Does that sound like a rampant problem to any of you?" Please consider the prepositional phrase: "of those tested" You did notice a large number declined to pursue benefits when they were faced with the testing, didn't you? Maybe they didn't have the money for the test; maybe they knew the test would disqualify them in the first place. An interesting question would be why anybody took the test in the first place knowing they would test positive. I knew a kid who tried to go in the Army, knowing they would test him for drug abuse and that he would fail that test. I don’t know why he tried. Other than that little problem, No, it doesn't look like many needing help are using drugs. Economically speaking, if the test cost $50 each -- which they don't -- and if the recipients only received $2500 total, the cost benefit ratio would be very close to one. Rough on the children of the drug users who failed but there is a fair chance they wouldn't benefit from any money paid anyway. DRUGS COME FIRST for many users. David for perfect systems and perfect people REGARDING:
” So far, 2% of all those tested came back positive. 2%. Does that sound like a rampant problem to any of you?”

Please consider the prepositional phrase: “of those tested”

You did notice a large number declined to pursue benefits when they were faced with the testing, didn’t you? Maybe they didn’t have the money for the test; maybe they knew the test would disqualify them in the first place.

An interesting question would be why anybody took the test in the first place knowing they would test positive. I knew a kid who tried to go in the Army, knowing they would test him for drug abuse and that he would fail that test. I don’t know why he tried.

Other than that little problem, No, it doesn’t look like many needing help are using drugs.

Economically speaking, if the test cost $50 each — which they don’t — and if the recipients only received $2500 total, the cost benefit ratio would be very close to one. Rough on the children of the drug users who failed but there is a fair chance they wouldn’t benefit from any money paid anyway. DRUGS COME FIRST for many users.

David for perfect systems
and perfect people

]]> By: cantonmentbnd http://www.northescambia.com/2011/11/state-to-appeal-welfare-recipient-drug-testing-court-order/comment-page-1#comment-105951 cantonmentbnd Sat, 05 Nov 2011 02:58:34 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=73381#comment-105951 Controversial? How so? We that have jobs and actually work for a living have to submit to drug testing. Our taxes pay for less fortunate or even people that live off the government because they can. I am not saying everyone on welfare is using the system but I can almost assure the majority are. If you can not feed yourself, why would you be so senseless as to bring another being in this world to feed? I think people on welfare should submit to drug testing and also I think they should have to work in the community or go to school and get an education so they can support their family. Our government is too lenient. Controversial? How so?
We that have jobs and actually work for a living have to submit to drug testing. Our taxes pay for less fortunate or even people that live off the government because they can. I am not saying everyone on welfare is using the system but I can almost assure the majority are. If you can not feed yourself, why would you be so senseless as to bring another being in this world to feed? I think people on welfare should submit to drug testing and also I think they should have to work in the community or go to school and get an education so they can support their family. Our government is too lenient.

]]> By: SW http://www.northescambia.com/2011/11/state-to-appeal-welfare-recipient-drug-testing-court-order/comment-page-1#comment-105928 SW Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:39:41 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=73381#comment-105928 Agreeing to submit to drug testing for a job is apples and oranges. It is an agreement between employer and employee; employer has a drug free workplace, employee agrees to work drug free...simple. The way to make sure the agreement is being upheld is to require drug testing. The US Constitution is to limit the government's power and to protect us from the government. It is not there to protect us from our employer, per se. Granted there are certain equal opportunity and other employment laws relevant to other situations. @ Kathy, responsible taxpayers and good citizens are for individual rights; does that not include the right not to have their money confiscated (taxed) and redistributed (in the form of social programs). Especially, if that confiscation and redistribution goes to people who are just leaching off the system? My personal belief is if you want my money, then you jump through my hoops, period. I do not support giving my (or anyone else's) money to those who should not have it. Drug abusers are not entitled to my money any more than anyone else. @Huh, if the parents are drug users, then deny them welfare, take the children and put them into responsible homes for proper care. Do not enable people any longer. I'd rather pay for the care of children than for the care of drug abusers. Agreeing to submit to drug testing for a job is apples and oranges. It is an agreement between employer and employee; employer has a drug free workplace, employee agrees to work drug free…simple. The way to make sure the agreement is being upheld is to require drug testing.

The US Constitution is to limit the government’s power and to protect us from the government. It is not there to protect us from our employer, per se. Granted there are certain equal opportunity and other employment laws relevant to other situations.

@ Kathy, responsible taxpayers and good citizens are for individual rights; does that not include the right not to have their money confiscated (taxed) and redistributed (in the form of social programs). Especially, if that confiscation and redistribution goes to people who are just leaching off the system? My personal belief is if you want my money, then you jump through my hoops, period. I do not support giving my (or anyone else’s) money to those who should not have it. Drug abusers are not entitled to my money any more than anyone else.

@Huh, if the parents are drug users, then deny them welfare, take the children and put them into responsible homes for proper care. Do not enable people any longer. I’d rather pay for the care of children than for the care of drug abusers.

]]> By: Rufus Lowgun http://www.northescambia.com/2011/11/state-to-appeal-welfare-recipient-drug-testing-court-order/comment-page-1#comment-105916 Rufus Lowgun Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:32:37 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=73381#comment-105916 You shouldn't have to pee in a cup to get a job, nor should you have to pee in a cup to get state benefits, UNLESS there is probably cause to suspect you might be breaking the law by taking drugs. That's what the Constitution says. The fact that people are so ready to throw away the Constitutional protections that make this the greatest country in the world out of fear that someone else might be getting something they themselves are not both saddens and amazes me. This law is putting money in Rick Scott's pocket, for God's sake. I seem to remember during the campaign Rick Scott said that if he were elected and this law passed, he would divest himself of his interest in Solantec, a chain of walk in clinics making money from this law. In the event, he transferred his share of it to his wife. The man was a crook at Healthsouth, and he's a crook in Tallahassee, and this is just one of the ways he is attempting to recoup the fifty million of his own money he spent on his campaign. You don't make that kind of investment without expecting any returns. So far, 2% of all those tested came back positive. 2%. Does that sound like a rampant problem to any of you? You shouldn’t have to pee in a cup to get a job, nor should you have to pee in a cup to get state benefits, UNLESS there is probably cause to suspect you might be breaking the law by taking drugs. That’s what the Constitution says. The fact that people are so ready to throw away the Constitutional protections that make this the greatest country in the world out of fear that someone else might be getting something they themselves are not both saddens and amazes me. This law is putting money in Rick Scott’s pocket, for God’s sake. I seem to remember during the campaign Rick Scott said that if he were elected and this law passed, he would divest himself of his interest in Solantec, a chain of walk in clinics making money from this law. In the event, he transferred his share of it to his wife. The man was a crook at Healthsouth, and he’s a crook in Tallahassee, and this is just one of the ways he is attempting to recoup the fifty million of his own money he spent on his campaign. You don’t make that kind of investment without expecting any returns. So far, 2% of all those tested came back positive. 2%. Does that sound like a rampant problem to any of you?

]]>