Welcome to Gaia! ::

I just listened to that video again, and I wanted to make sure a few things are made clear.

My status comment was in response to a local news story, and yeah, they brought up the Florida story as well, but I didn't catch the whole thing as I was multi-tasking at the time.

While he does bring up a few good points, I disagree with some of what Kyle... Gulinsky? (I'm having trouble understanding his name; the audio quality of his videos is a bit wonky) had to say.



(This being the standard operation, preceding any of Kyle Gulinsky's opinions.)

I see no problem with this, since if you're not on drugs, you have nothing to worry about, PLUS the cost of your test is refunded. If you test positive for drugs, you have a year to clean up, seek help (yeah, it's hard and sometimes costly, but no worthwhile endeavor is free and easy-- besides, drug recovery help, or at least references, can easily be provided in these cases, if they aren't already.)

Those people who DO apply for Welfare and who DO abuse drugs can be crafty people. They know how to find the loopholes and twist the circumstances to suit themselves.

For instance, in Elementary school I was best friends with a girl from an abusive home. Her unmarried "step-father" beat her mother frequently, even in front of the children (there were four: two boys, two girls). He was also an alcohol abuser.

Well, the girl's mother came to us asking my mom to sign a paper in their favor, lying about her relationship with her abuser and a few other things so they could continue receiving Food Stamps. My mom told her she would not lie for her. She didn't tell her directly, but confided in me that she was not going to support them by lying for them because, at the time, it was possible to purchase alcohol with FS, and we knew that he frequently spent almost all of their FS on alcohol.

Nowadays, you can't buy alcohol with FS, but you can still get around it. All it takes is:
1) purchasing something at a grocery store, then returning it for a refund (some places still give back the amount in cash, rather than store credit), or,
2) purchasing something at a grocery store, then selling it to someone else.



Allow me to clarify that I do NOT support the opinion that "poor = lazy drughead." So if anyone is using this reason to support drug testing for welfare, then they are certainly doing it for all the wrong reasons. There is no call for treating people this way.

But considering the high levels of unemployment in many areas, as well as the high number of people with low income, I don't believe this is necessarily the majority view anyway. Are ONLY the rich and middle class in opposition of drug testing? Probably not. I'm certain there are many supporters who are poor and on welfare, as my whole family is.



It's good that they're in the minority, but that doesn't mean drug abuse isn't a problem. In fact, drug testing should ensure that it DOESN'T become a bigger problem.

Also consider how many people have driven themselves into poverty BECAUSE of their drug problem. There was a man in the news recently (about a week or so ago) who was interviewed, and he mentioned losing EVERYTHING-- his wife, his children, his house, his job, his money-- and he still continued with his drug addiction, even though he couldn't afford it. He began robbing banks and armored vehicles, planning for days or weeks ahead, disguising himself as a construction worker, etc., JUST to support his drug habit.

A person who drives himself into into poverty through his drug habits does NOT need the support of the state or tax payers in order to buy food. When you make bad decisions, you must reap the consequences. This is just as effective and valid as any law of nature, because it encourages people to act responsibly in the end, and it aids every individual's survival instinct.



I'm still skeptical of the so-called benefits of marijuana, especially since nowadays it's supposed to cure cancer and every incurable disease known to man. I believe that the medical benefits of marijuana still haven't been tested thoroughly enough, nor the method of administering it refined enough.

But I'm not going to argue against it's medical benefits. "Abusing" marijuana means taking it for recreational purposes. It's just as wrong as popping prescription pills (or even OTCs) when you don't have a medical need for it, and just as destructive. If the person doesn't have a prescription, he shouldn't be using it, end of story. If it shows up in the drug test, but the person has no medical reason to have it, he shouldn't be awarded any government help.



Well, it's not a very popular perception among the poor, at least. wink Once again, I don't support this view, and if this is one of the reasons behind the drug testing, it is a shaky one, at best.



Oh boy, DON'T get me started on this! I agree with this comment 100%-- there truly IS no consistency in the government, and they really need to straighten themselves out in so many ways! gonk The inconsistencies are tearing so many things apart in this country.



Yes, yes, and yes!



Oh god, yes! gonk



Yes, but I also disagree with bailouts, but that's another story. rolleyes



rolleyes We're talking about politicians here... Hypocrisy is pretty rampant...



Maybe, but considering what Gulinski said earlier:





It doesn't sound like he has a whole lot of room to capitalize on this.

By the way, I don't see anything wrong with co-founding a drug testing company and advocating it and making money from it. We're a country formed by immigrants who wanted and needed this in their lives. And the companies themselves need money to operate, or else they can't do the drug tests.

I don't know anything about Rick Scott, but co-founding a drug testing company, advocating for it, and passing a law that requires citizens to pass a drug test in order to receive financial assistance sounds perfectly logical to me. It certainly doesn't come across as hypocritical. In fact, if he had done any one or two of those three things but not the third, he would have been more open to being criticized as a hypocrite.

So okay, granted there are a lot of people against the idea of drug testing for recipients of welfare, so I have a couple of questions in that regard.

1) What do welfare recipients have to lose? If they're clean, nothing. If they're not clean, what business do they have making other people around them pay for their food and their house while they continue using their drugs?

2) If the drug testing is ineffective, unlawful, or unconstitutional, what kind of alternatives are there? What exactly DO you do with drug abusers who receive government assistance? What methods can the United States employ that helps reform the addicts while still protecting the rest of its citizens?

I'm not saying, "It's a drug test or nothing!" I'm simply trying to see, logically, what the other options are or have been in different states in this situation, and whether or not those methods have been effective enough. If they have not been effective in some way, perhaps it truly is time to consider the drug test approach.

In other words, what does the United States plan to do to protect my friend from her abusive step-father?