Florida passes law requiring drug tests to receive welfare.
- Thread starter Human
- Start date
This is just one of those common sense things that needs to be applied to all 50 states. Our taxes go toward this bullshit.
The cost of drug testing that many people can outweigh the cost benefits of having a percentage or two not qualify for benefits because they failed a drug test.
Not saying they shouldn't test them, but there are arguments against it and some stats that show drug usage among welfare recipients is a lot lower than one would guess.
It won't change anything man. Just because these people are on welfare doesn't mean they are stupid. Anyone with a brain can pass a piss test. So my prediction is that the number of welfare recipients will remain the same, all while funneling millions more tax dollars into a company for drug testing.
Perhaps we should focus on whether the state's aggressive appropriation of private property, and redistribution of said property to welfare recipients, is justifiable. After all, it's not as if the state is winning its war on poverty (or, for that matter, its wars on illiteracy, drugs, terrorism, etc.). If anything, this will create a black market for clean urine.
This is like raging about the injustice of a $5 monthly BofA debit card fee while being fine/ignorant about the devastation of fractional reserve banking.
lol at voters.
This is like raging about the injustice of a $5 monthly BofA debit card fee while being fine/ignorant about the devastation of fractional reserve banking.
lol at voters.
Justification is ultimately subjective. There are quite a few ethical theories under which it could be justified.
Winning? Maybe not, but have welfare programs had a significant effect on reducing poverty? It would seem so.
The case is less obvious if you forget about the rest of the world and only consider the American way of doing things, as so many armchair libertarians are wont to do. You'd think the US state was the only one in the world.
Anyway, regarding the topic: I'm no fan drug testing; I don't think what people do on their private time is the government's (or employer's) business. I don't think the government should be policing people's private business. Addicts should get help, but casual users? What do I care if someone smokes a bowl once in a while, anymore than I would care if they have a drink? People do it to to relax or self-medicate. I don't see a problem with it unless it becomes disruptive (i.e., addiction).
Also, as has been mentioned, urine tests are effective only at weeding out people that are inept or clueless enough not to fake them.
The Florida government fronts the money for the drug tests, if the recipient fails, he must pay the drug test fee. However, if he passes the drug test, the state ends up paying for it completely.
^^ This means that the State will be funding a lot of drug testing.
Also, Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, founded Solantic, a company that conducts drug tests, which would stand to benefit from this law.
Gov. Rick Scott Wants to Drug-Test Welfare Recipients, Including His Little Brother -- UPDATE: Scott still won't talk - Broward/Palm Beach News - The Daily Pulp
So yea, I'm all for the moral behind this (we shouldn't be paying for peoples drugs through welfare), just I think it will end up costing tax payers more money. And it seems the people behind this law have something to gain.
True. And some of the same theories on that page can be applied to justify mass murder. Part of the libertarian ethic is adherence to non-aggressive action. When applied consistently, it cannot be used to justify aggression against, or appropriation of, property (land, taxes, self, etc.).
If my family is hungry, and I spend $10,000 to feed them, I will have made a significant impact on their hunger. But how might I have better used those funds? Same with welfare. Throwing billions of dollars at it will obviously have an effect. But without an economic calculation based on the price system, there is no way to know whether those funds would have been better allocated elsewhere. The state rips it away and spends it (keeping a chunk for themselves (i.e. tax consumers)).
I don't see the world through a U.S.-centric lens. I see it through a lens informed by economics and non-aggression against property.
I don't understand what "armchair libertarians" means. Nor am I interested, since it seems to be one of those terms that leads down a rabbit hole. You can have the floor if you like. I avoid internet debates, and prefer to save my time/patience/ammo for interactions irl.
oh yeah, drug testing everyone will end up costing more to the taxpayer than the potential savings from paying welfare to the minority of drug users.
Also, drug users will likely be able to redeem themselves by being forced into going for rehab to get their welfare, rehab will be paid for by tax dollars.
Also, drug users will likely be able to redeem themselves by being forced into going for rehab to get their welfare, rehab will be paid for by tax dollars.
And for someone who believes property is theft? Then the "property owner" has committed the aggression.
If one cannot opt-out of a propertarian system, then it can be said that system isn't truly voluntary.
Whatever system you want to pick has its issues, and some degree of coercion is simply a fact of human existence.
Everyone needs some minimum amount of stuff to survive. IMO it's reasonable to distribute the cost of those needs. I agree with you that government doesn't do it particularly efficiently. Ideally, I would prefer a basic income guarantee for everyone, regardless of need. Gets government out of the wasteful benefits testing and policing business and guarantees everyone a minimum level of participation in the market. This was an idea Hayek supported, by the way.
Smart man. Well, it's something to do for fun. This is 'shooting the shit,' after all.
