Powered by TypePad

« The WSJ On Stand Your Ground | Main | Oh, Fine - We Let The Dogs Out! »

April 18, 2012


Friend or Foe?

Ronulans Ho!


I agree with the ACLU... welfare programs are clearly unconstitutional.

Rob Crawford

They can have their protection from unlawful search and seizure when I get my protection from taking without compensation.

And they can wallow in all the drugs they want once it's clear working people won't be forced to support their burnt out husks.


Hey Barack, tastes like chicken?

My placard for a poesy festivus, cancelled by global warming(severe weather warnings)

Tax poets
Line and rhyme.
Not poor clockslaves
For their time.

Always the short one, it seems.

I believe this Krazy Kaptcha is doing Rorschach testing on us. I've only failed once, and I can usually only read one of the two words.


If only they thought to mandate drug tests as part of the commerce clause...

Or those whose implanted GPS chip is malfunctioning.

Drug test at the voting booth. Disenfranchise those ridin' clean.


The "temporary injunction" link seems to go to the wrong case.

I think this is the one re: welfare/drug testing:



Personally, I think just about anyone can clean up and be sober long enough to apply for and start receiving welfare.

But it would be harder to STAY off drugs for longer.

Thus, what's really needed is random testing while people are ON welfare.


At first glance, it looks to me as though the cost-benefit argument wasn't even considered as a legitimate argument in the injunction reasoning (though the opportunity to poke at it with funny numbers was not resisted). Rather, the judge found find the State did not make the case that non-suspicion based drug tests as an eligibility requirement met the "special needs" exception.

I'll read the injunction article more closely tomorrow and see if there's more clarity then.

Jack is Back!

We just added random drug testing for State employees and teachers (I think they are included).

Ignatius J Donnelly

Public assistance I can see, but drug testing for job applicants is a waste of time.
Test for the likelyhood of unnecessary surgeries, FMLA and baked goods dependancy.
That would get my support.

Greg Q

I'm trying to wrap my mind around how the Left can believe that it's acceptable for the Federal government to force every person to buy health "insurance" policies as a condition of living, but it's not acceptable for the State of Florida to say "we're not going to give money to drug users."

The best I can come up with is "to the Left, all money, everywhere, is theirs." Certainly they don't believe in personal autonomy, since if they did, my right to decide not to buy health insurance would trump their desire that I do it.


Wait, so its okay for my last job offer to be contingent on a drug test (which I passed of course) but the 3 or 4 welfare leeches I support through my excessive taxation can do all the drugs they want....got it.

I'm a libertarian, I think in a perfect world, people should be allowed to ingest whatever they like, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences. As a corollary to that, employers should be allowed to choose not to hire people who ingest mind altering substances.

But we don't live in that world and people who live off the sweat of others should not be allowed to continue their self-destruction on our dime.

Eugene V Debs

We are like the Borg. We will assimilate you.


The objection seems centered on the blanket eligibility drug test regardless of suspicion bit. I wonder if a two step process would get through, step 1 being lower maximum benefits across the board, step 2 being offering additional benefits conditioned upon passing a drug test.

Actually, I have no doubt there'd be lawsuits about that also - just curious what the argument would shift to.

Greg Q


They can still get non-cash benefits w/o passing a drug test, it's only the cash benefits they can't get, assuming I'm reading things correctly.

I really don't see anything wrong with the people of Florida saying they don't want to buy illegal drugs for people.

M. Simon

Social Engineering Begets Social Engineering by Eric at Classical Values.

OK. You drive drug users off welfare. Excellent!

Now of course such people will be unable to get jobs as well. Well what will they do? What they have to do. Turn to a life of crime. And Drug Selling is easy to get into. No barriers to entry or exit (like a real job market - not a government controlled one).

And because people on welfare don't need a lot it will drive the price of drugs down. Further.

And on top of that you are enabling the government to develop even more SWAT teams and enforcers. What happens when they turn those forces on you? Fools.

And for all those Conservatives who love the UN [/sarc], the UN has a large Drug Prohibition Division. They have a plan to suit every political persuasion.

Any thing you do to expand government will eventually be used against you. Fools.

M. Simon

When you sign on to moral socialism you give the economic socialists license. Because they think economics is a moral issue.

Greg Q

M. Simon,

That's was amazingly disjointed. Did you write it while on drugs?

1: It's the people of Florida's money. If they don't want to give it to drug users, that's their right.

2: You are assuming that drug users are helpless pawns of the drugs, and aren't capable of acting like rational human beings. Since a rational human being would say "hey, I need welfare more than I need drugs." That's rather bigoted of you.

3: I'm pretty sure most supermarkets don't drug test their baggers. Are drug users going to have a hard time getting good jobs? Quite possibly. Whose fault is that?


Under the plan the "children" would not be affected, just the parent(s). A surrogate for the benefit of minor children would be able to accept TANF funds as well as food stamps for the benefit of the minor children. Be advised that I am hearing grumbling that the federal government cutoff for TANF funds is dependent children 18 and below. The grumbling is regarding "all them rich MF'ers what live on momma and daddy's insurance til they 26, MF'ers needs ta pay me fo ma babies til dey 26" is a more or less direct quote from my neighbor (6 children, three over the age of 18, all three in prison for drug dealing, not a one with the same father).

The comments to this entry are closed.