Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure

If I remember correctly it was something like 2% of welfare recipients have failed the drug test.

Drug screens cost more money than they saved.

How could your state vote for Judge Doom?

On the study showing that the screening is irrational to the ends sought, that of saving money, of course there will be contradictions that deem this irrationality---the governor/ legislator's and their constituents are surely foolish.
Does it feel that this test starts from the premise that drugs are bad...bad, evil things? I certainly think so.
This extension of the War on Drugs feels, of course, disgusting, the whole war, is it not a literal falsity?
The Prohibition of Substances We Deem Incorrect by Arbitration conforms much more to the reality I should perceive in my life.

It's interesting to see individuals communicate their subjective definition of junkie.
I don't believe it matters so much.
Junkies do not exist ;-)

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Just some philosophical crap

Is:

A person that binges on heroin from their salary-job a junkie?
A person that binges on heroin from mugging and robbery a junkie?
If both persons are indeed junkies, do we have a contradiction?
No, sometimes we have unintentional obfuscation, I think.
Junkie is of course a concept , and there are to be examples of those who fit this role.
But it seems, practiced by some, a sort of strange "conceptual conviction" occurs that makes it easier for people to see someone who, to them, fits the role, fits the concept from evidence given and immediately loses sight of all else. Including one of the most importance concepts: that they are in the first place human beings.
I can't think of anything else that makes others judge others so blindly with such conviction.
Are you talking about stereotypes mate?

This is really a perfect example of a basic problem with the modern conservative thought process. Well, several basic problems, but one in particular that stands out to me: the huge weight placed on making sure the undeserving are punished, to the detriment of making sure the deserving are treated properly. And that's not even getting into their twisted conception of who is deserving and who is undeserving.

So true, motorfirebox. Stemming from the same kind of thought process, I hear a lot of talk here about how the government needs to cut social service jobs. The reason being because it needs to "suffer", like the private sector has. When this is said, the focus is not on how the private sector has suffered, but on the fact that now the government workers should suffer as well. It's such a backwards thinking process.

My sister was on social assistance when she quit her job for a while after being diagnosed with cancer. The hoops she had to jump through were such a hassle that she stopped applying for it because she had too many other things to worry about. Just personal experience, but I doubt most people find it all that rewarding to be on.

If there are people who enjoy getting by on welfare, there are much bigger issues there, and it has very little to do with welfare.

Well, if referring to a public sector company that relies on funding through taxation, they could be somewhat correct, it's important to note, not all public sector companies are funded through taxation.
However, on what they say, it'd be like saying all plane cashes are, in the first place, caused by gravity---a sort of true observation but not exactly saying anything worth while(no, it wasn't a bomb-it was gravity
All things being controlled, a public sector administered through taxation, that continues to grow, or even plateaus, off of a private sector that continues to diminish is untenable; both will cease to exist eventually.
To conclude, it's not that a public sector, that is funded by taxation, must necessarily suffer, nay, perhaps instead they're running surpluses, and not deficits(no, all deficits are not necessarily bad) and they can remain the same, in the short-run, regardless of private sector ups / downs.

Obama doubles down on failed ''War on Drugs and Minorities'' and workplace drug testing. Not only has Obama broken his promise to allow States to regulate Medical Marijuana he wants to go back to the days of Nixon. Can't imagine who he is pandering to. It most certainly is not the people who voted for him or the majority of Americans if the polls on Medical Marijuana mean anything.
Truly shameful backward, outdated fail.

Obama and the failed War....................

Shame the cocksucker knows he's getting re-elected. I'm voting for him because he pisses me off less than Romney scares me.

Psyche, can you point me in the direction of a source about the majority of drug addicts (AKA junkies) being employed? I tried Google, but didn't come up with much. Thanks