PDA

View Full Version : Scott signs welfare drug testing bill



razorreilly09
06-06-2011, 08:47 AM
Those that know my position on our governor here know that Im not a big fan of his. With this new forum I figured I would start anew and post something that I feel is a positive with him. Last I hear, the ACLU was filing suit against him and his new policy.

Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed into law a bill that requires those receiving welfare benefits to pass a drug test.
By Michael C. Bender
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
TALLAHASSEE -- Floridians must submit urine, blood or hair samples for drug testing before receiving cash benefits from the state under a bill Gov. Rick Scott signed into law Tuesday.

“The goal of this is to make sure we don’t waste taxpayers’ money,” Scott said. “And hopefully more people will focus on not using illegal drugs.”

The new law fulfills a campaign pledge from Scott, but has raised legal questions. The ACLU of Florida has signaled it might sue over the law.

“Once again, this governor has demonstrated his dismissal of both the law and the right of Floridians to personal privacy by signing into law a bill that treats those who have lost their jobs like suspected criminals,” said ACLU of Florida director Howard Simon.

The law, which goes into effect on July 1, will mean about 4,400 drug tests per month, according to the Department of Children & Families. Taxpayers will reimburse welfare applicants for negative drug tests, which can cost between $10 and $25.

Positive tests will carry an immediate six-month ban on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. A second positive test will result in a three-year ban on state assistance.

Other details in the law:

• The Department of Children & Families must inform applicants that they can avoid a drug test if they do not apply for benefits.

• The state must assure each applicant “a reasonable degree of dignity while producing and submitting a sample.”

• Parents who fail drug tests can get benefits for their children by naming a state-approved designee to collect the money. That designee must also pass a drug test.

About 233,000 Floridians applied for cash assistance in 2009-10, including 114,000 families, according to DCF statistics.

This month, 93,170 Floridians received cash assistance, a drop of 8.3 percent from a year ago.

Scott on Tuesday also signed a bill banning fake bath salts that could be ingested as drugs. The legislation was pushed by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.



Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/31/2244532/scott-signs-welfare-drug-testing.html#ixzz1OV2CVWsH

Mister-Jr
06-06-2011, 09:17 AM
You have no idea how badly this is going to play out.

fins4me
06-06-2011, 09:23 AM
Why should the producers (tax payers) have to give support to junkies and drunks?? It might force a few of the bums to get off the chemicals. GOOD MOVE by Scott..Hope more states follow Florida's lead on this one.

Mister-Jr
06-06-2011, 01:43 PM
Carl Hiaasen wasn't exaggerating in his books, was he?

Mich F
06-06-2011, 03:52 PM
I look at it as another one of those feel good bills. Has drug use been rampant among those who are getting these welfare benefits? Any studies, proof of there being a problem to begin with? If a parent tests positive they can send somebody else to take the test and still receive benefits anyway. Is Scott's company Solantic going to benefit from this?
It's like that election law bill they passed, it does nothing to prevent fraud (it's stated purpose) which they never showed existed in the first place. It just (among other things) handicaps those doing voter registration drives, and cuts down the number of days for early voting.

CaptBobBryant
06-06-2011, 04:07 PM
I had a similar thought about the guy who won the lotto:
I mean here we are...paying taxes and providing some semblence of substanence and shelter to people in need, yet they have enough money to buy lotto tickets (or drugs and beer).

Now you know th guy didn't just buy one lotto ticket once and then won 2 million bucks....
I say for that guy, he should have all the support he has received deducted form his winning...

Now for the people down on their luck because of their drug use...nothing less than theft is what I believe.

razorreilly09
06-06-2011, 04:29 PM
As most, if not all (Im not 100% sure) government employees forego a drug test before employment, so should anyone collecting tax payers contributed money. Im no expert in the costs of drug screening, but at $10-$25 a pop, it would seem the tests are being done at cost.
Taxpayers will reimburse welfare applicants for negative drug tests, which can cost between $10 and $25.

Mister-Jr
06-06-2011, 04:35 PM
I had a similar thought about the guy who won the lotto:
I mean here we are...paying taxes and providing some semblence of substanence and shelter to people in need, yet they have enough money to buy lotto tickets (or drugs and beer).

Now you know th guy didn't just buy one lotto ticket once and then won 2 million bucks....
I say for that guy, he should have all the support he has received deducted form his winning...

Now for the people down on their luck because of their drug use...nothing less than theft is what I believe.

Thats a broad brush Bob.

Mister-Jr
06-06-2011, 04:37 PM
As most, if not all (Im not 100% sure) government employees forego a drug test before employment, so should anyone collecting tax payers contributed money. Im no expert in the costs of drug screening, but at $10-$25 a pop, it would seem the tests are being done at cost.
Taxpayers will reimburse welfare applicants for negative drug tests, which can cost between $10 and $25.

No way tests can be done for $15. Employers pay between $35 and $40 per test, and I feel certain no company is going to provide tests for the government at costs.

dstockwell
06-06-2011, 06:03 PM
This is a good thing...

Mister-Jr
06-06-2011, 07:09 PM
Just like Arizona's immigration law and Wisconsin's union busting this will get tossed by the courts. if Republicans can't control your life they have nothing to do.

dstockwell
06-06-2011, 07:12 PM
If Republicans can't control your life they have nothing to do.

So it is OK for taxpayers to fund addicts?

Mister-Jr
06-06-2011, 07:19 PM
Just like Arizona's immigration law and Wisconsin's labor busting, this will get tossed by the courts.

CaptBobBryant
06-06-2011, 07:39 PM
Just like Arizona's immigration law and Wisconsin's labor busting, this will get tossed by the courts.

So it is okay for tax payers to fund addicts...

Seems if they have money for drugs...they don't need foos stamps
ANd what about the actual poor people who need them and can't get them cause of the druggies????

dstockwell
06-06-2011, 07:43 PM
ANd what about the actual poor people who need them and can't get them cause of the druggies????

Say what, if you are poor and doing drugs you don't need assistance. If you are poor and not doing drugs then you should receive.

jad1097
06-06-2011, 07:50 PM
"Federal law allows states to screen for drug use under the TANF program, which provides a maximum $300 a month cash assistance to needy families. The program, which replaced traditional welfare in the mid 1990s, has a 48-month lifetime cap on benefits."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/31/us-florida-welfare-drugs-idUSTRE74U6W320110531


I don't see a need to waste our money on drug testing these people. The cost of the drug testing will cost us taxpayers more in the long run.

Mich F
06-06-2011, 07:56 PM
I still haven't seen where drug use is currently a problem in these programs. Is this part of Scott's plan for smaller government? I'm not trying to start an argument here, but has anyone pointed out any addicts currently in this program?

Mister-Jr
06-06-2011, 08:03 PM
So it is okay for tax payers to fund addicts...

Seems if they have money for drugs...they don't need foos stamps
ANd what about the actual poor people who need them and can't get them cause of the druggies????

Show me your evidence and I'll listen

fins4me
06-06-2011, 08:09 PM
Show me your evidence and I'll listen

So are you actually disputing the fact that there are folks in the state of Florida who waste Welfare $$$$$ on illegal drugs????

EVIDENCE of WHAT??? If it keeps some of the useless sludge using taxpayer $$$$ on that junk then it is a good move. After a few of them get cut off the program others might just clean up. Shouldn't be so many getting the handouts anyway.

Mich F
06-06-2011, 08:22 PM
I guess the idea is they're poor people so they must do drugs and they're poor because they do drugs, right? :confused:

CaptBobBryant
06-06-2011, 08:42 PM
I guess the idea is they're poor people so they must do drugs and they're poor because they do drugs, right? :confused:

Who said that....

WHat is being said is why should we help people...who see fit to waste what little resources they have on drugs...or lotto tickets...
If you are on welfare and food stamps....

YOU HAVE ZERO DISPOSABLE INCOME....

If you have disposable income....then you do not need assistence.........

Mister-Jr
06-06-2011, 08:43 PM
So are you actually disputing the fact that there are folks in the state of Florida who waste Welfare $$$$$ on illegal drugs????

EVIDENCE of WHAT??? If it keeps some of the useless sludge using taxpayer $$$$ on that junk then it is a good move. After a few of them get cut off the program others might just clean up. Shouldn't be so many getting the handouts anyway.

What do you know of Florida's poor?

fins4me
06-06-2011, 08:54 PM
What do you know of Florida's poor?

Not talking about Florida's Poor. I am discussing drug addicts who happen to get welfare. Don't care if they are poor or not. Simply a druggie not worthy of tax payer support.

fins4me
06-06-2011, 08:59 PM
What do you know of Florida's poor?

After the last week and 1/2th down there and the prices I paid for everything,,, there are fewer of them.:(

Mich F
06-06-2011, 08:59 PM
Who said that....

WHat is being said is why should we help people...who see fit to waste what little resources they have on drugs...or lotto tickets...
If you are on welfare and food stamps....

YOU HAVE ZERO DISPOSABLE INCOME....

If you have disposable income....then you do not need assistence.........

Capt Bob, I would whole hardheartedly agree with you, if there had been one shred of evidence that this is some widespread problem. I just see this whole thing as more grandstanding by Scott and his cronies.

heathen
06-06-2011, 10:20 PM
gee, doesn't your governor have an interest in a large medical testing company? well, sure he does. nice to know your taxes will enrich him just a bit more.
ya'll should really start paying attention. if you can.

razorreilly09
06-06-2011, 10:58 PM
gee, doesn't your governor have an interest in a large medical testing company? well, sure he does. nice to know your taxes will enrich him just a bit more.
ya'll should really start paying attention. if you can.

I would agree (and thought so myself) with this same mentality, but the statement facts that the tests will cost between $15 and $25 which if found negative the recipient would be reimbursed. How can profits, if any, be made off of that little of cost?

Big Battery
06-06-2011, 11:35 PM
Drug testing is a bad idea...
It will be a huge waste of money because the testing will not catch the serious problem abusers- the alcoholics.
It is an invasion of privacy, regardless of whether they receive money from the government.
What is the next intrusion into your life that you will accept in order for the government to save money?
You may forget this moment but you will long regret the implications of allowing the government to do this.

Justins Dad
06-07-2011, 01:50 AM
I don't know if drug testing welfare recipients will cost more money than it saves. It seems a pre/post study could determine the cost-savings of the new law. But, I think in theory it's a good idea. Drug testing and background checks are a part of many people lives. IF people are willing to accept taxpayer money, there truly should be no problem with wanting to submit to drug testing. I do believe over utilization and fraud of welfare is RAMPANT. I do not see drug testing as a violation of any civil or moral right, or invasion of privacy, but I'm not 100% convinced it will save taxpayers any money. Guess you can even argue that drug users losing money will now turn to other activity to make up the difference if they lose welfare dollars. I don't think the new program will have any significant impact. Nothing short of complete and total revision of welfare will change the programs as we know them.

CaptBobBryant
06-07-2011, 06:24 AM
It is not so much about testing for drugs as it is a requirement of accountabililty for accepting the people's good graces....

Like I said.....if you are on public assistence....you have no disposable income and as such...every dime you make needs to go to putting you in a better place not an altered one.

Big Battery
06-07-2011, 08:51 AM
Welfare comes in all shapes and sizes. Exactly who at a corporation should be drug tested for their welfare. What about the farmers who receive welfare in the form of subsidies? Should the next step of accountabilty be some level of monitoring of food intake or excercise for health care - that will soon enough be paid for by the government?

Just wondering who is next...

fins4me
06-07-2011, 08:54 AM
As much as I am against subsidies (very much so) comparing welfare and agricultural subsidies is a bit (very much so) of a stretch.

Big Battery
06-07-2011, 09:03 AM
So farmers who are paid but dont plant a thing isnt welfare? link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html)

fins4me
06-07-2011, 09:09 AM
Since welfare is generally defined as financial aid from the government to the poor and is not linked to any form of commerce or service,,, then no, I do not consider any subsidy (as I have said before I am generally against them) as welfare.

White Dog
06-07-2011, 10:25 AM
Buying drugs with your public assistance money? No more public assistance money for you.
I would bet the dealers are on public money too.

Big Battery
06-07-2011, 10:55 AM
Since welfare is generally defined as financial aid from the government to the poor and is not linked to any form of commerce or service,,, then no, I do not consider any subsidy (as I have said before I am generally against them) as welfare.

Receiving money for not doing anything = welfare, Right? Receiving money for NOT planting anything would then equal welfare based on your definition.

As usual, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Secret Spot
06-07-2011, 11:01 AM
People accepting tanf and food stamps should also be tested for nicotine and caffeine, I don’t want them smoking and drinking Starbucks coffee on my tax dollars. Maybe we should test for potato chips and soda to.

Big Battery
06-07-2011, 11:12 AM
Well, that is the problem and what is driving the frustration in tax payers and why they want the drug testing. Recipients arent using the money for the purpose that it was intended. Which is why the government really should be out of the business of giving money to individual people for any reason.

Mister-Jr
06-07-2011, 11:29 AM
I read many opinions on drug testing welfare recipients, but I see nothing in the way of factual information to justify it.

Michigan tried it several years ago and it was thrown out by the courts. Any reason to believe it would not happen here?

kayakjoe
06-07-2011, 11:54 AM
what really needs to be monitored is buying dogfood, smart phones, having your nails done, cigarettes, cable television, etc. i agree with others here....welfare is to truly help those who truly need it. if you have money for extraneous issues then cash is not so much your issues as are priorities

joe

Big Battery
06-07-2011, 11:58 AM
Then stop giving them direct payments... if it is food they need, then give them food. If it is housing they need then put them up in the FEMA camps...

SWFL_F1sh0n
06-07-2011, 12:05 PM
Those that know my position on our governor here know that Im not a big fan of his. With this new forum I figured I would start anew and post something that I feel is a positive with him. Last I hear, the ACLU was filing suit against him and his new policy.

Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed into law a bill that requires those receiving welfare benefits to pass a drug test.
By Michael C. Bender
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
TALLAHASSEE -- Floridians must submit urine, blood or hair samples for drug testing before receiving cash benefits from the state under a bill Gov. Rick Scott signed into law Tuesday.

“The goal of this is to make sure we don’t waste taxpayers’ money,” Scott said. “And hopefully more people will focus on not using illegal drugs.”

The new law fulfills a campaign pledge from Scott, but has raised legal questions. The ACLU of Florida has signaled it might sue over the law.

“Once again, this governor has demonstrated his dismissal of both the law and the right of Floridians to personal privacy by signing into law a bill that treats those who have lost their jobs like suspected criminals,” said ACLU of Florida director Howard Simon.

The law, which goes into effect on July 1, will mean about 4,400 drug tests per month, according to the Department of Children & Families. Taxpayers will reimburse welfare applicants for negative drug tests, which can cost between $10 and $25.

Positive tests will carry an immediate six-month ban on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. A second positive test will result in a three-year ban on state assistance.

Other details in the law:

• The Department of Children & Families must inform applicants that they can avoid a drug test if they do not apply for benefits.

• The state must assure each applicant “a reasonable degree of dignity while producing and submitting a sample.”

• Parents who fail drug tests can get benefits for their children by naming a state-approved designee to collect the money. That designee must also pass a drug test.

About 233,000 Floridians applied for cash assistance in 2009-10, including 114,000 families, according to DCF statistics.

This month, 93,170 Floridians received cash assistance, a drop of 8.3 percent from a year ago.

Scott on Tuesday also signed a bill banning fake bath salts that could be ingested as drugs. The legislation was pushed by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.



Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/31/2244532/scott-signs-welfare-drug-testing.html#ixzz1OV2CVWsH

What i find interesting and that no one has posted is that Rick Scott has used a previous company that he owned to perform all of the drug screening. So let's say that for round numbers sake, that 90K citizens are being drug tested, at an average of $17.50 that means that Rick Scott's former company gets an additional $1.575 MILLION in additional revenue, now lets say that 10K test positive to some sort of illegal drug usage, so 80K are clean, that is $1.4 million of taxpayer $'s that Rick Scott's former company gets.

Now, let's take this a step further, FL. is the capital of improper use of prescription drugs, however the key is PRESCRIPTION Drugs, if they have a prescription for Oxy*, or Hydro* or whatever, and they test positive, they may be an abuser, but have a prescription and as such do not have to pay the test fee, and continue to use the system.

Effectively, we have eliminated everyone but the meth addicts, cocaine users, heroin, etc . . That is presuming they are not smart enough to have some clean P around to submit when they are called up and are actually caught. Additionally how much will it cost, and whom will enforce that the people submit to the drug tests?

In my eyes it a some good ROI for Rick Scott's personal campaign contributions.

Thanks,

William

Mister-Jr
06-07-2011, 12:06 PM
One day we may live in a perfect world, where everyone has a job and no one cheats at anything, but until then this is what we have.

Kukulcan
06-07-2011, 12:27 PM
You boys sure go for feel good political grandstanding!

razorreilly09
06-07-2011, 03:17 PM
What i find interesting and that no one has posted is that Rick Scott has used a previous company that he owned to perform all of the drug screening. So let's say that for round numbers sake, that 90K citizens are being drug tested, at an average of $17.50 that means that Rick Scott's former company gets an additional $1.575 MILLION in additional revenue,

Before the forum crash, there was debate on drug screening gov employees and most on here were in agreeance (including myself) that the cost would be around $50 per person, and I think someone that deals with the issue actually verified it is at least that or more. While we can play with numbers all day, an average of $17.50 pp is nothing considering everyone involved in the drug testing from the receptionists that sets up the appointment, to the person actually doing the test, back to the receptionists keeping records, sending the results, and everyone else in between. I dont see how any profit could be made off of $17.50. If the Gov or anyone else re-negs and says it will actually cost substantially more than that, I will be singing a different tune.
Another issue is that how many recipients will simply not take the test and surrender any efforts to collect welfare?

SWFL_F1sh0n
06-07-2011, 03:22 PM
Before the forum crash, there was debate on drug screening gov employees and most on here were in agreeance (including myself) that the cost would be around $50 per person, and I think someone that deals with the issue actually verified it is at least that or more. While we can play with numbers all day, an average of $17.50 pp is nothing considering everyone involved in the drug testing from the receptionists that sets up the appointment, to the person actually doing the test, back to the receptionists keeping records, sending the results, and everyone else in between. I dont see how any profit could be made off of $17.50. If the Gov or anyone else re-negs and says it will actually cost substantially more than that, I will be singing a different tune.
Another issue is that how many recipients will simply not take the test and surrender any efforts to collect welfare?


I would think like most anything, the more volume the fixed cost per item goes down. As far as profit I have no idea, I only mentioned revenue, however if you are correct and it is $50 per person our Gov is really reaming the citizens.

I wonder, in his interview he mentioned the cost is insignificant, but has no idea what that cost is. Additionally he is saying that we have the money to pay for it, but does not say where it comes from. A lot of broad strokes with no real info so far on this one.

Mister-Jr
06-07-2011, 03:31 PM
It cannot and will not be done for $17.50 per test. If private employers are paying between $35 and $50, who really believes the State is going to get a deal like that.

Scott is just making Florida's government bigger.

SWFL_F1sh0n
06-07-2011, 03:33 PM
It cannot and will not be done for $17.50 per test. If private employers are paying between $35 and $50, who really believes the State is going to get a deal like that.

Scott is just making Florida's government bigger.

More than just making the government bigger, he is using tax funds that we pay to fund his old business. It is Ethically wrong and he is doing if off the backs to taxpayers.

DrSnook
06-07-2011, 03:42 PM
It cannot and will not be done for $17.50 per test. If private employers are paying between $35 and $50, who really believes the State is going to get a deal like that.

Scott is just making Florida's government bigger.

LMAO, now you are worried about gov't getting bigger...

Mister-Jr
06-07-2011, 03:50 PM
LMAO, now you are worried about gov't getting bigger...

It kind of makes you feel foolish for voting for him, doesn't it?

SWFL_F1sh0n
06-07-2011, 03:52 PM
If he's like me, it is having more control over people and infringing on their personal liberties that I disagree with. Who will make the judgement that someone is a drunk and should be removed from Medicaid/Welfare? Whom is to decide that you are a prescription drug addict if you have a valid prescription and should be removed? How many lawsuits will people bring against the state for discrimination?

The ACLU has already sued the State for the State employee mandate, I am sure another suit will follow shortly.

From all accounts this will be shot down by the Supreme court, with more tax $'s wasted trying to support/defend the law.

Regardless, where are the job's Scott?

Mister-Jr
06-07-2011, 04:11 PM
Scott is a carpet bagger shyster who could care less about the State of Florida. He bought the election in hopes of improving his image as a shyster, but according to the polls it's not working very well.

razorreilly09
06-07-2011, 04:37 PM
I would think like most anything, the more volume the fixed cost per item goes down. As far as profit I have no idea, I only mentioned revenue, however if you are correct and it is $50 per person our Gov is really reaming the citizens.

Man, I thought I was tuff on the guy

heathen
06-07-2011, 05:46 PM
I would agree (and thought so myself) with this same mentality, but the statement facts that the tests will cost between $15 and $25 which if found negative the recipient would be reimbursed. How can profits, if any, be made off of that little of cost?

depends on how many tests one runs....and how thoroughly....and how one deals with false positives...

generally speaking, drug testing will catch a few knuckleheads but if one does just a modicum of research, one finds out that they're easy to defeat.
but it's florida's tax money. waste where you wish.

MRichardson
06-07-2011, 05:50 PM
I really don't care. I don't spend much time worrying about what the poverty-stricken get that they may or may not deserve. I'm just glad I'm not in their shoes.

heathen
06-07-2011, 09:34 PM
aren't republicans supposed to be in favor of individual freedom and smaller government? guess not.

FOREVERHOOKED
06-07-2011, 09:51 PM
As a EX-LEO I can tell you from experience that probably 30% or more of food stamps and or
moneys given to so called poor families end up in drug dealers hands and that is a fact. Seen it way to much. Bust a drug dealer with thousands of dollars of food stamps, before the card. No reason to think it has changed.
If they have nothing to hide then they should have no objection.
I have to be in a revolving drug program to be a Captain what makes them better than me.
They are getting free money

SWFL_F1sh0n
06-07-2011, 10:22 PM
As a EX-LEO I can tell you from experience that probably 30% or more of food stamps and or
moneys given to so called poor families end up in drug dealers hands and that is a fact. Seen it way to much. Bust a drug dealer with thousands of dollars of food stamps, before the card. No reason to think it has changed.
If they have nothing to hide then they should have no objection.
I have to be in a revolving drug program to be a Captain what makes them better than me.
They are getting free money

Not that they are better than you . .but how many drug dealers do you not bust because you do not want to do the paper work or deal with the hassle? How many drug users do you knowingly not bust or arrest? How about a neighbor that smokes pot, or a brother that does cocaine on his birthday?? You ever think that WASPs buy their drugs from the hyatt concierge or limo driver as opposed to the corner of MLK/whatever? One could say well they are paying for it with their own money, but it is still a crime .. would you make drug usage a white color crime?

I am not saying that people on food stamps/medicaid or whatever are not drug users, I am just saying that the price to control/discover/prosecute are so much greater than the cost benefit to start the endeavor in the first place, that it may make for good political fodder, but the reality is it's a loosing battle known going into it.

I am also saying they are human beings and deserve the same dignities we give millionaires when it comes to the law.

heathen
06-08-2011, 07:14 AM
the war on drugs was lost a long time ago...

Mister-Jr
06-08-2011, 08:54 AM
As a EX-LEO I can tell you from experience that probably 30% or more of food stamps and or
moneys given to so called poor families end up in drug dealers hands and that is a fact. Seen it way to much. Bust a drug dealer with thousands of dollars of food stamps, before the card. No reason to think it has changed.
If they have nothing to hide then they should have no objection.
I have to be in a revolving drug program to be a Captain what makes them better than me.
They are getting free money

Is any worse than this? Also tax dollars.

High up inside the sheriff's headquarters is one of the poshest government offices you've ever (not) seen.

Then-Sheriff Ken Jenne spent $1.6 million in public grant funds creating a wood-paneled, private lair on the fifth floor of the Broward Sheriff's Office headquarters on West Broward Boulevard.

On one side of the fifth floor: linoleum tile, industrial fluorescent lights, white drywall and metal doors. On Jenne's side: oak wainscoting and moulding on the walls, complemented by wood floors and wood shades or blinds on every window. A hallway turned into a work of art — an elaborate wall mural of historic photographs hand-drawn in pencil and painted in sepia tones.

That side of the floor, where the sheriff and his top command staff have their offices, is adorned with $438,000 in furniture, including $4,000 worth of chairs around a $9,000 wood conference table. Gleaming marble and granite countertops and windowsills. Egyptian-cotton sofas and chairs. A private sheriff's den furnished with soft leather love seat and matching chaise lounge. A connecting executive bathroom, with a telephone on the wall next to the toilet and a glass-tile enclosed shower.


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-sheriff-million-dollar-office-20110603,0,137989.story

T Howard
06-08-2011, 10:49 AM
Just feel good legislation, we need to move on from the antiquated social policies.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/07/wood.failed.war.on.drugs/

Vancouver, British Columbia (CNN) -- U.S. taxpayers have spent an estimated $2.5 trillion on the "war on drugs" since former President Richard Nixon first declared it in 1971. With the U.S. federal government so far in debt, it is well overdue that this type of expenditure come under greater scrutiny.

In this context, the recent release of a Global Commission on Drug Policy report should ring alarm bells throughout the United States.

The commission has called for a "paradigm shift" in illegal drug policy. The focus of the report is the unwitting role that drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition before it, plays in fueling the growth of organized crime and violence.

Mister-Jr
06-08-2011, 11:18 AM
As a country, we piss away so much money for which we receive nothing in return, it seems absolutely wrong to try and balance our budgets at the expense of the poor.

MRichardson
06-08-2011, 02:07 PM
Well said, Mister-Jr.

And to whoever it was that asked "what makes them better than me?" No one says they are, but it would probably be a shock for you to hear that you are no better than them.

Michael Repper
06-08-2011, 02:23 PM
So it is OK for taxpayers to fund addicts?

Is it ok to house addicts, feed them 3 times a day, provide them with running water, electricity, a library, cable tv, etc? That's what we do when we send addicts to prison.

heathen
06-08-2011, 04:35 PM
Is it ok to house addicts, feed them 3 times a day, provide them with running water, electricity, a library, cable tv, etc? That's what we do when we send addicts to prison.

perhaps it would be better to get them some help in kicking the habit. it would certainly be a lot cheaper.

razorreilly09
06-08-2011, 04:56 PM
perhaps it would be better to get them some help in kicking the habit. it would certainly be a lot cheaper.

There are several public funded programs already in place