Drug Testing for welfare

[RussellK]

Removed with apologies for my nastiness.

[steve74baywin]

I didn't miss a thing Steve. I just keep hoping for something of substance. The gun/force analogy is a joke. Most grownups follow the rules willingly. Your arrogance and constant proselytizing is a bore and self defeating. You know why it's self defeating? Because it's like the wingnut that corners you in the dairy aisle at the supermarket. You finally cave in and say uh huh so they leave you alone. Then you say to yourself something about a monkey jumping out your ass. You don't teach and you don't convert.

I feel if anyone should be getting all pissed off it is me.
What I say, think, and want in a gov is one that doesn't use force for anymore than to protect my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am against those who want to impose what they want on me via force. How mad would you get if I used force and hired men with guns to implement what I want on you? At least all my ideas do not involve force and guns, many peoples ideas involve using force or guns against me. I think I have a much better reason to get all mad and nasty towards people. You just have to hear or read my ideas, I have to obey your ideas or have a gun usher me to jail.

[Cindy]

Steve, I may have pointed this out before but it's worth noting again. Unless you live entirely off the grid, you are taking advantage, every day, of the services "forced" upon you. You drink clean water because "men with guns" keep it clean. You sleep in decent shelter because "men with guns" have created regulations for what can be sold or rented. The list goes on and on. The United States isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's got its shit together in a lot of ways.

As I was watching the hurricane coverage last week, I thought of how it must feel to live in a country where there is no infrastructure, no efficient government entity, to warn its citizens of impending disaster or declare states of emergency. Yes, our preparation and attitude toward Irene were over-the-top at times (24-hour coverage on the Weather Channel, for example). But a lot of people lived through that storm because we had systems in place to manage it. I loved hearing about the mayor of Atlantic City who sent buses to a senior citizen high rise because they refused to evacuate. He said, "You're right. I can't make you go or arrest you if you stay." But he had the resources to keep them safe. That kind of response is not possible if the government has limited influence. It's not all as menacing as you seem to believe.

Cindy

[steve74baywin]

Steve, I may have pointed this out before but it's worth noting again. Unless you live entirely off the grid, you are taking advantage, every day, of the services "forced" upon you. You drink clean water because "men with guns" keep it clean. You sleep in decent shelter because "men with guns" have created regulations for what can be sold or rented. The list goes on and on. The United States isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's got its shit together in a lot of ways.

Thanks for taking the time Cindy.
My reply to yours is this.
There are infinite other possibilities of what I would have and how I would be living if we didn't have this system today. In other words, you can't predict if it would be worse, or how much worse it would be, if we had the limited form of gov I speak of.
Yes, I do get some things from it, do I get more than I paid over my life? I don't know the answer to that. Could things have been done without this intrusive gov? I bet so. Would they have been better? I don't know.
Sure we have what we have becuase of it, but that doesn't mean we'd have any less or have it worse without this system. In fact I sorta argue the opposite of that.
You have mentioned the water thing before, once when I had well water, which meant I paid for it with my pump and the electricity to pump it. Now I have county water and I do NOT drink it, I buy bottled water for now, until I can get a good filter.
I owned a house, I blame alot of this corrupt system on how it was taken from me.
Now I live in a dump that doesn't abide by these codes you speak of, all the places to rent that abide by those codes and rules are too expensive for me ATT. Yes, thank goodness for men who break crazy laws.

As I was watching the hurricane coverage last week, I thought of how it must feel to live in a country where there is no infrastructure, no efficient government entity, to warn its citizens of impending disaster or declare states of emergency. Yes, our preparation and attitude toward Irene were over-the-top at times (24-hour coverage on the Weather Channel, for example). But a lot of people lived through that storm because we had systems in place to manage it. I loved hearing about the mayor of Atlantic City who sent buses to a senior citizen high rise because they refused to evacuate. He said, "You're right. I can't make you go or arrest you if you stay." But he had the resources to keep them safe. That kind of response is not possible if the government has limited influence. It's not all as menacing as you seem to believe.
Cindy

I am one of those that argues that we had better help when it all came locally/close to home vs Fed. For many, many years there have been many systems in place to help in a storm. In RI in the late 80's early 90's I belong to a voluntary emergency communications group.
And we would still have the things like the weather channel and a free society.

[Amskeptic]

Steve,you are taking advantage, every day, of the services "forced" upon you.

My reply to yours is this.
do I get more than I paid over my life?

Life by ledger is a bitter life indeed.
Colinfucious

[urtheiz]

testing is just (i'm sure you all agree) a way for the phama co's to make easy, easy $$$$$! police unions have fought against it. i don't see elected officals standing in line every month to have some stranger looking over their shoulder as they "vollenteer" to pee into a cup (i think for "them", intellegence tests would be more useful). no collage loans for those who've been busted for reefer, but if you murder or rape you can get a student loan!
jus' saw this movie about "Tommy Chong" (i grew up in that time zone) getting busted and doing time for puttin his name on "artistic bongs". the goverment spent 12 million $ (other "bong" maker's were included) buy the "goverment" who was willing to put a price tag of 25 million $ for Osama Bin Ladden. smokin reefer is half as dangerous as the cat who (suposedlly, i think it was a bush/chenny set up) attacked on 9/11? ( had everything to gain, ah, "new world order"? jus' my opion, "need that 'gas' to feed that Jone's")

[Bleyseng]

I am one of those that argues that we had better help when it all came locally/close to home vs Fed. For many, many years there have been many systems in place to help in a storm. In RI in the late 80's early 90's I belong to a voluntary emergency communications group.
And we would still have the things like the weather channel and a free society.

The Fed has gotten more involved and bigger to level the playing field in regards to States economics. The right coast and left coast are the economic engines of this country and pay for the "middle" to have the same infrastructure etc. This whole "less Gov" is Reagan crock o'shit as we have grown to 300 million and have too many needs to take care of. You really just can't go off grid these days living off the land, shooting your food etc. Local help is always the first to help in any disaster as Fed help takes too long to mobilize but in the long run gets it done with bigger resources and money.

[Velokid1]

No, You Pee In A Cup: Dems Fire Back At GOP Proposals To Drug-Test Jobless

The past year has seen an unprecedented wave of Republican bills to drug test the poor and jobless. It also saw a smaller wave of Democratic bills that said in response, "No, you pee in the cup."

One of the most recent retorts comes from Georgia, where last month Democratic state Rep. Scott Holcomb introduced a bill requiring members of the local legislature to prove they're not Legislating Under the Influence. Holcomb told HuffPost he came up with the idea because he was struck by a bill from his Republican colleagues to drug test welfare applicants.

"I was really struck by how awful it was," he said. "I wanted to bring some attention to it."

Democrats in Florida, Ohio and Tennessee have done the same thing. Tennessee state representative G.A. Hardaway said his bill to test lawmakers was inspired by constituents annoyed with a Republican welfare-drug-testing bill. "They said to me, 'how do we know y'all aren't on drugs?'" Hardaway told local TV station WMC-TV. "I thought, well, you don't."

The trend started in Florida, the only place where the local government actually followed through with welfare drug testing -- at least until a federal judge ruled it a flagrant violation of the Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure four months after the policy took effect. During that brief period, a mere 2.5 percent of welfare applicants tested positive for drugs.

A spokesman for Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) told HuffPost in September that the governor would be willing to submit to testing himself. But when Comedy Central's "Daily Show" presented him with a cup the following December, he declined to pee in it. Scott's attorney general Pam Bondi played along and provided the Daily Show with a cup labeled "Pam Bondi" filled with a yellowish liquid. A Bondi spokeswoman confirmed to HuffPost that the liquid was, in fact, apple juice from the cafeteria.

The drug testing action in the states eventually percolated to the U.S. Congress. In December Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) introduced a bill to require states to screen unemployment insurance claimants for drugs. A version of Kingston's legislation was included in a broader bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives but failed in the Senate.

Assistant Minority Leader Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) called the Republican drug test scheme unfair and insulting. "I don't see anyone in the Republican majority demanding drug testing for folks who receive oil and gas subsidies," he said.

A spokesman for Kingston said the congressman would take a look at Holcomb's bill, but said "it's a separate point from what Congressman Kingston is trying to address with his proposal."

Holcomb doesn't view his bill as a separate point: "If they're gonna play this game, this is how we're gonna play it."

Asked how many of his colleagues he suspected might flunk a drug screen, Holcomb said he didn't know.

"I would hope none," he said. "Why would there be an assumption that someone on welfare would fail?"

[vdubyah73]

attorney general Pam Bondi played along and provided the Daily Show with a cup labeled "Pam Bondi" filled with a yellowish liquid. A Bondi spokeswoman confirmed to HuffPost that the liquid was, in fact, apple juice from the cafeteria"

if a cdl truck driver did that it would be considered a failed test. they would, at a minimum, be suspended 30 days, without pay and be ordered to have drug and alcohol counseling.
i think the part of all this drug and alcohol screening bs that bothers me the most is this. teamsters took this all the way to the supreme court and the decision was '' public safety out weighed the rights of truck drivers''. ok i get that we're all cowboys, hurtling down the roads in big scary trucks. so why are firefighters are not only exempt, they don't even need a cdl to run redlights in big scary trucks. cops should be tested to, they hurtle down the road and carry friggen guns too! if a trucker smoked pot the first week of a 2 week vacation, 1st day back, some moron fails to yield, merging onto a busy highway, causing a serious accident involving that driver in a cdl truck. that driver is fooked. driver will pee in a cup right there, they'll do the litmus type dip strip right there, and be led away in handcuffs if it's positive. drug policy needs to be changed, particularly regarding pot.

not so sure junkies and meth tweakers should be collecting welfare or workers comp though. maybe an initial screening and treatment for failing. doesn't make sense to create more homeless, starving people because of an addiction.

[ruckman101]

Agreed.

neal

[vdubyah73]

Agreed.

neal

i still won't vote for a socialist democrat though. even if said democrat moved pretty far toward the center.

[ruckman101]

Agreed.

neal

i still won't vote for a socialist democrat though. even if said democrat moved pretty far toward the center.

Enabler.


neal

[steve74baywin]

Agreed.

neal

i still won't vote for a socialist democrat though. even if said democrat moved pretty far toward the center.

Enabler.


neal

If someone votes for a socialist democrat they are enabling the the money cartel, those who want to be master planners of humans, those who want to treat man as objects or the means to an end.

[Velokid1]

if a cdl truck driver did that it would be considered a failed test. they would, at a minimum, be suspended 30 days, without pay and be ordered to have drug and alcohol counseling.
i think the part of all this drug and alcohol screening bs that bothers me the most is this. teamsters took this all the way to the supreme court and the decision was '' public safety out weighed the rights of truck drivers''. ok i get that we're all cowboys, hurtling down the roads in big scary trucks. so why are firefighters are not only exempt, they don't even need a cdl to run redlights in big scary trucks. cops should be tested to, they hurtle down the road and carry friggen guns too! if a trucker smoked pot the first week of a 2 week vacation, 1st day back, some moron fails to yield, merging onto a busy highway, causing a serious accident involving that driver in a cdl truck. that driver is fooked. driver will pee in a cup right there, they'll do the litmus type dip strip right there, and be led away in handcuffs if it's positive. drug policy needs to be changed, particularly regarding pot.

Thanks for that unique perspective, Bill. Drug testing is yet another enormous profit-driven industry that thrives on the unfair treatment of others... almost always hard-working blue collar folks and very rarely individuals who have the money to fight legally.

not so sure junkies and meth tweakers should be collecting welfare or workers comp though. maybe an initial screening and treatment for failing. doesn't make sense to create more homeless, starving people because of an addiction.

Yea, such a tough one. For as much as I have my ear to the ground on this crap because I'm a pothead (who smokes once a week), I have yet to hear anyone with a sure-fire way of dealing with and healing hardcore addicts. The hippie sap in me always falls back on unconditional compassion and generosity, but hopefully mankind will come upon an effective, humane way of healing addicts* one day.

*And I will say that the most hardcore addicts I see around me are addicted to something that is 100% legal and of which the consumption is wholly unregulated: food. Particularly in America, our relationship to food fits the clinical definition of "addiction" in every way. I get tired of seeing unhealthy people shoving endless quantities of toxic foods down their throats with one hand while they point the finger at drug addicts with the other, and then having it be considered cruel to point their hypocrisy out to them. Anyway, if we could find an effective and inexpensive way to heal addicts, the biggest potential for positive impact on our society probably lies in healing people with food addictions.

[ruckman101]

Well for starters, addiction shouldn't be treated as a crime, but as a health issue. Rehab, not jail. Everyone wins except "get tough on crime" politicos and the private prison industry.


neal