So Reich Scott has been happily drug testing Floridans who receive gov't assistance. Sounds like a lofty fucking idea, doesn't it? South Carolina gov Nicki Haley says drug testing welfare recipients is her number one priority. In Ohio, they're working on enacting similar legislation, but would include anyone who's out of work on disability or people getting unemployment compensation. Isn't it fun to humiliate poor people?
But as a fellow drug taker myself, I've noticed something. Drugs are fucking expensive. Here on the east coast you can easily drop $120 on a half ounce of the sticky icky. You know what else is expensive? Drug tests. In the state of Florida, it's expected that mandatory tests of people receiving gov't assassitance will cost the state $178 million dollars.
Of course, Prick Scott said that this would save the state money, because of all the drug takers they could deny gov't assassitance to. And guess what? As it turns out, poor people can't afford expensive drugs. Only 2% have come back positive for drugs, which is well below the average you find in the general population. Net savings for the state: $40,800. Don'tcha just love Republican math?
Well it looks like one Ohio Democrat isn't keeping his mouth shut about this. He's proposed different legislation. Yes, it seems that the gov't gives a lot of people money other than welfare recipients. Ohio state Representative Robert Hagen has proposed mandatory drug testing of TARP recipients, and bailed out bankers, not to mention Ohio state legislators, supreme court justices, and the Governor himself.
Yes, humilating poor people is a lot of fun. But not as fun as humilating rich people and their puppets. 
but I view unemployment differently. To receive unemployment benefits you must have at one point been employed and paid into the system, which means the tax payers are "giving" you anything. You are simply collecting insurance on which you have been paying a premium. The same with disability. I don't believe we have a right to tell anyone what to do with their own money.
Now welfare is quite a different story IMO, while unemployment benefits ultimately run out and the recipient eventually has to either go back to work or lose his benefits, welfare recipients can live on the government doll for generations and never contribute a thing to the society that supports them. Those people should damn well prove that they are using the money that is supposed to feed them and keep them from being homeless and starving, and using that money to feed a drug habit that will virtually ensure that they never get off the government teat.
...but if you waste more money trying to prevent it than you would otherwise, why bother? I have a serious problem with drug testing anyway. And not just because I take 'em. It's because my pee is my property. What right does my fellow gov't workers have to inspect my property? Especially property that comes out my willy.
I'm betting that you'd find a hell of a lot more cocaine parties going on at the executive officies of ShittyGroup and Asshole of America than you would at a trailer park. We're also paying those assholes a lot more fucking money.
but you'll find a shit load of meth at that trailer park you are talking about.
I also have a serious problem with drug testing, but just like children that live with their parents, as long as they are on the public dole, they need to meet certain minimum standards.
As for government parasites, err I mean workers, like you. I don't really give a fuck what kind of drugs you use, as long as you aren't an air traffic controller, bus driver, or anyone else who's on the job drug use could cause harm to others.
You get all high and might about how your URINE is your own, but the money I make off the sweat of my brow, fuck that, the government has all the right to that just because I make a good living.
Get off the drugs, they are really f**king up your judgement...
....I don't quite get what you're upset about. Is it that I smoke pot or that I don't want to pee in a cup?
I wasn't being all that serious about my pee being my property, by the way.
Actually, I think pot should be legalized...
HOWEVER, I do feel strongly about welfare recipients and how many feel they should have all the rights that everyone else has but not teh responsibilities (i.e. paying your own way)
Personally, I would say after 6 months on welfare, you should be subject to both drug testing and having to show up for work programs.
Don;t like it, GET OFF WELFARE!!
How is a drug test humiliating anybody? I took one recently where they swabbed my mouth and 10 mins. later they got the results. OH THE HORROR!!
And junkies get high. It doesn't matter how expensive it is. They find a way. And they aren't that expensive. Your hydroponic weed may be pricey but crack, heroin, meth, etc. comes very cheap.
Meth might be cheap, but there is nothing cheap about crack or heroin.
and although I quit doing drugs years ago, I refuse to piss in a bottle for anyone but my doctor and LE, and then only if my attorney tells me I have no right to refuse.
It's no one's fucking business what I put in my system, and any one who wants my piss better have a fucking warrant for it.
The OP was about people on the public dole getting drug tested. It wasn't about you (believe it or not).
Crack and heroin are most definitely not cheap
I arrived at a provider's incall and mentioned I needed to pee first. She demanded I piss in her mouth. I did not demand a warrant. lol!
-- Modified on 10/20/2011 4:48:58 PM
While I love having my dick in a woman's mouth, pissing in her mouth just doesn't have the same appeal to me. I think you have been spending too much time with fisher. lol
When will this day end?
Have any of these people looked at the cost of these test?
Most of these state have had budget issues, and drug testing is fairly expensive!
What are trey going to eliminate to pay for the testing?
Also many may be administered by the local governments, but must follow Federal Guidelines. Can they cut benefits because of a positive result?
...where one of the most popular services offered is drug testing. When informed it would be a conflict of interest, Scott transferred controlling interest of Solantic to a trust in his wife's name.
good high paying job do not take drugs. Now as far as welfare receipants subjected to mandatory drug testing ---oorah!
entertainment executives, creative designers, etc., etc., etc. I do. And, your theory doesn't hold water, in the global terms you're using.
took drugs. IN the Army we had mandatory drug testing, if I took drugs, and failed a piss test, I would have pissed my career, my unit, my buddies, my job, my student loan repayments goodbye. The construction company I work for has a substance abuse testing program and if we work on a Federal funded project it's piss testing time again. Depending on the prevailing wage in the area, an equipment operator can earn $43.00 an hour not including benefits i.e. health, retirement etc. I do not dispute there are successful drug users in Hollywood, or on Wall Street but here on main street if your operating my new 50-ton mobile crane you better not be taking any loco weed.
It's not only illegal substances I have an issue with, but it's the whole pharmaceutical industry pushing drugs we do not need or think we need for made up diseases. Are life saving drugs and painkillers such as codiene wonderful, of course they are. At the same time beware, the United States Center for Disease and Control reported more people died from drug overdose in the hospital then they did on the highway. An old axiom in toxicology is the dose equals the response. Some have acute effects some are more cumulative they can lead to cirrhosis of the liver. We simply do not know some of the long-term effects of some of these new wonder drugs on our bodies. Sorry, to go off topic.
Bottom line your right the use of illegal substances does not necessarily correlate to a poor livelihood for everyone but it does for me and my company.
I did fail a piss test while in the Navy, and on board an aircraft carrier, as a flight crew member. Scared the shit out me. Come to find out it was something that the dentist gave me for an abscessed tooth.
and I haven't had a job in almost twenty years, so maybe there is something to your line of reasoning? OTOH I do make more money than all but the highest paid doctors, lawyers et al. So maybe your reasoning isn't quite as sound as you think it is? lol
taking drugs is bad for me. We could probably spend an evening discussing and sharing our personal experiences and I am sure we both would have unique individual stories, disagreements and conclusions and I respect that. As Jean Paul Satre said: " We could have been this, we could have been that, but in the end we are nothing more than sum of our actions."
For me, I did some experimentation with bad marijuana and once snorted cocaine; it was not a good experience. And I thank God for my bad experience because I would not have had the successes (little as they maybe) if I was a frequent user or even an occasional user of drugs.
I say this as someone who no longer uses drugs of any kind and prefers alcohol. What's the difference between weed and alcohol in terms of its impact on your performance? Not enough to justify the different treatment legally. And just like during Prohibition, all the anti-drug laws do is drive up the price and create profits for drug lords while diverting LE resources from pursuing murderers, theives and terrorists. It's irrational.
I see next to no difference betwen weed and booze for personal private consumption. To some extent I would extend that to any other drugs as well. What you do on your own time is no one's business. I agrre with your observations about the diversion of LE resources from crimes most people would agree we'd prfer to see LE spend MORE time on, and LESS on chasing down crack dealers. Maybe we just drop the war on drugs and just crucify the shit out of someone who hurts someone while on drugs. I know a family that was rear ended by a potsmoker and his children were burned alive and the father spent a year in ICUbefore he died. The potsmoker, IMO should do life.
OTOH, I disagree about drugtesting, partly for the reason cited above. But also no one has "the right" to bring their drug addled mind to work and expect me to pay them unless it was disclosed in their initial interview that they are a doper and I should expect them to come loaded to work. If I agree to those terms then drug testing is not needed. If however, I suspect them of being in an altyered state, for the safety of my other emplyees and simply because I'm not paying them based on a doped up mind, I shoud have the right to determine whether they are high or not.
I tried to be nice.
Does this mean we're broke up?
when you're on your meds. But actually, I think this is proof Willy has hacked your account.
Actually, I've been thinking about posting something in regards to the current debate about taxes. When and if i ever take the time to form some cogent thought on the matter you'll swear I've been reincarnated as wonka. I shudder at the suggestion...
So Willy, I hear your point but why should someone on the government hand out train be treated to special status on this?
My employer requires random drug testing. The US military requires random drug testing. Criminals of misdemeanors must submit. Airline employees including controllers must submit. And so why shouldn't those on the take have to meet the same basic standard?
But here's a novel idea. Obama wants to ramrod his so-called jobs bill. Instead of the government spending more money that we don't have, let's take these folks getting hand outs today and make em earn that money. Let's take some and make em hall monitors in the schools to protect kids same as others on the payroll already do. Let's take some and let em become teacher aids making copies of papers for teachers, cleaning up classrooms, etc... Let's take some and put em on street corners looking out for suspicious characters. These are all jobs being performed today and Obama says we need more stimulous to hire more of them. I say we are already paying people to do nothing, let's give em a chance to earn that money. Geesh, think about the benefit this would have to their self esteem and the savings to our treasury. Wow, a win/win.