Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Legislator wants welfare recipients drug tested

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:32 PM
Original message
Legislator wants welfare recipients drug tested
Here's an idea; let's test legislators while we're at it.


Legislator wants welfare recipients drug tested

Those applying for temporary assistance would need to take test.

By Colleen Hogan
Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 5:20 p.m.

JEFFERSON CITY -- Should people receiving assistance from the state be drug tested?

That's what one Missouri legislator is proposing. Senate Bill 73 calls for those receiving temporary assistance from the state to first be drug tested, and if they fail, they would not be eligible for state aid for three years.

Sen. Bill Stouffer (R-Napton) said the idea for the legislation came from a concerned constituent.
"I think it's a discussion that should be had, said Stouffer. And again, it's about people cleaning their lives up, and living a full and productive life."

Stouffer argues that most places of employment have drug-screening, so why should those getting taxpayer money be any different?

"One of our biggest concerns is that the state becomes an enabler with cash advances for drug use, said Stouffer.

more...

http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/news_story.aspx?...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Now I'm guessing Rep. Stouffer is a good Christian man who would
never want to see a drug addict die on the street from lack of food . . . right? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. I want Legislators drug tested...they also get public funds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
62. i like that
cause you know very well that there is plenty of shit floating around wherever rich people are. and it is not just booze, which is more destructive than a lot of other so-called "illicit" drugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
99. Exactly. And much more of them, too! Maybe they also need
someone to go around to their homes and see how they live and who is living in their home and if they are really at work during working hours. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Citizen wants legislators drug tested
Who gets welfare money any more?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. what about bank CEO's? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
5. The repukes in MO are on a roll this year
This week alone, they proposed a constitutional amendment mandating voter ID which also orders the state SOS to examine the birth certificate of everyone who has ever been on the presidential ballot in MO, they proposed a law making it illegal to bully a woman into having an abortion and they are fighting the governor on restoring cuts to Medicaid recipients.

And in KS, they are fighting raising the minimum wage from $2.65 an hour. Yes, two dollars and sixty five cents an hour.

I have such a hard time not hating these people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
64. i gave up the fight
hate 'em. impossible not to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
126. You're a better person than I am. I don't even try. They disgust and
repulse me everytime they open their mouths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
6. I want all bank and wall street firm officers and traders drug tested
They got more money from the government, and there are more addicts in corporate America than there are on public assistance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
105. +100!! I was thinking that EXACT same thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
7. Probably a VERY GOOD Idea
hate to say it but he's right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Yes
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 02:45 PM by AllentownJake
because the person on public assistance who smokes a joint every now and than is as big of a danger as the drunks (legal) and executives we've bailed out who are coke heads.

This is the return of the welfare queen. Don't fall for this bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Only if he gets drug tested himself. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. I'm under the DESA program as mandated by DOT
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 03:01 PM by FreakinDJ
So yes I can be Drug Tested at any time just to keep my job
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. I was with Dept of Corrections for nine years - seven as a guard, two
as Sp Ed teacher's aide in the prison education department. Never got tested after my initial test as part of the hiring process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. When my name comes up in the rotation - I'm tested
and it is dependent on hours the company works. So if every one is working lots of over time it can be once a month.

Also we are tested any time there is any sort of accident. Not just vehical, or medical, but work related accidents too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. And your point would be....? I'm talking about *him*.
I would try very hard not to take a job where I had to be drug tested, just on general principles. And I think the people elected to office *should* be, if they are advocating it. Sauce for the goose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #24
54. How does that justify drug testing welfare recipients?
I don't follow your logic here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #54
66. Treat the Problem rather then throw money at it
Sure it just may be a down turn in some ones luck. What is the current number of working families living check to check now a days. It can happen to anyone in this economy.

BUT - for those who indeed do have a drug problem then handing them money is the WORST THING YOU COULD DO TO THEM

It re-enforces physiological problems that cause Drug Addiction. Their chances of ever recovering from Drug Addiction become less with every check you hand them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. So because you are drug tested at work, that means welfare recipients are
more likely to be drug addicts and they need help recovering? Is that what you are saying?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. Your logic is STUPID
my experience with drug addiction and drug addicts and what constitutes the proper treatment there of has nothing to do with work.

So me you have a CLUE and are not just blowing smoke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #71
76. You started this by talking about your work and how you were tested
You have gone on to broad brush the poor, people who live in section 8 housing and residents of East LA.

I am not the one using stupid logic in my arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. As Jimmy Hendricks would say "Are you Experienced"
you have any clue at all what your talking about
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. Um yes in fact I do
I actually work with poor. So yes I have a pretty good understanding of what challenges they face and drug addiction is not all that high on the list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #82
90. Maybe you should go back to school then
Child Protective Services would disagree with you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. Actually no they wouldn't
I think they would list hunger, health care and housing as higher priorities for children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #91
102. Buying Marijuana when they need to feed their children .....
Pot isn't free you know

Or maybe you "Social workers" are still falling for the old "It must have been the Poppy Seed Muffin" alibi

So tell me - "Why should they buy drugs instead of feed their Children?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GReedDiamond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. I'm not a "Social worker"...
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 07:54 PM by GReedDiamond
...but I did post the comment regarding false positive results being caused by the consumption of poppy seeds in food items.

Which is, despite your undocumented insistence to the contrary, a documented reality in the world of "drug testing."

Therefore a person in need of government assistance, and otherwise qualified to receive it, should not have to surrender their Fourth Amendment rights in order to get what is rightfully theirs to begin with, were it not for the hysteria over drug abuse, which is used as a weapon by Republics and others of their ilk in the War on Drugs and their self-initiated Class War: the Oligarchs vs Everybody Else (even non "druggies," as you refer to anyone who uses illegal substances).

RE: "Pot isn't free you know"

There is not a rational thinking marijuana user (which is the vast majority of that group of people) who would buy pot over feeding their children (and themselves), so you may STFU on that one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #102
115. Oh yeah all over America children are starving so their parents can feed their marijuana habit
Get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GReedDiamond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #79
93. Here is a somewhat off topic "clue"...
...it's Jimi Hendrix.

If you are going to invoke the name of one of the greatest musicians and drug taking icons of all time, you could at least get his name right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
U4ikLefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #93
95. Hey, you beat me to it. ;)
Been a huge Jimi fan since I was a kid.

Peace
-U4ik-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GReedDiamond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. Yeah, that happens...
...I got beat on the poppy seed snopes link thing, I was interrupted by my cat while composing my reply, and didn't check to see if it had already been posted by the time I got back to it.

Jimi was certainly one of the best.

My mind boggles to think what he may have done with the additional technology available to guitarists today, not to mention the technology of audio recording as well...

Best wishes,
Tim K
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #93
103. Comparing a Grammatical error to Failed Logic is comical
Inspector Watson your not but you just may be the one they are referring to in the term Lonny Left. You logic is flawed, with opinions based on a prepubescent love affair with a Bong Pipe.

Its stupidity such as yours that give Rush LimpBalls validity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GReedDiamond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #103
107. Yes, you have cleverly exposed me for what I really am...
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 07:39 PM by GReedDiamond
...I am of the "Lonny Left." Just which "Lonny" you refer to is still a secret.

The real stupidity, IMHO, is people who profess to be "liberals" or "progressives," and who regurgitate right wing Republic Party bullshit talking points, and don't know when to stop digging the hole they've dug themselves into, so excuse me when I say "shove a prepubescent Bong Pipe" up your ass, cuz you're the one who is blowing smoke.

On edit: And, BTW, misspelling the name of an iconic figure in American pop culture, when trying to make some sort of vague "point," by someone who professes profound expertise, is not a "grammatical error." It is an indicator of ignorance on the subject being referred to and discussed.

Grammatical errors do happen a lot with you, though, that is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #107
111. Liberals and Progressives didn't Win the election
A Centrist did

So I'm not really sure what your clamoring about - Unless it is all the "Why is Obama doing this..."

and "I thought we would get....(fill in Blank)..."

Obama and the remainder of the Democratic Party wish to stay in power and are going to stay "Centrist" if Obama has any thing to do with it. And sorry, but the logic of this RATpubliCON politician is not all the different then the majority of the country. Especially now during tough economic times.

So unless you got some pull on Obama's coat tails your not telling us about, I imagine you'll be having this same argument a lot

FYI: "Its Democratic Underground" get it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GReedDiamond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. What?
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 08:08 PM by GReedDiamond
WTF are you smokin' now, Freakin?

On edit:
You win. I cannot handle your style of "debate."

You reference DU itself as an example of how I am wrong, but the vast majority, if not ALL of the posters to this thread, are in general disagreement with your stated positions.

So, goodnight, and good luck, cuz you're gonna need it, apparently.

Ad hominen, et tu spiro, two too freakin OH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
U4ikLefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #103
109. Give it up...you have already lost. You have expressed "failed logic"
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 08:10 PM by U4ikLefty
throughout this thread, only to defend your "position" and dig a deeper intellectual hole. Not to mention that you are soooo culturally ignorant that you couldnt even name JIMI HENDRIX properly.

BTW, I received an engineering degree (with honors in 2006) while smoking weed after my studies. This was at one of the best universities in the country and I'm HAPPY to pay taxes to help out the poor...whether they smoke the "Bong Pipe" (LOL @ officer Bob) or not.

On edit: I am 40+ years old & have been smoking pot for 25+ years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
U4ikLefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #79
94. Umm, that's "Jimi Hendrix"...sorry genuis. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #79
118. Dude, you can't spell Jimi Hendrix
Someone doesn't have a clue, but it ain't the person you responded to. Stop trying to look cool, it's just sad.

Jimmy Hendricks. OMFG LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GReedDiamond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Why?
Are conditions in this Country not already harsh enough for the non-rich/working class poor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
27. Its not about making conditions harder -
Its about giving people a chance to succeed.

Lots of people - hell most people in adverse, even oppressed conditions turn to recreational drug use. Of that number a certain amount become addicted. Provisions need to be written into any legislation that would emphasize rehabilitation rather then exclusion.

Yes - but for many it could be a Good Thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. You probably have no idea how much that would cost
or- quite possibly, like the stupid Republicans don't care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Flood the child welfare system
with kids whose parent only sin is smoking a joint every now and than. Meanwhile the parents who are drunks (which is far worse) still get their assistance because that particular intoxicant happens to be legal and has a pretty good lobby.

The program would costs more on the backend than it would ever save.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Drug testing and administration is an expensive proposition
Certain Oregon school districts tried it for awhile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. The program in itself cost a shit load of money
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 03:03 PM by AllentownJake
The unintended consequences, cost a shit load more. Republicans live in a make believe world where there are no unintended consequences. See the past 8 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Cost less then a WASTED LIFE
and that is what Drug Addiction is

just ask Rush LickBalls
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. If you are addicted to crack, meth, or coke
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 03:10 PM by AllentownJake
you are an addict. If you can't do anything without drinking your an addict.

If you drink a few beers on the weekend or smoke a joint at the party (BTW I outgrew the entire pot thing just making a point) you aren't a fucking addict.

My point is when you do illegal drug testing the person who smoked a joint with their friends on Saturday night is lumped into the same category as the person who is smoking crack everyday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Marijuana does present a problem
not like it is any sort of highly addictive drug - but because it stays in your system so long and is easily detected in drug test.

Like I said the testing should be done with emphasis on rehabilitation rather then exclusion. Some one pisses a dirty test they are sent to see a councilor prior to receiving any funds and given a chance to "Re-Test" and clear their name
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. People who smoke Pot don't need counciling
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 03:18 PM by AllentownJake
It's the least harmless of all the intoxicants we have its also the least addictive physically.

Are we going to do a nicotine test as well? Because I guarentee you a smoker spends more than a pot head on their fix and would need counciling to get off cigarettes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. If they know they got a Drug Test coming - and can't pass it
They got a problem

How many "Anti-Toxin" cleansers are on the market today "Gold-Seal" comes to mind.

I've seen this play out time and time again. People knowingly taking a test they are going to FAIL. If that isn't a habitual mental malady I don't know what is

- THEY NEED COUNSELING
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. The question is cost/benefit
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 03:31 PM by AllentownJake
You have a single mother who generally does a good job raising her kids who is on public assistance because her minimum wage job has her below the poverty line and every so often she smokes a joint to escape because frankly between the kids, the shitty job, and her dead beat ex and inability to find a decent guy she needs it.

First what is the cost of the drug treatment program?

So, you fail her, how much does counciling cost for her every so often joint habbit? If there is no counciling and she's suddenly unable to pay for her children and they become wards of the state how much does the foster care system cost the state? What is the cost 10 years from now when the kids are fucked up from going to foster home to foster home and being abused in a few of them.

At the end of the day, how much will this program cost the state? Does it marginally improve society as a result of those costs? What are the unintended consequences of doing this?

When you wish to make a public policy you look at that. You don't live in the land of make believe and fucking make a decision because you can put it on a bumper sticker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. Not BUYING the excuse - at all
What I have seen WAY TOO MANY TIMES is Moms leave the father so they can collect welfare and "Hook Up" with the drug dealer

How Much do you think that Cost the State.

Those that do not have a "Drug Problem" have Nothing to worry about
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #48
70. So I guess we need to define "drug problem"
Cause someone who smoked a joint 3 weeks ago wouldn't pass a drug test yet I would have a really hard time claiming they have a "drug problem".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #70
78. On that point I agree with you
What the RATpubliCON politician proposed his harsh and exclusionary and would most likely be tweaked before it ever saw the light of a governor's signature.

First off Marijuana would have to be excluded or given special circumstances.
Secondly - any participant would be given the chance to test a second time and have the first positive test stricken from their record - lets say with in a 30 day time period

BUT - what he is saying in essence is right.

Handing Drug addicts a check is the WORST thing you could possibly do to them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #78
81. There are other ways to deal with this than drug testing them
and there are already safeguards in place. If you live in HUD housing, and ANY crime is committed on your property, you lose your house and can never again live in HUD housing.

If you are a parent and take drugs, you can lose custody of your kids. I am a teacher in an urban school; I have seen this scenario play out too many times to count.

Drug testing is expensive and unreliable. It is not the solution to any problem unless you think that not invading people's privacy enough is a problem.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #48
72. Are you sure you are on the right website
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #72
80. You'll just have to get used to it Jake
Obama is a community organiser who saw first hand the ill effects of drug addiction in his own community

- and the church Obama went to is reknown for the many 1000s of drug addicts it help "Kick the Habit"

This is an idea - with the appropriate safe guards and direction Obama would embrace.

There is no "Free Lunch in America" for druggies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #80
85. Yes and Barack Obama and Trinity UCC
make a distinction between illegal drugs that if you implemented a drug test today would not be made.

That is my point in implementing a program right now. When you make a distinction between crack, heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and marijuana than you can come talking to me about drug testing. Till than I realize that a majority of the people that are going to be effected are going to be pot heads that are less dangerous than drunks who have no fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #41
114. Goldenseal. It's an herb. And not usually placed in "quotes". n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #36
65. that's your idea
but the person proposing this said they should be cut off from aid for three years! quite different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #28
42. So your "solution" is spend a ton of money to cut people off from aid for a dirty UA
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 03:33 PM by depakid
and then add double or more likely quadruple the costs by shifting them to the criminal justice (and other social support systems).

Genius.

But then- the judgmental and simplistic reactions usually are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #42
49. GENIUS - pay them to stay addicted to drugs
Give Every Drug Addict a Welfare check so they don't have to steal, rob, scam, or prostitute to support their habit.

Go to East LA and see how will then has worked out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GReedDiamond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. I know quite a few people from "East L.A." who are not...
...welfare sucking drug addicts and/or prostitutes and thieves.

Another broad brush painting everyone the same.

Why not just drug test EVERYBODY, say when you apply for or renew your driver's license or state issued identification card?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Go ahead test me - I don't have a problem with that
I do however have a problem with the large number of people using the system to cover their own problems. No - it is not everyone recieving assistance, but low income housing tracts (Section 8/Public Assistance) historically have had horrible records with Drug Addiction and Crime.

Dispute that and you'll look like a fool
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #57
67. Actually there is someone looking like a fool here
But it isn't anyone you are responding to.

I see now what your agenda is. Your broad brush is noted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GReedDiamond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #57
77. The fact of the matter is...
...the more affluent amongst us, not just the welfare sucking denizens of places like East L.A., are equally, if not more prone to "Drug Addiction" and "Crime" as anyone else.

You need look no further than the war criminal/torturer ex-President cokehead/drunkard Bush and his chief cheerleader/propagandist Rush Hillbilly Heroin Limbaugh. The drugs and violence associated with those two fiends far outweigh the combined criminal behaviors of all of the residents of any East L.A. "Section 8" housing development.

In any case, denying public assistance based on the results of a drug test which violates the aid applicants' Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protections against unreasonable search and seizure is what I call "foolish," as well as repugnant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #49
97. Here welfare gives approx. $300 per month, nothing to a true addict.n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #28
55. And everyone who tests positive for drugs is an addict who is wasting their life?
Sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. If you can't pass a test you know is coming - you just might be a Drug Addict
shit now we're getting into the Jeff Foxworth logic

How much simpler can it be explained - or do i need to type slower for those of you on "Qualudes"

s-h-i-t n-o-w w-e-'-r-e g-e-t-t-i-n-g i-n-t-o t-h-e J-e-f-f F-o-x-w-o-r-t-h l-o-g-i-c
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #60
74. But drug tests are usually not scheduled
so you really don't know the test is coming.

There is also a 5% false positive on drug testing. My husband lost a job because they claimed he tested positive for heroin and cocaine. I live with him and can assure you he does not take heroine or coke. My mother had a co-worker who tested positive for meth. She was a 60 year old grandmother. Following her positive test she was ordered into drug rehab. The rehab place tested her, she came up clean and she went back to work. Her union filed a grievance and she was awarded back pay.

Drug testing is not perfect. Until they can assure me that 5 people out of every 100 they test won't falsely test positive, I will oppose all drug testing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GReedDiamond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #74
83. Eating a poppy seed roll...
...can cause a positive result, seemingly indicating heroin use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. We think that is what happened in my husband's case
But we never could explain the positive cocaine test.

My sister is an HR manager at a pharmaceutical company. We called her and she tested him. He came up clean on her test the day after he tested dirty and was fired. She also gave us the name of a good lawyer but there was nothing he could do. Employees have zero rights with this drug testing crap.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #83
88. PURE Myth - eat Poppy Sead Muffins all the time - never FAILED
a Test

Some thing some closet weekend popper made up to cover their own grief
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #88
89. How about a link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GReedDiamond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. Perhaps the drug test you so happily submit to...
...is more sophisticated than some others in use.

But, as usual, it is you who is wrong.

There are numerous documented instances of innocent people testing positive on drug tests due to poppy seed consumption.

You may start with this link and pursue the additional resource links listed:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #88
119. Not a myth. It depends on how sanitized the seeds are.
If they are not washed they retain some of the resin from the pods. The poppy seeds with little white specs will give a person a positive, and if enough of them are soaked in water will get a person quite stoned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #28
98. Lush Rimbough is a Multi-Millionaire so a guess you could say his life isn't wasted
just his morals are bankrupt.


I believe in the Fourth Amendment and see ANY kind of drug testing an invasion of our civil liberties. I find it rather odd that Americans are always bringing up the Second Amendment and their rights to bear arms yet no one seems upset about our Fourth Amendment RIGHTS being stripped away. :shrug: Invasion of privacy Illegal Search and Seizure, Illegal Forfeitures, Wire Tapping, Spying on Americans. Yep, who cares about the Fourth Amendment, those "crazy drug addicts" deserve to have their Rights stripped away.

Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, I wish.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. NO, he's not
Among all of the other humiliating things they put you through just to have enough money to not starve to death, you think this is a good idea, too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. Yes I Do Think it is a Good Idea
Drug Addicition is a Lot More Humiliating then any thing the Government will ever put a person through
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
68. Yes, and all welfare receipients are drug addicts
You are treated like a criminal and a liar anytime you apply for aid. Most of the people who end up applying for aid are not drug addicts or alcoholics. They are just people who need help. And starting from the assumption that, because you have fallen on hard times, you are a criminal is just plain wrong.

I can see that you have never been on aid, or you would know that the Government can put you through an awful lot of humiliating stuff just to get money to feed your kids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #30
73. Do you rant about a lot of things you're only half-assed educated about?
In this case, it would be a stretch calling it half-assed as you don't seem to know your ass from a hole in the ground on this issue.

BTW, I think *you're* addicted to Randomly Capitalized Words...

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
31. Hate to say it, but you and he are wrong.
1)It will be a huge waste of time and money for applicants and the state.

2)Drug addicted parents who need TANF for their children will be dissuaded from applying because of the test. Do we really want that to happen?


I do like the way he defends it by pointing to the drug-screening for jobs, another practice that should be severely curtailed and applicable only to those jobs where the person may put the public or coworkers in jeopardy while operating equipment while under the influence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. You have any clue as to the Looses from just Alcohol -
much less drugs in the work place - or on society

The HUGE waste of money is all the people in prison from growing up with parents who were too stoned to raise them.

Over time we would realize a HUGE SAVINGS of tax payer dollars with systems such as these
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. Legalize Pot and you can have your fucking drug tests
Till you legalize the least harmful intoxicant and make it equal with booze which is legal and much more of a danger to society I'm against drug testing.

I've never seen anyone beat another person up while smoking pot. I've seen plenty of bar fights.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. On that point I agree - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. Prove that testing welfare applicants reduces those costs.
Point to a single study where that is an outcome. The only cost to the state that is reduced is the immediate payout in temporary assistance. Beyond that there are offsetting costs to be considered.

A testing system limited to TANF applicants won't solve drug addiction. In fact, it won't even begin to address it. What it will do it provide another way for state to deny benefits at the cost of testing every single applicant at least once, and perhaps more frequently if the law is written to include testing at recertifications. If you're worried about those stoner kids growing up to be the next generation of prison inmates, consider how much worse their lives will be without TANF. How do you think their parents will find the means to clothe and house them then?

In addition, this sort of testing won't identify the problem drinkers or heavy users who aren't addicts yet because they'll be smart enough to clean up for a few days in order to qualify.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Number of people in Prison from "Broken Familys with Drug problems"
Need any more "Evidence"

Supporting Drug Habits doesn't work
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #50
63. That is not evidence that testing welfare applicants will reduce the problem.
Testing doesn't address drug habits either.

People in prison who come from families with a history of drug problems are a subset of the children who were raised in the same and similar families with addictions. Not all of them ended up in prison. If they did we'd have a much bigger prison population.


Is "Broken Familys with Drug Problems" the name of a publication?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GReedDiamond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #63
116. You are debating a wall...
...your puny attempts to penetrate it (the FreakinDJ wall) using documentation, statistics, and logic, will be reduced to unsubstantiated claims that do not address your original statement, but which instead, fly off into another dimension, a place sometimes known as "The Twilight Zone." AKA, Freeperland.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
53. How is he right?
Please explain your thinking. I am all ears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tangent90 Donating Member (787 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
84. How dare you attempt to withhold your tax dollars from meth heads.
They vote too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
100. Seconded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
8. What about alcohol?
Apparently to Repukes people addicted to drugs deserve no help but a raging alcoholic can get all the assistance they need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. There are more drugs
being used on Wall Street than there are being used by people on public assistance. The only difference is those addicts fuck us all over, the public assistance addicts damage is much smaller.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
9. No jobs available in Napton, MO
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobResults....

Nearest job is 25 miles away. Maybe this idiot should worry about getting some jobs for his constituents instead of drug testing them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glowing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
10. So much for the govt staying out of one's life.. for some idiots who tout
govt out of people's personal life and freedom, they sure like to mandate and legislate their idea of morality and ethics. This is like the Schiavo case where everyone was pissed off at their idiotic call to arms. The other day one of them wanted to dictate how many children a woman could have.. and the talking head actually asked if Republicans really stood for govt interfering in people's personal lives like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. One more thing about what does this accomplish
So you find someone on welfare who smokes a little pot from time to time. Other than that they are not neglectful to their kids, don't get arrested, and don't bother anyone. Meanwhile two doors down another person on public assistance is constantly drunk, beats their kids, and is always getting some sort of minor charges filed against them. That person would pass a drug test

So now the state has to spend the same amount of money on foster care instead of public assistance because the person can't take care of their kids. BTW the kids end up more fucked up because of foster care

Republicans...never see unintended consequnces to any of their stupid ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
U4ikLefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
12. Ahhh, more $$$ for the drug-testing industry.
This shit has gotten out of control.

If I take a couple of hits of my buddys bong, I should sleep on the streets for 3 years?

These people are freakin idiots!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. That's the PRIVATIZED, profit-making drug-testing industry!
The war on drugs is quite profitable and immune to downturns in the economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpbk2713 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
17. Hey Bill, how about testing hatemongering radio talk show propagandists too?








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
19. IT'd be great if drug tests were free
The cost benefit ratio is too low for this to be a good idea, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
25. Why stop here?
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 03:03 PM by jmm
Let's have drug tests for everybody. We all benefit from tax dollars and surely this isn't intended to single out poor people and treat them like criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #25
38. Yes, and let's start at the top instead of the bottom for a change!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
32. Doesn't he worry about his federal tax money being handed to an "associate" by David Vitter, wearing
his diaper?

Or used to buy his wife a pretty gift, trying to get on her good side?



Senator Bill Stouffer

Maybe he thinks federal money should be spent on training of new torture techniques for those future people who will be swept off the streets and thrown into prison with no contact with the outer world, perhaps forever. Maybe to buy some more used underwear to drape across prisoners' faces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kansas Wyatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
37. I don't have a problem with this as long as they offer treatment and support.
If would be recipients test positive, then the State shall provide all treatment and support (food, housing, transportation, etc.) related to treatment and while receiving treatment for it.

You would quickly find out how much republicans really care about the issue, and how fast republicans would drop the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDavy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
43. how about the CEOs who take our money
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
44. Tell the legislator -- *YOU first, dude.* n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
52. So if they smoke a little pot, they should starve?
WTF????

FUCK HIM!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
58. I'm with those who want the legislators drug tested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #58
87. I'd prefer that they test 'em using PCL-R
Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_Checklist-Revi... (PCL-R)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
59. I think it's unconstitutional.
The state can't invade your privacy to that extent without a seriously compelling reason, usually one that involves public safety. There is no compelling reason to drug-test welfare recipients that doesn't also hold true for drug-testing EVERYONE. We already know that THAT would be a serious invasion of privacy, and I believe that it is also an unnecessary invasion of privacy to drug-test public assistance recipients as well. Where on earth would we draw the line? TANF? Food Stamps? WIC? Medicaid? FEMA emergency assistance? Commodity food distribution? "Government assistance," even just "state assistance," is a large and broad term that could encompass a LOT of things that many of us wouldn't ordinarily think of. What applies only to welfare recipients right now could easily apply to YOU before too long--there are very few of us who get absolutely NO "assistance" from the state, after all, even if we don't realize it or recognize it as such.

From a privacy perspective, needing and receiving welfare should NOT mean that people are forced to check their constitutional rights at the door. Private employers don't have to obey the same privacy and anti-discrimination rules that the government does, so comparing a private company to the government is a false analogy. The constitution forbids the GOVERNMENT from invading our privacy without compelling reason and due process. It says nothing about private employers. If an employee is willing to accept a drug test in order to get a job from a private employer, that's one thing, but for the government to force poor people to choose between a drug test and starvation/homelessness (which is no choice at all) is not only wrong and unethical, it also goes against everything the right to privacy is supposed to be about.

Can you imagine a mother with three kids losing her assistance because she ate a couple of poppy-seed muffins for breakfast? I mean, really...it's not like those tests are perfect, and unlike private employment (in which you can always get another job) there is NO recourse if you're banned from food stamps, Medicaid, TANF, etc. We could end up with even more starving, homeless children because of a stupid mistake or a defective test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #59
113. It's just a Class War talking point
They've always done it, but it seems we're seeing more and more of it lately.

You're right, it's totally unconstitutional.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #59
120. Of course it is. A republican introduced this wonderful idea.
Let's give the poor, disabled, etc... another event to be stressed about. You know, they are having such a ball and all of that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
61. just let 'em starve!
throw 'em into the street and let them starve! fucking bullshit. i HATE these motherfuckers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
75. Yeah, MO should breathalyze its legislators during the session: I'm sure the taxpayers
don't want their hard-earned dollars spent on rot-gut by boozers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOPisEvil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
101. Hey numbnuts! State governments are broke!!
Who the hell is going to pay for all those drug tests?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sohndrsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
106. um.... wait a second. This is stupid.

(and I agree with all those who beat me to the punch - it's high time... no pun intended... that drug testing might be more appropriate for those who have significant jobs - especially public service)

So this nitwit wants to deny those with substance abuse problems - the ability to get help for that? How utterly absurd in so many ways...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onethatcares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
108. only if all our elected officials take one too,
after all, they are OUR EMPLOYEES, and they get taxpayer money to boot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
110.  It reminds me of someone against food stamps for those who drank or smoked
I have personally witnessed people who have suffered financial hardship because of one of these addictions, especially tobacco. Despite this, the addictions are very strong and their children shouldn't starve because of it whether their addiction is legal or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
117. It goes back to the victorian prudery of the 'deserving poor'.
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 09:31 PM by juno jones
To be deserving of aid, one must live according to the morals of the upperclass, most of whom don't live that way themselves. Charity is seen as an 'atonement' and they have to certain that all of that money is going to causes like food and shelter by which they assuage their consciences, as opposed to pleasures that they must publicly eschew.

Give us working folk a break, eh? Consider the hardship of working an exhausting shift on one's feet, often times living with injuries and illness that have gone untreated. Coming home after that to fix dinner and do housework. Add the stress of living in a poorer neighborhood with the cop helis flying low overhead every few hours reminding one of a war zone. AND factor in the strain of trying to raise your kids the right way in such a grinding enviroment, you need a a small pleasure. A smoke, a drink, a bongload.

More problems would be eliminated by adequately funding programs already in exisitance, such as medicare, public housing, education, and mental health services.

The Du'ers in the poverty forum have noted how people tend to lump all homeless together as 'mentally ill'. I would add that many do the same with 'drug addiction'. It's denegration plain and simple. As long as the poor and homeless are always 'the other' we never really have to deal with them, and once we fall thru the cracks to experience it ourselves we lose any voice...


Hey youse who think this is dandy! Go be puritans somewheres else. We are not here to live for your pleasure or by your morality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
121. "...let's test legislators while we're at it."
Damn! You didn't even give me a chance to throw that in. Too quick on the trigger (and extremely accurate, too!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
122. Thankfully we've got a sane, Democratic governor
Who will veto this mess. The 'Pugs don't have the numbers to override, so this is mostly bluster on the part of these assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
123. I think that the analogy between workplace testing and testing for welfare is flawed for one reason.
Edited on Sun Mar-08-09 08:36 AM by varkam
Viz. the reason for such testing. In work-places, drug testing is seen as a bulwark against potential liability claims against employers: you don't want to have people who are high dealing with customers or operating heavy machinery (just to name a couple examples) - and so drug testing at the front-end would tend to screen those individuals out.

There is no such concern, however, with recipients of state-funded welfare. There's no potential for liability against the state or any of its agents if a recipient is hooked on drugs or alcohol. The only rational basis that I can see for such a restriction is, at best, paternalism of the most heavy-handed sort or, at worst, punishment.

Just my .02.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
124. The comments to the article put me in tears.
Maybe I'm just over tired.... sometimes I feel like I just can't take peoples self-centered, calloused, blind ignorance anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
125. Another brainless GOP grandstander.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC