You Want DRUG TESTING For Welfare Recipients? WHY STOP THERE?

[Segami]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T2ayBI6lnSk/TlvC3Y4MusI/AAAAAAAAAmE/n3SpaZIl0bI/s1600/Alvin+Holmes.jpg

Alvin Holmes




:smoke: :smoke: :smoke:



" Republican legislators in Alabama are working on bills that would require drug testing for individuals receiving welfare payments. The bills will be patterned after those that became law in Florida earlier this summer.


At least one Alabama Democrat, showing that some Southern liberals actually have a pair, vows he will tack on an amendment to any Republican bill. Alvin Holmes, a state representative from Montgomery, says his amendment would require state legislators to take drug tests. In fact, Holmes would require all those who receive federal funds through Alabama to take drug tests.

Reports Sebastian Kitchen, of The Montgomery Advertiser:


Holmes said he would pro­pose an amendment that would require state legislators to take a drug test and require others who receive federal funds through the state, including those who receive funding for not farming all of their agricul­tural land, to be tested.

]"It wouldn't be fair to just pick out one group of welfare recipients because they are re­ceiving federal funds and re­quire them to take drug tests," Holmes said.

He has an interesting pro­posal for his colleagues.

"I'm going to volunteer to take one (a drug test) to set an example for the other mem­bers of the Legislature," Holmes said. "I guarantee you that I am going to pass it. If not, I will turn my resignation in to the secretary of state, which would make a lot of peo­ple in the state of Alabama happy.":applause:


.

I like the way Alvin Holmes is thinking. And I don't think we should stop there. Consider others who receive federal funds in our state:


* Federal judges--We already know of one federal judge in Georgia who got nailed for trying to buy drugs with his stripper friend. How many others are high as a kite when they don their robes?


* Lawyers--Attorneys practice in courts that are funded by taxpayers, both federal and state. Attorneys are "officers of the court," making mighty fine livings off facilities and systems that you and I fund. Don't you think they need to pee into a cup?


* CEOs--How many corporate types benefit from tax breaks and other forms of federal largesse? How many of them receive taxpayer-funded bailouts and the like? ......



cont'


http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/08/you-want-drug-testing-for-welfare.html



.

[dana_b]

1. I like his style n/t

[Brickbat]

2. If people in jobs that require a lot of safety awareness need to be tested, so then do people who

handle the legal, financial and political safety of the nation. I'd hate it if my banker were high when he went to the underwriters to ask for a mortgage on my behalf. Or if the people handling my 401(k) were coming back from a three-drink lunch before they started looking at my portfolio. And so on.

[Bragi]

4. What about cashiers?

They could mis-price some of your goods.

Thanks anyway, but all I want tested are people whose jobs are directly safety-sensitive. The rest of it will work itself out.

[Brickbat]

11. What's "directly safety-sensitive"?

[Bragi]

12. My definition

My definition would be any job where the health and/or safety of people could be significantly and permanently harmed as a result of malfeasance.

You're welcome.

[Brickbat]

13. "Malfeasance"? Sounds totally like politicans, lawyers, bankers and CEOs, then.

[Bragi]

17. Wrong word maybe, but you get my point

Expand the list and you'll soon be joined in support by Tea Partiers, evangelical moralists, and assorted other right wingers. In no time at all, everyone will need drug testing all the time if they want jobs. You okay with that?

[Segami]

18. Expanding the list is NOT Alvin Holmes intention at all in this article.

His actions, ( whether you agree with him or not ) is all about exposing another selective level of Republican hypocrisy targeting those who can't fight back. Nothing more.

[Bragi]

19. I understand that

I agree completely with his goal, but for reasons stated, his tactic seems quite risky to me.

[greiner3]

44. reductio ad absurdum;

Reduction to absurdity;

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum


Works with nearly any Republican proposal.

[Brickbat]

20. So you're saying I shouldn't go all reducto ad absurdum because Tea Partiers might agree with me?

I object to random drug testing for ANY job OR benefit. Any argument that supposedly shows it necessary for one worker or beneficiary can legitimately be applied to all.

[Bragi]

22. Yes, something like that

Me, I can accept it for safety and health sensitive jobs, but that's it.

I also mistrust the motivations employers on wanting to do this, but accept the idea of limited testing being appropriate for clear public safety reasons.

[Brickbat]

25. What's limited, and what's a clear public safety reason?

There's no clear line for me, which means, to me, it should be all or none.

[Bragi]

27. Well...

It's always hard to draw definitive lines, but I know for sure that a worker who, say, drives a school bus, is a lot more directly involved in the safety of others than, say, someone working in a video store.

I'd be prepared to have intelligent, expert, fair-minded people draw the lines and make the appropriate distinctions. The exact line will always be contentious, but that doesn't mean it should not be done, or that drug testing has to be for "all or none".

[notadmblnd]

28. yolu do realize that the only thing that stays in a person's system any length of time is MJ?

everything else is out within a couple of days. Frankly, I'm more concerned with the legal drugs people are on. Xanax, Ambien, Oxycontin, Tylenol III's. But none of that will show up in a urine test after a couple of days, so how you gonna catch them?

[Bragi]

29. Drug testing would be through spot checks

I recognize that MJ is different, but wouldn't spot checks of safety-sensitive workers identify people who may be using substances while working that would impair their abilities?

I agree with you on the other drugs you mention. Also, we know that sleep deprivation and other non-drug health events can also impair performance, I'm not saying drug use is the only issue.

[TBF]

51. "Intelligent, expert, fair-minded people"

And who would those be? The educated folks who are in charge of everything? I'm sure they'll exempt themselves from any testing, and we're right back where we started.

:eyes:

[The Wizard]

37. drug testing all the time if they want jobs

The jobs are in other countries because they're not as puritanically insane as the United States.

[xxqqqzme]

41. That's the point.

Require it to be onerous but patriotically necessary. It's the language. It's the exaggeration of the law to expose its idiocy and hypocrisy.

[think]

35. Those types need to take mandatory lie detector tests. Wouldn't that be a hoot!..nt

[w0nderer]

32. so for instance

car mechanics (oops forgot the brakes)
bike mechanics (same)
traffic light service people
elevator technicians
electricians (short to fire)

that's gonna be a LONG list of people
LOL

[obxhead]

43. So some discrimination is fine then.

Having smoked a joint at a party a week before a test will fail a drug test. It will not impact the ability of any task performed a week afterward.

Drug testing is discrimination period.

[redwitch]

3. I LOVE this!!!!!!

:-)

[yellerpup]

5. Now, that's the way to call out hypocrites!

When you lead by example you have to be willing to go first. Seems like an offer they shouldn't refuse. Very nice. :kick: & Rec.

[SteveM]

6. Rare comeback indeed. There was once a time when virtually all jobs...

did not require drug-alcohol testing. The job of ensuring a sober workplace was overseen by a rare occupation: Supervisor.

[JHB]

7. AUI -- Ajudicating while Under the Influence

Problem is, who judges the judges?

[Segami]

9. The ' pee-cup ' results.

:rofl:

[FLPanhandle]

8. I some Florida senator had the balls to do this.

Include the governor in that too.

[RegieRocker]

10. Add politicians to this list

[Bragi]

14. Good joke, very poor policy

Seriously, I don't think liberals (that's us) should support any testing except for jobs with direct safety and health impacts.

Be careful advocating expansion of the list or you'll find yourself quickly allied with the right wing and the evangelicals on this.

[Ghost Dog]

16. Too right. You might end up disqualifying many fine doctors,

for example, too.

[B Calm]

15. Kicked and Recommended

[saras]

21. The only drug testing I want tells me whether the stuff is pure or not.

If there's behavioral issues, use them. Don't drag "drugs" into it unless you're willing to outlaw caffeine.

If you can't tell whether someone is "under the influence" by their behavior, then they aren't under the influence. There's no excuse for anyone but a doctor to be testing blood, and that in the service of the patient only.

[lynne]

23. Pee-test them all!! My son - who is stocking shelves at a grocery store -

- had to take and pass a pee test. If you need to drug test a kid to work nights to stock shelves of green beans and spam, then I'm ALL FOR drug testing any and everyone who works for, works with or takes benefits from the government.

[MADem]

24. I can get behind a "government paycheck? Government piss test" law.

Just because we know damn well we'd start seeing some sane policy come out of governments if that were the case.

[watercolors]

26. Drug testing in Fl costing state money.,not working out well

[Glassunion]

30. I like this guys attitude. +1

[mopinko]

31. more likely to be big time users at the top than the bottom.

[emald]

33. Darn tootin........if one, then all. e/t

[RedCloud]

34. And proctology tests for those getting oil funds.

[BetsysGhost]

36. K and R

[LynnTTT]

38. If SS and Medicare are welfare,

maybe we need to get every senior citizen tested also. That will go over big here in my "over 55" community here in South Carolina :-)

[Carolina]

57. welcome to DU

I'm in SC, too!

[SoapBox]

39. Yes, Yes, Yes! Test them all!

The WORST offenders are usually the Holy and Pious crowd.

Having been subject to random drug and alcohol testing for years...I've always thought that
politicians and executive management need the same.

Go Alvin Go!

[SoapBox]

40. p.s...AND, then there are those False Test Results!

I will add to my previous post.

There was a period of time, at my massive, multi-billion dollar, worldwide company, that was random pee testing certain groups of employees (acutally, they still are but it has been WAY scaled back because they caught almost no one from the thousands tested)...where several people were fired for FALSE results.

The company stood, stood, STOOD solidly by the CONTRACTOR that was processing the pee.

The story really broke open, when one of those fired was in a very strong UNION...those that were in non-union groups, had no recourse (until the union employee and the union got the thing rolling).

As it goes, the CONTRACTOR was FALSIFYING the results. Period. The story got NO coverage in the Lame-Stream Media.

Most of the end result was all by grapevine (the company never addressed the issue at all). If I remember, most were offered jobs back or a settlement (sealed with a kiss of never being able to discuss it).

SO...pee testing? Breath testing? They are NOT always 100% and that less than 100% can ruin your life, forever.

[n2doc]

42. Add builders and contractors

Those folks are heavily republican, in my experience. Test them!

Actually since just about everybody gets some form of Government aid (even if they just use taxpayer funded roads), Test Everybody! Then let's see how popular that program is.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

45. Farmers who receive government money

for doing nothing....they should be tested.
http://farm.ewg.org/

[McCamy Taylor]

46. Any company that receives a government contract should drug test the CEO

so that the state can ensure that its money isn't going to fund some guys cocaine habit.

[Raine]

47. Memebers of Congress should be drug tested before they're

allowed to vote on legislation.

[peace frog]

48. Once upon a time I worked for a monolithic communications company

and was suprised that I was not expected to take a drug test upon bring hired, but hey, fine by me that I didn't have to pee in a cup to work for slave wages.

Later I asked my manager why the company did not test for drugs, and she replied it was because the tests would have to be administered across the board and too many in management would fail,,,but I didn't hear that from her.

:rofl:

[sulphurdunn]

49. Would someone please

show me the scientific, peer reviewed data that shows how random drug testing confers a benefit upon society.

[JohnnyRingo]

50. Drug screening is a mean spirited failure in it's intent.

Private employers do it to weed out (haha) people who would work on Monday after a weekend of partying, but it's my experience that IQ testing would go a lot further to ensure a satisfactory experience at the drive-up window than their guarantee that the worker hasn't tried anything stronger than aspirin. Fortunately, the smarter applicants can beat the test, but I think the focus is on a simple litmus test instead of hiring the best and the brightest.

Claiming that social services recipients who test positive should be cut because "they spent the federal money on drugs" is another sign of how dumb we are becoming as a nation. Such knee jerk reaction assumes that every time someone breaks out a joint they collect a few bucks from everyone who hits it. I've never in my 45 years of awareness seen that happen, nor have I seen a pretty girl ask how much she owed for that line of coke she just swept up. Certainly when it comes to the harder drugs, an active barter system is part of the underground that involves everything from stolen goods to sexual favors.

People who advocate drug screening for the destitute can quit pretending they're concerned with the money and admit it's about cutting off people less fortunate than themselves for selfish or racist reasons. Many of the brainwashed Barstool Republicans who parrot these policies are only two paychecks away from welfare themselves.

[nineteen50]

52. They should drug test the drug testers to make sure

they are not being bribed with drugs by the drug
users.:sarcasm: 

[femrap]

53. Drug Testing has become

quite an industry....I bet lots of politicians have investments in them.

I would prefer IQ tests myself....

[dotymed]

54. This was my exact response when I heard that they are

calling for welfare recipients to pee in a cup. I've argued with family members over this. They say "at work they make us pass drug tests." My reply was that if the welfare recipients have to do it (it has been talked about doing this nation- wide) then everyone, no matter what your status, should have to do it.

Drug testing wouldn't last long if that were the case. I think it violates our 5th Amendment rights anyway. On wall street, the drugs and hookers are legendary. Of course, they have their own "laws."

So many of these "labs" are owned by local judges, lawyers, etc. that it is just another way for them to profit.

I have heard lawyers and judges talking about their stocks in Correction Corporation of America and how they profit from putting people on probation.., it is Fascism and we are slaves.

[and-justice-for-all]

55. I agree with the drug testing, I really do...

but legislators should be held to the same standards since they receive federal funds too. The test should be random and be a hair test or blood test.

[lsewpershad]

56. Why are the repukes Pricks

always after the poor, diposessed. and most needy. how do they sleep at nights.

[JohnnyRingo]

60. Even worse, they stupidly assume that if they cut people off social welfare programs ....

they have no choice but to work for a sub-standard wage or starve to death. Needless to say, there are alternatives, and someone who is hungry will resort to desperate measures. Conservatives will tell you we need more prisons to house these disowned poor people, and when reminded of the cost of incarceration fall back on the third world "bread & water" screed.

I believe conservatives like the "if you don't work, you don't eat" policy because they long for a return to the day when people stood on the sidewalk and begged to shine their shoes or buy an apple. Of course, the ultimate ego boost is to brush that person aside and display one's arrogant success. If there aren't dirt poor, how will Barstool Republicans know they're "middle class"? Ironically, most of these idiots who carp about people on welfare driving Cadillacs while smoking weed are just two paychecks away from food stamps themselves.

[radhika]

58. Every registered lobbyist that meets with legislators...

Plus attach another rider that prevents the family of any legislator from profiting by administering these tests. Like, MRS RICK SCOTT.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.