"no, YOU pee in the cup..."
gimmesometruth27
St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
how do we know that our legislators, paid via tax money, are not taking drugs? if they are getting my money, and they want the jobless to take a drug test, i want the ones making such a decision to take a drug test as well...
Dems Fire Back At GOP Proposals To Drug Test Jobless: 'You Pee In The Cup'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... 89989.html
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. (TOUCHE")
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?"
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I hate that people are for drug testing in almost any situation. It is fucking absurd - to have to worry that someone would want to know the contents of my bladder.
I just think that if we're going to drug test welfare recipients, why not drug test everyone else receiving federal money?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
yep. that includes people who take federal tax credits because they have kids.
have a kid; get a drug test.
(excuse me while I go throw up)
"I don't have any problem for drug testing people who are on welfare, as long as we also drug test anyone else who is receiving federal funds. Like people who tax the child tax credit... because you have to be high to have kids nowadays."
ba dum bum
I'm fine with that.
Let's not forget, however, that some people you are referring to are getting federal $ for not doing anything while others are being paid federal $ in exchange for working.
So, let's just drug test all people receiving federal $ for doing nothing. That would be welfare recipients and Congress.
TOUCHE
Ah, the good 'ol liberal way of one size fits all...
better than the conservative way of putting people into little unequal groups and not applying their same standards to everyone and making things harder for the poor, the elderly, and the less fortunate...but i digress...
seriously, why would you not apply the same standards to everyone who receives federal money???
i would be for drug testing welfare recipients if there was guaranteed to be no hypocracy from those implementing such laws...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
you seem to be wanting me to apply standards that are going to benefit some and be a detriment to others. i will not endorse that.
if we drug test everyone getting federal funds and or subsidies then all sides are happy, libs and cons and moderates..
we should not single some out by prejudging them as recreational drug users and let others be free to abuse whatever they want to abuse.
especially when only 2.5% of welfare recipients in the article tested positive...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
so, it's only 2.5% huh? No big deal? in 2008 that would be nearly 18billion bucks. Dopers.
REEFERS!
Surely a much larger number now with Obama in office.
Oh man, you do crack me up sometimes.
It is funny when we (the general we) want everything to be the same some times and then want a sliding scale for some things.
I know you'll disagree, but it's similar to unions being upset that their raises don't go up higher when the company has a great year...you never hear them willing to take a salary hit if the company finishes in the red.
And while I was originally for drug testing welfare recipients, it doesn't really do any good. Users will still use. And what then? Take away all their assistance and then what happens? So, the $ would be better put to use in a treatment program or an incentive.
Plus it seems like a kind of shitty think to do for welfare receipents with kids. I mean if you are the kid of a drug addict on welfare, you are already living in a pretty crappy situation, where maybe that cheque from the government is the only think keeping you from living on the street, or going hungry. And now the government is going to take that away because your parent is on drugs. And then what if your parent decides that with what little money he or she has he is going to use it to keep getting high rather than feeding you. If just seems that for what tiny amounts these people get is nothing compared to the crime it keeps from happening and the people it keeps from starving, even if those people are drug users.
Pee in da cup, homie.
hahaha.
Ya, cause there aint no white trash pieces of shit layin around on welfare milking the system........ :roll: :roll: :roll:
Kinda racist of you to immediately assume he was talking about non-whites.
It was 100% obvious in the language provided and you know it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Drug testing isnt cheap. I just read urinalysis runs from $25 to $44 per test and hair follicle testing costs $75 to $150 per test. BUT
I say make them work AND make them drop if they want my monies!
Look, another racist.
Hahahaha, lighten up guys, I'm messing with you. Your white guilt is showing though, might want to put some clothes on.
This is just so pathetically sad.
This is also a big problem. In my state of Florida, this is what is going on:
"Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.
That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.
The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.
But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month."
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/ ... ar-252458/
Who said ANYTHING about white or black?
If only you could lift weights with your brain.
You must be a politician in training...you have perfected the art of inferring something without using specific words, so you can always get off the hook!