HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » For all of the stupid f**...

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 10:29 AM

For all of the stupid f***s who want to drug-test food stamp recipients:

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/for-all-of-the-stupid-fs-who-want-to-drug-test-food-stamp-recipients/
Snip:
" One of the Congresscritters who voted for that measure just got busted on a cocaine charge. Really:

WASHINGTON — In September, Rep. Trey Radel voted for Republican legislation that would allow states to make food stamp recipients pee in cups to prove they’re not on drugs. In October, police busted the Florida Republican on a charge of cocaine possession."


More at the link.


12 replies, 2121 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply For all of the stupid f***s who want to drug-test food stamp recipients: (Original post)
riqster Nov 2013 OP
pipi_k Nov 2013 #1
msanthrope Nov 2013 #2
badtoworse Nov 2013 #3
riqster Nov 2013 #4
JohnnyRingo Nov 2013 #7
badtoworse Nov 2013 #9
CrispyQ Nov 2013 #5
JohnnyRingo Nov 2013 #6
Whiskeytide Nov 2013 #12
bluedeathray Nov 2013 #8
bvar22 Nov 2013 #10
riqster Nov 2013 #11

Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 10:49 AM

1. Well, to be fair...

some of my Conservative friends on Facebook who post about that sort of thing also post in very strong support of drug testing for all members of Congress as well.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipi_k (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 10:51 AM

2. I'm betting the citizens of Toronto are warming to that idea as well. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 10:55 AM

3. I would support drug testing all government employees - top to bottom

 

Initial screen for everyone and random tests after that unless there is reasonable cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to badtoworse (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 11:14 AM

4. I work for a government agency, and that is the rule here.

Not for the distinguished legislators themselves, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to badtoworse (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 11:43 AM

7. I'm against all random workplace drug testing.

Think of all the great minds and dedicated workers who would be disqualified by such a sweeping policy that punishes people for what they did on their day off. From the fast food drive-thru window to the highest public office, I prefer IQ testing to drug testing.

It's better to have someone capable of handling the job than some dork too stupid to light the right end of a joint without burning their fingers.

(I know there's really no wrong end, it's part of the intelligence test)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 12:33 PM

9. Reading your post, I have this mental image of Alfred E Neuman on an airplane.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 11:32 AM

5. I would add

that all C-level executives & BOD members, of any company that has a government contract, also get drug tested, to retain their eligibility to gorge at the trough.

This country is so fucking warped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 11:35 AM

6. I love to argue this point with people.

Most who voice the opinion that we have to drug test people who get food subsidies are about my age... drug saavy male Baby Boomers turned TeaBag.

I first ask if they're just doing it to be mean to poor people they don't like. When they invariably answer that their only concern is that they're "spending money on drugs", I then ask if, in all their decades of experience, they've ever seen a girl pay for a line of cocaine. Then, while they're still wearing their stunned face, I ask if they've ever smoked pot with friends while someone stood there charging them a dollar a hit.

Not everyone who gets high spends their (or our) money on it, and proponents should prove they did. Otherwise, it's just another example of racist nastiness, and I love to expose those people for their real intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 01:07 PM

12. I like to also point out...

... that it actually costs the government MORE money to implement the testing than it saves in terminated benefits. Any logic supporting the "we shouldn't be spending our money on drugs for these people" position evaporates immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 11:47 AM

8. How about we legalize drugs? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 12:58 PM

10. Costs more than it saves.

Florida didn't save money by drug testing welfare recipients, data shows
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/florida-didnt-save-money-by-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-data-shows/1225721


Utah Spent More Than $30,000 To Catch 12 Drug Users On Welfare

"Other states have turned up similar results. In Florida, just 2 percent of welfare recipients failed drug tests in 2011, compared to 8 percent of the state’s population who use illegal drugs. And while Gov. Rick Scott (R) had promised that the law would bring out savings, those will be almost negligible after administrative costs and reimbursing those who took the $30 tests. A federal appeals court rejected Florida’s law in February. In Virginia, a similar proposal failed when lawmakers determined that it would cost $1.5 million to administer and save just $229,000."

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/27/2532851/utah-spent-30000-catch-12-drug-users-welfare/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 20, 2013, 01:03 PM

11. To say nothing of that pesky old " presumption of innocence"

That is central to the larger issue, although the waste of taxpayer funds sucks as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread