Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   Why yes, Florida's cokehead congressman DID vote to drug-test welfare recipients   (dailykos.com) divider line 137
    More: Followup, congressman, Health Care, International, welfare, Daily Kos, Radel  
•       •       •

1551 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2013 at 12:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-20 11:46:57 AM  
well, as he himself is also the recipient of taxpayer money as his primary income, perhaps he should no longer receive those funds.
 
2013-11-20 11:48:25 AM  

FlashHarry: well, as he himself is also the recipient of taxpayer money as his primary income, perhaps he should no longer receive those funds.


This
 
2013-11-20 11:48:48 AM  
I've been saying we should drug test members of Congress for years and years now.

They have jobs that directly affect the lives, safety, and welfare of everyone.
 
2013-11-20 11:51:08 AM  

FlashHarry: well, as he himself is also the recipient of taxpayer money as his primary income, perhaps he should no longer receive those funds.


I like the cut of your gib
 
2013-11-20 12:05:28 PM  
Well, after this revelation of drug abuse among elected officials, it shouldn't be long before state legislators introduce legislation to drug test elected officials.......right?
 
2013-11-20 12:10:12 PM  
I love this bullshiat line:

Radel apologized Tuesday for his cocaine bust and said he'd seek treatment.

"I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice," he said.
 
2013-11-20 12:11:18 PM  

basemetal: Well, after this revelation of drug abuse among elected officials, it shouldn't be long before state legislators introduce legislation to drug test elected officials.......right?


I thought at least one state that introduced drug-testing for welfare recipients introduced that idea as an amendment, to have it voted down.
 
2013-11-20 12:12:59 PM  

Fark It: basemetal: Well, after this revelation of drug abuse among elected officials, it shouldn't be long before state legislators introduce legislation to drug test elected officials.......right?

I thought at least one state that introduced drug-testing for welfare recipients introduced that idea as an amendment, to have it voted down.


He said, before he read the article.
 
2013-11-20 12:13:04 PM  

FlashHarry: well, as he himself is also the recipient of taxpayer money as his primary income, perhaps he should no longer receive those funds.


THIS.

basemetal: Well, after this revelation of drug abuse among elected officials, it shouldn't be long before state legislators introduce legislation to drug test elected officials.......right?


Also, THIS.

I don't understand how people how vote for these measures can't see the obvious hypocrisy from clowns like this guy.
 
2013-11-20 12:14:40 PM  

mr_bunny: I love this bullshiat line:

Radel apologized Tuesday for his cocaine bust and said he'd seek treatment.

"I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice," he said.


southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com
 
2013-11-20 12:16:22 PM  

basemetal: Well, after this revelation of drug abuse among elected officials, it shouldn't be long before state legislators introduce legislation to drug test elected officials.......right?


The Daily Show is way ahead of you:

Rick Scott, Florida Governor, Asked To Pee In Cup By Daily Show Correspondent
 
2013-11-20 12:16:28 PM  
The point of drug testing people on food stamps was primarily to shame them and remove what little human dignity they has left in the process.  That's why whenever I give money to a homeless person, I always do it by throwing a fist full of pennies at their face.

First, it is food stamps because you are telling them that they are not responsible enough to feed themselves and their family otherwise, plus you need to remind them that they are likely drug users and that is why they are unemployed.

The idea was never to catch/charge anyone because clearly that didn't happent.  The idea was to kick them while they were down and in that respect it was a complete success.
 
2013-11-20 12:18:07 PM  
The important thing is that I am okay.
 
2013-11-20 12:20:26 PM  

mr_bunny: I love this bullshiat line:

Radel apologized Tuesday for his cocaine bust and said he'd seek treatment.

"I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice," he said.


It may be bullshiat, but not neccesarily.  Here's the entire post linked through your link:

I'm profoundly sorry to let down my family, particularly my wife and son, and the people of Southwest Florida. I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice. As the father of a young son and a husband to a loving wife, I need to get help so I can be a better man for both of them.

In facing this charge, I realize the disappointment my family, friends and constituents must feel. Believe me, I am disappointed in myself, and I stand ready to face the consequences of my actions.

However, this unfortunate event does have a positive side. It offers me an opportunity to seek treatment and counseling. I know I have a problem and will do whatever is necessary to overcome it, hopefully setting an example for others struggling with this disease.

Please keep my family in your prayers.


He actually seems to be taking responsibility.  It's not a non-apology apology that shifts blame elsewhere.  He acknowledges directly that he is an alcoholic and it's led to poor decisions, and that he wants to seek help.

It may very well be bullshiat, but it might also be an alcoholic hitting bottom.

Also, fark him for the drug test/welfare vote.
 
2013-11-20 12:21:20 PM  
A Republican hypocrite? I find this hard to believe.
 
2013-11-20 12:25:31 PM  
well, duh
 
2013-11-20 12:25:37 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: mr_bunny: I love this bullshiat line:

Radel apologized Tuesday for his cocaine bust and said he'd seek treatment.

"I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice," he said.

It may be bullshiat, but not neccesarily.  Here's the entire post linked through your link:

I'm profoundly sorry to let down my family, particularly my wife and son, and the people of Southwest Florida. I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice. As the father of a young son and a husband to a loving wife, I need to get help so I can be a better man for both of them.

In facing this charge, I realize the disappointment my family, friends and constituents must feel. Believe me, I am disappointed in myself, and I stand ready to face the consequences of my actions.

However, this unfortunate event does have a positive side. It offers me an opportunity to seek treatment and counseling. I know I have a problem and will do whatever is necessary to overcome it, hopefully setting an example for others struggling with this disease.

Please keep my family in your prayers.

He actually seems to be taking responsibility.  It's not a non-apology apology that shifts blame elsewhere.  He acknowledges directly that he is an alcoholic and it's led to poor decisions, and that he wants to seek help.

It may very well be bullshiat, but it might also be an alcoholic hitting bottom.

Also, fark him for the drug test/welfare vote.


That's all fine and good, but he wasn't arrested for being drunk.

He didn't even go to jail. or get cuffed. Nothing. The Feds set up a sting, busted him buying and then....he apologizes?!?

Is that how it would go down for you or me? "Whoops. Sorry, I am having some personal struggles Mr. DEA"

"Hey, don't worry about it, man. These things happen. You let us know how you are doing, okay?"

What a load of crap. The War on Drugs is the biggest farking sham in a long time.
 
2013-11-20 12:26:04 PM  

mrshowrules: The point of drug testing people on food stamps was primarily to shame them and remove what little human dignity they has left in the process.  That's why whenever I give money to a homeless person, I always do it by throwing a fist full of pennies at their face.

First, it is food stamps because you are telling them that they are not responsible enough to feed themselves and their family otherwise, plus you need to remind them that they are likely drug users and that is why they are unemployed.

The idea was never to catch/charge anyone because clearly that didn't happent.  The idea was to kick them while they were down and in that respect it was a complete success.


As someone who has been drug-tested as a prerequisite for employment and acceptance to a healthcare program, I never felt like my dignity was removed, nor did I feel like I was being reminded that I am a "likely drug user."  If people have to get drug tested before they can get a job, then it's only fair that people without jobs collecting benefits get drug-tested.

The problem is that this "small government" solution costs more to implement than the actual benefit that the public receives.  I think that most people are outraged at this, but for the wrong reasons.
 
2013-11-20 12:26:09 PM  
How shocking....
 
2013-11-20 12:28:18 PM  

mr_bunny: Three Crooked Squirrels: mr_bunny: I love this bullshiat line:

Radel apologized Tuesday for his cocaine bust and said he'd seek treatment.

"I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice," he said.

It may be bullshiat, but not neccesarily.  Here's the entire post linked through your link:

I'm profoundly sorry to let down my family, particularly my wife and son, and the people of Southwest Florida. I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice. As the father of a young son and a husband to a loving wife, I need to get help so I can be a better man for both of them.

In facing this charge, I realize the disappointment my family, friends and constituents must feel. Believe me, I am disappointed in myself, and I stand ready to face the consequences of my actions.

However, this unfortunate event does have a positive side. It offers me an opportunity to seek treatment and counseling. I know I have a problem and will do whatever is necessary to overcome it, hopefully setting an example for others struggling with this disease.

Please keep my family in your prayers.

He actually seems to be taking responsibility.  It's not a non-apology apology that shifts blame elsewhere.  He acknowledges directly that he is an alcoholic and it's led to poor decisions, and that he wants to seek help.

It may very well be bullshiat, but it might also be an alcoholic hitting bottom.

Also, fark him for the drug test/welfare vote.

That's all fine and good, but he wasn't arrested for being drunk.

He didn't even go to jail. or get cuffed. Nothing. The Feds set up a sting, busted him buying and then....he apologizes?!?

Is that how it would go down for you or me? "Whoops. Sorry, I am having some personal struggles Mr. DEA"

"Hey, don't worry about it, man. These things happen. You let us know how you are doing, okay?"

What a load of crap. The War on Drugs is the biggest farking sham in a long tim ...


That's what gets me. Put a random person with no political affiliation in that situation and they would've been locked up for years.

But a congressman? Obviously he's just a poor sick man who needs rehab.
 
2013-11-20 12:29:18 PM  

nmrsnr: basemetal: Well, after this revelation of drug abuse among elected officials, it shouldn't be long before state legislators introduce legislation to drug test elected officials.......right?

The Daily Show is way ahead of you:

Rick Scott, Florida Governor, Asked To Pee In Cup By Daily Show Correspondent


Oh, I know all about that, I'm just bringing it back to light due to current events........which is what politicians like to capitalize on.
 
2013-11-20 12:32:02 PM  
The welfare drug testing was never about "preventing abuse" and these people know it.  It was always a plan to hurt poor people.

If you aren't the "in group", then to republicans you are a bad person.  I wouldn't be surprised if republicans thought, for example, that welfare recipients were less likely to be Christian than average(I doubt there's actual polling data on this).
 
2013-11-20 12:32:54 PM  

nmrsnr: basemetal: Well, after this revelation of drug abuse among elected officials, it shouldn't be long before state legislators introduce legislation to drug test elected officials.......right?

The Daily Show is way ahead of you:

Rick Scott, Florida Governor, Asked To Pee In Cup By Daily Show Correspondent


That was sheer, unadulterated awesomeness.

I support drug testing elected officials.
 
2013-11-20 12:34:15 PM  
Whatever they are most against.. is exactly what they are doing. Keep that in mind when you see a Republican ranting about something.
 
2013-11-20 12:35:47 PM  

ikanreed: The welfare drug testing was never about "preventing abuse" and these people know it. It was always a plan to hurt poor people.


Actually, in my opinion, it was just for getting another pig access to the government trough.  And wasn't that pig (testing company) owned by governor himself, or was it a country club buddy?
 
2013-11-20 12:36:20 PM  

mr_bunny: That's all fine and good, but he wasn't arrested for being drunk.

He didn't even go to jail. or get cuffed. Nothing. The Feds set up a sting, busted him buying and then....he apologizes?!?

Is that how it would go down for you or me? "Whoops. Sorry, I am having some personal struggles Mr. DEA"

"Hey, don't worry about it, man. These things happen. You let us know how you are doing, okay?"

What a load of crap. The War on Drugs is the biggest farking sham in a long time.


My comment was simply regarding his apology, which you said was bullshiat.  It may be, I don't know, but I think it was refreshing that it was a straight forward apology without blame-shifting.  He did get a year's probation.  I don't know if that is an anomaly for a first time offender in DC or not.  My comment had nothing to do with his punishment or the War on Drugs or preferential treatment in the system.  I'm simply commenting on the fact that his apology to me reads "I truly farked up, I know I am an alcoholic and I do really stupid things when I drink too much, and I'm ready to make a change."

Again, it may be bullshiat, but not on its face.
 
2013-11-20 12:37:22 PM  
jesus how farking hard is it to sanitize all the source=facebook crap from a farking submitted article URL
 
2013-11-20 12:37:25 PM  

ikanreed: The welfare drug testing was never about "preventing abuse" and these people know it.  It was always a plan to hurt poor people.

If you aren't the "in group", then to republicans you are a bad person.  I wouldn't be surprised if republicans thought, for example, that welfare recipients were less likely to be Christian than average(I doubt there's actual polling data on this).


An nice op-ed touched on the amount of welfare compared to other govt programs such as mortgage interest deductions and medicare where the total of food stamps is just a drop in the bucket compared to those 2 programs. Really does reinforce the idea that it was never about the money.
 
2013-11-20 12:38:43 PM  

Fark It: If people have to get drug tested before they can get a job, then it's only fair that people without jobs collecting benefits get drug-tested.


This is bullshiat. Why is it acceptable in either case? Also, why should it matter if someone who smokes pot files for food stamps? What farking business is it of yours, the almighty taxpayer, whether the poor bastard partakes in the ganj as maybe the only thing to get relief from the despair of poverty?

The problem is that this "small government" solution costs more to implement than the actual benefit that the public receives.  I think that most people are outraged at this, but for the wrong reasons.

True, it isn't a cost saving thing. It is designed to humiliate those least able to do anything about it. It is simply bullying.
 
2013-11-20 12:39:04 PM  

mr_bunny: "I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice," he said.


img.fark.net

"i can't believe he used my line!"
 
2013-11-20 12:41:36 PM  

Fark It: mrshowrules: The point of drug testing people on food stamps was primarily to shame them and remove what little human dignity they has left in the process.  That's why whenever I give money to a homeless person, I always do it by throwing a fist full of pennies at their face.

First, it is food stamps because you are telling them that they are not responsible enough to feed themselves and their family otherwise, plus you need to remind them that they are likely drug users and that is why they are unemployed.

The idea was never to catch/charge anyone because clearly that didn't happent.  The idea was to kick them while they were down and in that respect it was a complete success.

As someone who has been drug-tested as a prerequisite for employment and acceptance to a healthcare program, I never felt like my dignity was removed, nor did I feel like I was being reminded that I am a "likely drug user."  If people have to get drug tested before they can get a job, then it's only fair that people without jobs collecting benefits get drug-tested.

The problem is that this "small government" solution costs more to implement than the actual benefit that the public receives.  I think that most people are outraged at this, but for the wrong reasons.


That's the nice thing about freedom - if you want to debase yourself in the hope of being employed by a gang of piss-sniffing fascists, you're free to do so. The government, however, is not nor should it be empowered to treat human beings with the same level of disdain and contempt with which private employers may.
 
2013-11-20 12:41:43 PM  
i wonder what the mandatory minimum sentence is for being in possession of 3.5 grams of crack in DC
 
2013-11-20 12:44:16 PM  
When they reported this story on my local news this morning, there was no mention of the congressman's party.  He must be a Dem.
 
2013-11-20 12:44:36 PM  

dr_blasto: This is bullshiat. Why is it acceptable in either case? Also, why should it matter if someone who smokes pot files for food stamps? What farking business is it of yours, the almighty taxpayer, whether the poor bastard partakes in the ganj as maybe the only thing to get relief from the despair of poverty?


First off, your employer has a right to know whether or not you take illicit drugs (and I think the drug war is BS).  They pay for your health insurance (usually), and someone who is likely to come to work high and get arrested is not a good investment.  And if you're "poor" and you have money to buy drugs, you don't need food stamps to do that.  If you want to smoke weed I think you should be allowed to.  Without public subsidies.

If you want "relief from the despair of poverty" you can start by not spending your money on marijuana.
 
2013-11-20 12:45:34 PM  
Oh, come on, this guy works for his government check unlike all those deadbeats out there.

/That's a joke.
 
2013-11-20 12:45:51 PM  
It's interesting to see him ask for the forgiveness and understanding he refuses to give others.
 
2013-11-20 12:46:05 PM  

BMulligan: That's the nice thing about freedom - if you want to debase yourself in the hope of being employed by a gang of piss-sniffing fascists, you're free to do so. The government, however, is not nor should it be empowered to treat human beings with the same level of disdain and contempt with which private employers may.


Would you go to a hospital where no one was drug tested?  Would you get on a bus with a bus driver who was never drug tested?  What about airline pilots?  Cops?
 
2013-11-20 12:47:22 PM  

mr_bunny: He didn't even go to jail. or get cuffed. Nothing. The Feds set up a sting, busted him buying and then....he apologizes?!?

Is that how it would go down for you or me? "Whoops. Sorry, I am having some personal struggles Mr. DEA"


For a first time offender buying for personal use? Yeah, that's pretty much how it goes in many, if not most, states. Except no one makes you apologize.

The going rate when I was in college seemed to be a year's probation, a fine in the low four-figures, and you're on your way. Finish probation and they even wipe it off your record.
 
2013-11-20 12:47:49 PM  

Muta: When they reported this story on my local news this morning, there was no mention of the congressman's party.  He must be a Dem.


Republican, actually. A Teabagger who calls himself the "hiphop conservative." He likes to talk about Biggie, Tupac, and tyranny.
 
2013-11-20 12:47:58 PM  

Fark It: mrshowrules: The point of drug testing people on food stamps was primarily to shame them and remove what little human dignity they has left in the process.  That's why whenever I give money to a homeless person, I always do it by throwing a fist full of pennies at their face.

First, it is food stamps because you are telling them that they are not responsible enough to feed themselves and their family otherwise, plus you need to remind them that they are likely drug users and that is why they are unemployed.

The idea was never to catch/charge anyone because clearly that didn't happent.  The idea was to kick them while they were down and in that respect it was a complete success.

As someone who has been drug-tested as a prerequisite for employment and acceptance to a healthcare program, I never felt like my dignity was removed, nor did I feel like I was being reminded that I am a "likely drug user."  If people have to get drug tested before they can get a job, then it's only fair that people without jobs collecting benefits get drug-tested.

The problem is that this "small government" solution costs more to implement than the actual benefit that the public receives.  I think that most people are outraged at this, but for the wrong reasons.


Drug testing for a high security job should not be compared to drug testing to feed yourself and your family which is technically an entitlement, not charity.

Getting a job is a positive experience.  They are hiring you because they want you.  When you are at the end of your rope, being drug tested because society has deemed that you are probably nothing more than a drug using leach is something else.  It isn't helping the less fortunate.  It is helping the losers responsible for where they are in life.

I would be against this practice even if it save a fortune.
 
2013-11-20 12:48:22 PM  
I'm sure he wasn't trying to be hypocritical, he was probably trying to be profitable, I bet he has a relative or friend that runs a drug testing company.
 
2013-11-20 12:49:12 PM  

Fark It: BMulligan: That's the nice thing about freedom - if you want to debase yourself in the hope of being employed by a gang of piss-sniffing fascists, you're free to do so. The government, however, is not nor should it be empowered to treat human beings with the same level of disdain and contempt with which private employers may.

Would you go to a hospital where no one was drug tested?  Would you get on a bus with a bus driver who was never drug tested?  What about airline pilots?  Cops?


If you think they're frequently drug testing at hospitals, you've never met a nurse.
 
2013-11-20 12:50:21 PM  

Diogenes: I've been saying we should drug test members of Congress for years and years now.

They have jobs that directly affect the lives, safety, and welfare of everyone.


...and if they pass the drug test, they should immediately be given a bag of X so that maybe they won't be such goddamn assholes anymore?
 
2013-11-20 12:53:29 PM  

flynn80: I'm sure he wasn't trying to be hypocritical, he was probably trying to be profitable, I bet he has a relative or friend that runs a drug testing company.


Now you are thinking Republican...
 
2013-11-20 12:53:37 PM  

Fark It: BMulligan: That's the nice thing about freedom - if you want to debase yourself in the hope of being employed by a gang of piss-sniffing fascists, you're free to do so. The government, however, is not nor should it be empowered to treat human beings with the same level of disdain and contempt with which private employers may.

Would you go to a hospital where no one was drug tested?  Would you get on a bus with a bus driver who was never drug tested?  What about airline pilots?  Cops?


So, when you go in for treatment you ask the hospitals to see the doctor's latest drug test results? How about an airplane? Where do they post the pilots THC levels so that I can determine if I want to stay on or get off?
 
2013-11-20 12:53:41 PM  

Fark It: BMulligan: That's the nice thing about freedom - if you want to debase yourself in the hope of being employed by a gang of piss-sniffing fascists, you're free to do so. The government, however, is not nor should it be empowered to treat human beings with the same level of disdain and contempt with which private employers may.

Would you go to a hospital where no one was drug tested?  Would you get on a bus with a bus driver who was never drug tested?  What about airline pilots?  Cops?


First of all, the world isn't black and white, and there is a nontrivial argument that there may be a very few exceptional jobs at which drug testing may be appropriate. And second, I have been to a hospital where no one was drug tested, I have been on a bus driven by an untested driver. I'm quite old enough to remember a time when drug testing wasn't required for any of those jobs, and trust me - there were plenty of people smoking pot and snorting coke at the time.
 
2013-11-20 12:54:52 PM  
Any other job in the world would fire someone for this.....
 
2013-11-20 12:55:32 PM  
I was sure we'd see the Limbaugh Defense:

"When YOU get busted you're a degenerate drug fiend who'd throw a blind orphan into a tree chipper for a fix and you should be sealed up in the basement of the jail never to see the light for a billion forevers. When I get busted I'm an honest man who made a few mistakes, but I know God has forgiven me, so you should too, unless you want to be against God. Do you? Do you want to be against God?"
 
2013-11-20 12:57:33 PM  

BMulligan: piss-sniffing fascists


That's the name of my new punk band.
 
2013-11-20 12:58:19 PM  

Jackson Herring: i wonder what the mandatory minimum sentence is for being in possession of 3.5 grams of crack in DC


I thought I read last night that he voted in favor of legislation which would have harmonized the penalties for different forms of cocaine and/or provided for treatment alternatives to incarceration (I only skimmed the lede). If that's so, I would say that although the congressman is a loon, a criminal, and perhaps even a bit of a hypocrite, he at least got that one right.
 
2013-11-20 12:58:31 PM  

Skail: Diogenes: I've been saying we should drug test members of Congress for years and years now.

They have jobs that directly affect the lives, safety, and welfare of everyone.

...and if they pass the drug test, they should immediately be given a bag of X so that maybe they won't be such goddamn assholes anymore?


I can be flexible on that point.
 
2013-11-20 01:00:05 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: BMulligan: piss-sniffing fascists

That's the name of my new punk band.


I'll be your number one fan until you get popular, at which point I'll turn on you like a whipped mongrel.

/"Whipped Mongrel" is the name of my new punk band.
 
2013-11-20 01:00:09 PM  

mr_bunny: I love this bullshiat line:

Radel apologized Tuesday for his cocaine bust and said he'd seek treatment.

"I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice," he said.



That's the great substance abuse dog-whistle: " i am an alcoholic" because somehow being addicted to that substance is more acceptable than being   a druggie , you know, one of   those people so no matter what they catch you smoking, shooting or snorting you just claim, against any reason or sense just to be "an alcoholic"   and you get a pass.  This guy's doing it, Rob Ford's doing it, hell even Marion fricking Barry did that...
 
2013-11-20 01:02:56 PM  

mrshowrules: When you are at the end of your rope, being drug tested because society has deemed that you are probably nothing more than a drug using leach is something else. It isn't helping the less fortunate.


Why not?  If drug-testing discourages welfare recipients from wasting their money on drugs and trashing their employment prospects, AND saves the taxpayers money, why is it a bad thing?

"B-b-b-but muh feelings!?"

Is that the only reason?

BMulligan: Fark It: BMulligan: That's the nice thing about freedom - if you want to debase yourself in the hope of being employed by a gang of piss-sniffing fascists, you're free to do so. The government, however, is not nor should it be empowered to treat human beings with the same level of disdain and contempt with which private employers may.

Would you go to a hospital where no one was drug tested?  Would you get on a bus with a bus driver who was never drug tested?  What about airline pilots?  Cops?

First of all, the world isn't black and white, and there is a nontrivial argument that there may be a very few exceptional jobs at which drug testing may be appropriate. And second, I have been to a hospital where no one was drug tested, I have been on a bus driven by an untested driver. I'm quite old enough to remember a time when drug testing wasn't required for any of those jobs, and trust me - there were plenty of people smoking pot and snorting coke at the time.


And I'm sure back in the day you walked 15 miles, uphill, both ways to school and got leaches when you got a fever, grandpa.  A lot of things have changed since the 70s.  Chief among them the technology and cost of drug testing...
 
2013-11-20 01:03:46 PM  

Fark It: Why not? If drug-testing discourages welfare recipients from wasting their money on drugs and trashing their employment prospects, AND saves the taxpayers money, why is it a bad thing?


[citation needed]
 
2013-11-20 01:04:13 PM  
www.outsidethebeltway.com

[W]e have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up*.

* Unless they're white or rich or Republican
 
2013-11-20 01:06:52 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Fark It: Why not? If drug-testing discourages welfare recipients from wasting their money on drugs and trashing their employment prospects, AND saves the taxpayers money, why is it a bad thing?

[citation needed]


Read the thread.  It doesn't, which is the primary problem (to me, anyway) behind it.

/only on Fark could the argument "What farking business is it of yours, the almighty taxpayer, whether the poor bastard partakes in the ganj as maybe the only thing to get relief from the despair of poverty?" be taken seriously
 
2013-11-20 01:09:52 PM  

So, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmen?

So, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmen

So, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmen

So, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmen

 
2013-11-20 01:10:38 PM  

Fark It: A lot of things have changed since the 70s.  Chief among them the technology and cost of drug testing...


Which is completely irrelevant to the point. It's still a humiliating procedure which should be used, if at all, only where there is a pressing need.
 
2013-11-20 01:10:44 PM  

Fark It: dr_blasto: This is bullshiat. Why is it acceptable in either case? Also, why should it matter if someone who smokes pot files for food stamps? What farking business is it of yours, the almighty taxpayer, whether the poor bastard partakes in the ganj as maybe the only thing to get relief from the despair of poverty?

First off, your employer has a right to know whether or not you take illicit drugs (and I think the drug war is BS).  They pay for your health insurance (usually), and someone who is likely to come to work high and get arrested is not a good investment.  And if you're "poor" and you have money to buy drugs, you don't need food stamps to do that.  If you want to smoke weed I think you should be allowed to.  Without public subsidies.

If you want "relief from the despair of poverty" you can start by not spending your money on marijuana.


Who cares if they take a hit off a joint someone passes to them? Apparently, it's ok to go buy a bottle of Old Crow and drink their sorrows away, but anything else is reprehensible. If they're not buy proper nutrition for their family with their SNAP benefits, that's a problem for child services or whatever.

You're employer has zero business knowing what you've stuffed in your gullet on a weekend night. They have zero business knowing what's in your piss stream. If they suspect you're whacked out on drugs, they should be able to tell from performance or behavior. Just because they MAY be contributing to your insurance is not an acceptable reason. In the end, they use drug tests to get out of worker's comp. The fact that you get high after work has come to mean it is ok for them to not pay for injuries their workplace causes for some stupid farking reason.
 
2013-11-20 01:11:10 PM  

Fark It: thurstonxhowell: Fark It: Why not? If drug-testing discourages welfare recipients from wasting their money on drugs and trashing their employment prospects, AND saves the taxpayers money, why is it a bad thing?

[citation needed]

Read the thread.  It doesn't, which is the primary problem (to me, anyway) behind it.

/only on Fark could the argument "What farking business is it of yours, the almighty taxpayer, whether the poor bastard partakes in the ganj as maybe the only thing to get relief from the despair of poverty?" be taken seriously


Only on Fark would the argument be, "what business of yours is it whether or not these poor people take drugs...you shouldn't decide what's best for them" while at the same time telling everyone else how much money they should make, whom they should hire, and what sort of health insurance they should be buying.
 
2013-11-20 01:15:53 PM  
Fark It: freedom is only important when we're talking about govenment. Private industry can spy all they want because its cheap for them to do it, all hail the job creators.

Good to know how you feel, bootlicker.
 
2013-11-20 01:18:54 PM  

Voiceofreason01: gib


www.bloomberg.com

RIP Gib
 
2013-11-20 01:22:56 PM  
"Drug testing for congressmen? Preposterous!"
 
2013-11-20 01:24:39 PM  

thanksagainandagain: Voiceofreason01: gib

[www.bloomberg.com image 640x604]

RIP Gib


that is one handsome lady.
 
2013-11-20 01:27:54 PM  
Is he one of the congressmen and senators who recieve thousands in farm bill subsidies or other inside bonuses?
 
2013-11-20 01:28:18 PM  

Fark It: mrshowrules: When you are at the end of your rope, being drug tested because society has deemed that you are probably nothing more than a drug using leach is something else. It isn't helping the less fortunate.

Why not?  If drug-testing discourages welfare recipients from wasting their money on drugs and trashing their employment prospects, AND saves the taxpayers money, why is it a bad thing?

"B-b-b-but muh feelings!?"

Is that the only reason?


Why do you want Government all up in people's business.  So what if a guy is self medicating.  Maybe it is the only thing keeping him from killing himself.  You have an unemployed person at the end of his rope who also has a substance abuse problem and your solution is to prevent him from eating?

If drug use is the problem, deal with it head on through drug programs, counselling,  therapy.  Don't use as leverage to attack people who need help.

If you decide to provide social assistance to people because it is the right thing to do, don't be an asshole about it.
 
2013-11-20 01:29:18 PM  
Here's one thing I love about Cincinnati media.  If there is ANY local tie to a story, they'll find it and emphasize it.

This guy grew up in Cincinnati.  So not only is it a Florida story, it's an Ohio story too.

/Can we please get an Ohio tag?
 
2013-11-20 01:30:41 PM  
This is farking ridiculous.  If he was a black guy working as a school janitor, he'd get jail time and would probably lose his job.  But hey, maintaining double standards like this is par for the course with Republicans.

As to the broader, policy points -  Change drug prohibition laws already, FFS!

And GOP, quit beating up on the poor!  You assholes act like the only recreational drug users in this country are poor people.  I got news for you - everyone farking likes drugs!  The whole farking country is drugged!  But for some reason, when white people pop prescription drugs, or get caught with a small amount of illegal drugs, it's viewed differently than when a minority is caught with drugs.  They get lighter sentences, or won't be prosecuted, or don't lose their job, etc.

Our justice system is farking broken, and it needs a massive overhaul and major policy change to get rid of the insanely expensive, counterproductive prison-industrial complex in this country that is fueled by the endless "war on drugs."
 
2013-11-20 01:32:58 PM  

basemetal: Well, after this revelation of drug abuse among elected officials, it shouldn't be long before state legislators introduce legislation to drug test elected officials.......right?


I was under the impression this was already the policy. When I was in the military the president took a drug test as did all (i assume) of congress. Not saying they couldn't pay their way out of it or just refuse (cause who the fark is going to make them) but i always assumed that elected officials were required to. Certainly Judges and cops / fireman / ambulance drivers right?

Seriously why isn't that a thing ?
 
2013-11-20 01:33:11 PM  

Heliovdrake: So, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmen?So, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmenSo, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmenSo, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmen


What would some shlub middle manager at a paper company in Florida get as a sentence?
 
2013-11-20 01:33:24 PM  

Chummer45: This is farking ridiculous.  If he was a black guy working as a school janitor, he'd get jail time and would probably lose his job.  But hey, maintaining double standards like this is par for the course with Republicans.

As to the broader, policy points -  Change drug prohibition laws already, FFS!

And GOP, quit beating up on the poor!  You assholes act like the only recreational drug users in this country are poor people.  I got news for you - everyone farking likes drugs!  The whole farking country is drugged!  But for some reason, when white people pop prescription drugs, or get caught with a small amount of illegal drugs, it's viewed differently than when a minority is caught with drugs.  They get lighter sentences, or won't be prosecuted, or don't lose their job, etc.

Our justice system is farking broken, and it needs a massive overhaul and major policy change to get rid of the insanely expensive, counterproductive prison-industrial complex in this country that is fueled by the endless "war on drugs."


Two Americas.  Edwards got that right.  To bad he was such asshole.
 
2013-11-20 01:35:44 PM  

mr_bunny: I love this bullshiat line:

Radel apologized Tuesday for his cocaine bust and said he'd seek treatment.

"I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice," he said.


He should have gone full Rob Ford.  "I was so smashed, I don't remember any of it!"
 
2013-11-20 01:36:39 PM  
does anyone know if they've released the name of the dealer that sold him out?
(I'm just asking for a friend).
 
2013-11-20 01:40:07 PM  
And?

As I said when the whole "drug test welfare recipients" thing first started. I don't really care what you do with your own money.

Welfare recipients are not spending their own money.

If you have money for drugs, you do not need welfare.
 
2013-11-20 01:47:59 PM  

randomjsa: And?

As I said when the whole "drug test welfare recipients" thing first started. I don't really care what you do with your own money.

Welfare recipients are not spending their own money.

If you have money for drugs, you do not need welfare.


and what percentage of Welfare recipients have tested positive in Florida?
And how much Taxpayer money did Florida save in cutting off their benefits?
And how much of  Taxpayers money did Florida spend to do all that testing? (and who is married to the person still owns the company that reaped all the economic windfall from doing most of the testing?)

But I am sure you still call yourself a "fiscal conservative"who is very angry about "wasteful government spending"
 
2013-11-20 01:49:37 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: I'm simply commenting on the fact that his apology to me reads "I truly farked up, I know I am an alcoholic and I do really stupid things when I drink too much, and I'm ready to make a change."

Again, it may be bullshiat, but not on its face.


"Sincerity is the most important thing.  If you can fake that, you've got it made."
 
2013-11-20 01:51:19 PM  

FlashHarry: mr_bunny: "I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice," he said.

[img.fark.net image 850x569]

"i can't believe he used my line!"


I can't believe Chris Farley hasn't returned from the dead, shouting, "That part is MINE!"
 
2013-11-20 01:53:09 PM  
If he were a true public servant he'd deliver coke to my door.
 
2013-11-20 01:56:27 PM  
This guy needs to be kicked out of office immediately.  Not for doing illegal drugs, mind you, but for being a huge effing hypocrite douchebag.
 
2013-11-20 01:57:37 PM  

randomjsa: And?

As I said when the whole "drug test welfare recipients" thing first started. I don't really care what you do with your own money.

Welfare recipients are not spending their own money.

If you have money for drugs, you do not need welfare.


Any other employee in America would be fired if it came out they did drugs.  Why should this guy get to keep his job?
 
2013-11-20 02:01:41 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: He actually seems to be taking responsibility. It's not a non-apology apology that shifts blame elsewhere. He acknowledges directly that he is an alcoholic and it's led to poor decisions, and that he wants to seek help.


I disagree. He's admitting to "struggling" with alcoholism, which is far more widely accepted to his political base than the cocaine possession he was actually charged with. Also, he says "I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice."Note the use of the singular "an extremely irresponsible choice," implying that this particular 8-ball he got caught with was his first experience with cocaine, and it was really bad ol' liquor's fault, anyway. This reminds me of Clarence Thomas admitting to "experimenting" with marijuana in college, as opposed to everyone else who simply smoked it.
 
2013-11-20 02:01:44 PM  

Fark It: dr_blasto: This is bullshiat. Why is it acceptable in either case? Also, why should it matter if someone who smokes pot files for food stamps? What farking business is it of yours, the almighty taxpayer, whether the poor bastard partakes in the ganj as maybe the only thing to get relief from the despair of poverty?

First off, your employer has a right to know whether or not you take illicit drugs (and I think the drug war is BS).  They pay for your health insurance (usually), and someone who is likely to come to work high and get arrested is not a good investment.  And if you're "poor" and you have money to buy drugs, you don't need food stamps to do that.  If you want to smoke weed I think you should be allowed to.  Without public subsidies.

If you want "relief from the despair of poverty" you can start by not spending your money on marijuana.


Employer has a right to know if the employee is wrapped tight enough to perform the task at hand when the employee arrives at work.  Direct Computer aided Performance monitoring tests are available (playing vid games/drinking/arguing with spouse/whatever continuously during the previous 24hrs - that might negatively impact performance?).  Hand/eye co-ord, etc. can be measured and evaluated (quickly) prior to the time card being `cleared to punch'.

Otherwise, without testing for all psychoactives (prescription and `off-label'), the game remains just what it is: a rigged morality play that allows for some drugs but not others.
 
2013-11-20 02:05:53 PM  
So? I'm still ok with drug testing welfare recipients. Just because he's a junkie does not invalidate that drug testing is not a bad idea.

Also, because he has failed a drug test, he should not be a congressman anymore.
 
2013-11-20 02:08:25 PM  
 
2013-11-20 02:09:15 PM  
To be fair, he tried it during one of his drunken stupors


//A Teabagging Republican, color me surprised......
 
2013-11-20 02:15:50 PM  
Just  Shiat  Anywhere
 
2013-11-20 02:16:56 PM  
thedailyshow.mtvnimages.com www.wtsp.com
 
2013-11-20 02:19:12 PM  
I'm certain then he'll support drug testing all folks who get government funds. I'm sure that the defense contractors and Congresscritters will be fine with this. Not to mention all those bankers who got bail outs. Just looking out for the public good, right?
 
2013-11-20 02:23:42 PM  

Dinobot: So? I'm still ok with drug testing welfare recipients. Just because he's a junkie does not invalidate that drug testing is not a bad idea.

Also, because he has failed a drug test, he should not be a congressman anymore.


the fact that it's a bad idea invalidates drug testing. It is a useless invasion into someone's personal life. Quit being such a goddamn busybody.
 
2013-11-20 02:27:43 PM  

kbronsito: does anyone know if they've released the name of the dealer that sold him out?
(I'm just asking for a friend).


I think he got pulled over and it was found in a search. This does not rule out a setup but it could have been random.
 
2013-11-20 02:28:53 PM  
He said the disease of alcoholism...

Didn't we just have a thread yesterday about how mental illness and drug addiction are not genuine illnesses?
 
2013-11-20 02:29:00 PM  

Dinobot: So? I'm still ok with drug testing welfare recipients. Just because he's a junkie does not invalidate that drug testing is not a bad idea.

Also, because he has failed a drug test, he should not be a congressman anymore.


You OK with drug testing members of Congress? The Supreme Court? Presidents and vice presidents? They all get paid with taxpayer dollars.
 
2013-11-20 02:29:16 PM  

dr_blasto: Dinobot: So? I'm still ok with drug testing welfare recipients. Just because he's a junkie does not invalidate that drug testing is not a bad idea.

Also, because he has failed a drug test, he should not be a congressman anymore.

the fact that it's a bad idea invalidates drug testing. It is a useless invasion into someone's personal life. Quit being such a goddamn busybody.


We already know that the testing didn't reveal higher use among recipients.

But I'd really love to see the numbers on how much this useless screening costs vs. how much it saves in "misspent" welfare dollars.

We know the principle is bad.  Now let's prove the economics are, too.
 
2013-11-20 02:33:58 PM  

Crusader: FlashHarry: well, as he himself is also the recipient of taxpayer money as his primary income, perhaps he should no longer receive those funds.

THIS.

basemetal: Well, after this revelation of drug abuse among elected officials, it shouldn't be long before state legislators introduce legislation to drug test elected officials.......right?

Also, THIS.

I don't understand how people how vote for these measures can't see the obvious hypocrisy from clowns like this guy.


While there are overtures of hypocrisy, the senator does have a "job" - regardless of where that income originates-- and does not rely on public assistance to support his cocaine habit.  The individual who can afford a drug habit, should not be sticking his hand out looking for additional public assistance.  The point being that additional funds are not spent on anything outside the nutritional or housing requirements of that individual.


You're free to pursue your hobbies as long as you can afford them.  You're not so free to pursue them if someone else is footing the bill.  It's not unreasonable for a lender who can afford blow his funds on anything he pleases, nor it is not all that unreasonable that he expect you to account for the money he loans you.


"This" on public officials having to pass drug screening as a prerequisite to the job and random testing to keep it.
 
2013-11-20 02:36:31 PM  

Walker: A Republican hypocrite? I find this hard to believe.


Me, too. I heard the report on NPR this morning and I was just gobsmacked when in the second sentence the newsreader mentioned he was a Republican.

"A Republican!" I exclaimed, incredulous. "But - that's the party of Just Say No, Family Values and Law and Order (the principle, not the TV show). How could this poor man have been tricked by the lib'rul media into possessing such a vile substance??"
 
2013-11-20 02:37:44 PM  

Sliding Carp: FlashHarry: mr_bunny: "I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice," he said.

[img.fark.net image 850x569]

"i can't believe he used my line!"

I can't believe Chris Farley hasn't returned from the dead, shouting, "That part is MINE!"


Zombie Chris Farley has been too busy working on his Richie Incognito riffs.
 
2013-11-20 02:39:35 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: Three Crooked Squirrels: He actually seems to be taking responsibility. It's not a non-apology apology that shifts blame elsewhere. He acknowledges directly that he is an alcoholic and it's led to poor decisions, and that he wants to seek help.

I disagree. He's admitting to "struggling" with alcoholism, which is far more widely accepted to his political base than the cocaine possession he was actually charged with. Also, he says "I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice."Note the use of the singular "an extremely irresponsible choice," implying that this particular 8-ball he got caught with was his first experience with cocaine, and it was really bad ol' liquor's fault, anyway. This reminds me of Clarence Thomas admitting to "experimenting" with marijuana in college, as opposed to everyone else who simply smoked it.


Meh.  Substance addiction can be very powerful.  I hope for him, if he is a true alcoholic, that this is a wake up call.  That he is admitting that he has a problem and that his life has become unmanageable is basically Step 1 in AA.  You can nitpick his apology all you want, but he does seem to at least be acknowledging that he has a serious problem.  What he chooses to do with that piece of self-realization is anyone's guess.  However, I doubt it is common for anyone to admit everything on day 1 of their recovery.  Recovery is a process, and I hope for his sake, he engages in the process.

I have to say that I do find him to be a hypocrite and I don't feel bad for him.  But, as a liberal, I feel that treatment is proper rather than jail for non-violent substance offenses.  I despise the Tea Party types like this guy, but I'd be a hypocrite myself if I wasn't consistent and wished upon this man a different sentence than I would wish upon any other non-violent substance offender.
 
2013-11-20 02:41:12 PM  

Diogenes: dr_blasto: Dinobot: So? I'm still ok with drug testing welfare recipients. Just because he's a junkie does not invalidate that drug testing is not a bad idea.

Also, because he has failed a drug test, he should not be a congressman anymore.

the fact that it's a bad idea invalidates drug testing. It is a useless invasion into someone's personal life. Quit being such a goddamn busybody.

We already know that the testing didn't reveal higher use among recipients.

But I'd really love to see the numbers on how much this useless screening costs vs. how much it saves in "misspent" welfare dollars.

We know the principle is bad.  Now let's prove the economics are, too.


I did see, linked on Fark.com no less, a story about a year ago that was FL's report. If memory serves, they may have save the sum total of $10k over the course of an entire year if they used the same number of welfare applicants from the year before subtracted from affected year (resulting -xx value being those who clearly must have been on drugs). In the end, it most certainly did nothing but help out whoever it was that ran drug testing companies contracted by the state.
 
2013-11-20 02:43:18 PM  

someonelse: Dinobot: So? I'm still ok with drug testing welfare recipients. Just because he's a junkie does not invalidate that drug testing is not a bad idea.

Also, because he has failed a drug test, he should not be a congressman anymore.

You OK with drug testing members of Congress? The Supreme Court? Presidents and vice presidents? They all get paid with taxpayer dollars.


Presidents and the like are paid- albeit with tax dollars-- to perform the task of "running the country".  Welfare recipients are not being paid "not to work"- they are receiving assistance because they do not or can not find enough work to meet their minimal survival needs.  So- apples and oranges.

Still, I don't have a problem with The president and his staff being drug screened- especially as it seems to be required of the rest of the country as part of the terms of employment.
 
2013-11-20 02:43:22 PM  

Dinobot: Just because he's a junkie does not invalidate that drug testing is not a bad idea.


I'm pretty sure you could have included at least one more negative in there if you really hated readability.

"Just because he's not completely sober does not invalidate that drug testing is not a bad idea."

There you go. I don't see how to get any more in there without getting ridiculous.
 
2013-11-20 02:56:33 PM  

dr_blasto: Diogenes: dr_blasto: Dinobot: So? I'm still ok with drug testing welfare recipients. Just because he's a junkie does not invalidate that drug testing is not a bad idea.

Also, because he has failed a drug test, he should not be a congressman anymore.

the fact that it's a bad idea invalidates drug testing. It is a useless invasion into someone's personal life. Quit being such a goddamn busybody.

We already know that the testing didn't reveal higher use among recipients.

But I'd really love to see the numbers on how much this useless screening costs vs. how much it saves in "misspent" welfare dollars.

We know the principle is bad.  Now let's prove the economics are, too.

I did see, linked on Fark.com no less, a story about a year ago that was FL's report. If memory serves, they may have save the sum total of $10k over the course of an entire year if they used the same number of welfare applicants from the year before subtracted from affected year (resulting -xx value being those who clearly must have been on drugs). In the end, it most certainly did nothing but help out whoever it was that ran drug testing companies contracted by the state.


In case it wasn't mentioned earlier in the thread, that would be Rick Scott's wife. Seriously.
 
2013-11-20 02:57:28 PM  
I won't click on a dailykos link (nor will I click on a fox news link).  But I don't have a problem with drug testing welfare recipients.  I also want elected officials, judges, and cops drug tested,
 
2013-11-20 02:58:52 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: I was sure we'd see the Limbaugh Defense:

"When YOU get busted you're a degenerate drug fiend who'd throw a blind orphan into a tree chipper for a fix and you should be sealed up in the basement of the jail never to see the light for a billion forevers. When I get busted I'm an honest man who made a few mistakes, but I know God has forgiven me, so you should too, unless you want to be against God. Do you? Do you want to be against God?"


I usually am against god, because he's such an asshole.
 
2013-11-20 02:59:27 PM  

ShutThoseLambsUp: dr_blasto: Diogenes: dr_blasto: Dinobot: So? I'm still ok with drug testing welfare recipients. Just because he's a junkie does not invalidate that drug testing is not a bad idea.

Also, because he has failed a drug test, he should not be a congressman anymore.

the fact that it's a bad idea invalidates drug testing. It is a useless invasion into someone's personal life. Quit being such a goddamn busybody.

We already know that the testing didn't reveal higher use among recipients.

But I'd really love to see the numbers on how much this useless screening costs vs. how much it saves in "misspent" welfare dollars.

We know the principle is bad.  Now let's prove the economics are, too.

I did see, linked on Fark.com no less, a story about a year ago that was FL's report. If memory serves, they may have save the sum total of $10k over the course of an entire year if they used the same number of welfare applicants from the year before subtracted from affected year (resulting -xx value being those who clearly must have been on drugs). In the end, it most certainly did nothing but help out whoever it was that ran drug testing companies contracted by the state.

In case it wasn't mentioned earlier in the thread, that would be Rick Scott's wife. Seriously.


It's ok, he doesnt own the company anymore, he gave it to her. Totally not his now.
 
2013-11-20 03:00:39 PM  

OgreMagi: I won't click on a dailykos link (nor will I click on a fox news link).  But I don't have a problem with drug testing welfare recipients.  I also want elected officials, judges, and cops drug tested,


How about Farkers? Because you sound like you're on drugs.
 
2013-11-20 03:01:04 PM  
My dad runs a large, successful substance abuse treatment facility HQ'd in Mr. Radel's district. HIPAA and all that (so I'm not asking him), but I'm curious if he's already been in touch.
 
2013-11-20 03:01:05 PM  

Fark It: As someone who has been drug-tested as a prerequisite for employment and acceptance to a healthcare program, I never felt like my dignity was removed, nor did I feel like I was being reminded that I am a "likely drug user."  If people have to get drug tested before they can get a job, then it's only fair that people without jobs collecting benefits get drug-tested.



Which says more of the caliber of employer (or its employees) you work for (or with).  I only had to take a drug test once back when I was entry level at Target fifteen years ago.  I've been doing corporate white-collar work for a decade and I've never had to undergo a drug test and neither has anyone I've worked with.
 
2013-11-20 03:01:58 PM  
He better not have been collecting welfare then
 
2013-11-20 03:10:50 PM  

OgreMagi: I won't click on a dailykos link (nor will I click on a fox news link).  But I don't have a problem with drug testing welfare recipients.  I also want elected officials, judges, and cops drug tested,


Why?

To what end? What use is it to busybody all these people?
 
2013-11-20 03:13:56 PM  

JK47: Fark It: As someone who has been drug-tested as a prerequisite for employment and acceptance to a healthcare program, I never felt like my dignity was removed, nor did I feel like I was being reminded that I am a "likely drug user."  If people have to get drug tested before they can get a job, then it's only fair that people without jobs collecting benefits get drug-tested.


Which says more of the caliber of employer (or its employees) you work for (or with).  I only had to take a drug test once back when I was entry level at Target fifteen years ago.  I've been doing corporate white-collar work for a decade and I've never had to undergo a drug test and neither has anyone I've worked with.


The last time I was drug tested was when I was in the military. If I were injured at work somehow, I'd be subject to one for worker's comp. I haven't done any illegal drugs since I was in the military either, so it would be a complete waste of time.
 
2013-11-20 03:16:31 PM  
Helluva Congressman.
 
2013-11-20 03:20:58 PM  

Fark It: As someone who has been drug-tested as a prerequisite for employment and acceptance to a healthcare program, I never felt like my dignity was removed, nor did I feel like I was being reminded that I am a "likely drug user."


You never had any dignity to begin with.
 
2013-11-20 03:21:23 PM  

basemetal: Well, after this revelation of drug abuse among elected officials, it shouldn't be long before state legislators introduce legislation to drug test elected officials.......right?


Many of us were calling for that when the idea came up. Looks like we would have caught more people that way than they do with testing welfare recipients.
 
2013-11-20 03:22:42 PM  

JK47: Fark It: As someone who has been drug-tested as a prerequisite for employment and acceptance to a healthcare program, I never felt like my dignity was removed, nor did I feel like I was being reminded that I am a "likely drug user."  If people have to get drug tested before they can get a job, then it's only fair that people without jobs collecting benefits get drug-tested.


Which says more of the caliber of employer (or its employees) you work for (or with).  I only had to take a drug test once back when I was entry level at Target fifteen years ago.  I've been doing corporate white-collar work for a decade and I've never had to undergo a drug test and neither has anyone I've worked with.


Kind of depends on state. I never got tested in CA, but in UT I have been tested at the last 2 jobs I have had.

/I have 'heard' that they are simple to pass. 20 bucks at a smoke shop...
 
2013-11-20 03:22:49 PM  

clowncar on fire: Presidents and the like are paid- albeit with tax dollars-- to perform the task of "running the country". Welfare recipients are not being paid "not to work"- they are receiving assistance because they do not or can not find enough work to meet their minimal survival needs. So- apples and oranges.


Fair enough. In that case, we could debate drug tests for people who receive Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on.
 
2013-11-20 03:28:32 PM  
Can we drug and booze test the talking heads on the Sunday morning babble shows?
 
2013-11-20 03:33:42 PM  

MrSplifferton: JK47: Fark It: As someone who has been drug-tested as a prerequisite for employment and acceptance to a healthcare program, I never felt like my dignity was removed, nor did I feel like I was being reminded that I am a "likely drug user."  If people have to get drug tested before they can get a job, then it's only fair that people without jobs collecting benefits get drug-tested.


Which says more of the caliber of employer (or its employees) you work for (or with).  I only had to take a drug test once back when I was entry level at Target fifteen years ago.  I've been doing corporate white-collar work for a decade and I've never had to undergo a drug test and neither has anyone I've worked with.

Kind of depends on state. I never got tested in CA, but in UT I have been tested at the last 2 jobs I have had.

/I have 'heard' that they are simple to pass. 20 bucks at a smoke shop...


Stop smoking for two weeks and you'll pass 80% of what's out there. You'll need to kick up to a few months if you're a daily smoker and if you go for a city or federal test (they catch the synthetic pee too, so don't try that one). And yeah, lower pay jobs test more often than the high collar ones (Bank of America didn't test, Ford dealership did).

I've tested for a few jobs, never cared. There is at least one job I tested dirty for, but I'm guessing since I was honest with the manager and agreed to stop smoking he let it go. I would do the same now, but I'm also in California where the laws are a little nicer. Aside from Boomers and older (you'd think the Boomers would know better at least), no one really seems to care if you smoke pot.


Coke, on the other hand. . . I'm gonna have a lot of fun watching the RW twist themselves into a knot trying to say coke isn't as bad.
 
2013-11-20 03:48:49 PM  

Peki: MrSplifferton: JK47: Fark It: As someone who has been drug-tested as a prerequisite for employment and acceptance to a healthcare program, I never felt like my dignity was removed, nor did I feel like I was being reminded that I am a "likely drug user."  If people have to get drug tested before they can get a job, then it's only fair that people without jobs collecting benefits get drug-tested.


Which says more of the caliber of employer (or its employees) you work for (or with).  I only had to take a drug test once back when I was entry level at Target fifteen years ago.  I've been doing corporate white-collar work for a decade and I've never had to undergo a drug test and neither has anyone I've worked with.

Kind of depends on state. I never got tested in CA, but in UT I have been tested at the last 2 jobs I have had.

/I have 'heard' that they are simple to pass. 20 bucks at a smoke shop...

Stop smoking for two weeks and you'll pass 80% of what's out there. You'll need to kick up to a few months if you're a daily smoker and if you go for a city or federal test (they catch the synthetic pee too, so don't try that one). And yeah, lower pay jobs test more often than the high collar ones (Bank of America didn't test, Ford dealership did).

I've tested for a few jobs, never cared. There is at least one job I tested dirty for, but I'm guessing since I was honest with the manager and agreed to stop smoking he let it go. I would do the same now, but I'm also in California where the laws are a little nicer. Aside from Boomers and older (you'd think the Boomers would know better at least), no one really seems to care if you smoke pot.

Coke, on the other hand. . . I'm gonna have a lot of fun watching the RW twist themselves into a knot trying to say coke isn't as bad.


Problem with coke isn't that it's bad. It's that it's too good
 
2013-11-20 03:49:08 PM  

Peki: MrSplifferton: JK47: Fark It: As someone who has been drug-tested as a prerequisite for employment and acceptance to a healthcare program, I never felt like my dignity was removed, nor did I feel like I was being reminded that I am a "likely drug user."  If people have to get drug tested before they can get a job, then it's only fair that people without jobs collecting benefits get drug-tested.


Which says more of the caliber of employer (or its employees) you work for (or with).  I only had to take a drug test once back when I was entry level at Target fifteen years ago.  I've been doing corporate white-collar work for a decade and I've never had to undergo a drug test and neither has anyone I've worked with.

Kind of depends on state. I never got tested in CA, but in UT I have been tested at the last 2 jobs I have had.

/I have 'heard' that they are simple to pass. 20 bucks at a smoke shop...

Stop smoking for two weeks and you'll pass 80% of what's out there. You'll need to kick up to a few months if you're a daily smoker and if you go for a city or federal test (they catch the synthetic pee too, so don't try that one). And yeah, lower pay jobs test more often than the high collar ones (Bank of America didn't test, Ford dealership did).

I've tested for a few jobs, never cared. There is at least one job I tested dirty for, but I'm guessing since I was honest with the manager and agreed to stop smoking he let it go. I would do the same now, but I'm also in California where the laws are a little nicer. Aside from Boomers and older (you'd think the Boomers would know better at least), no one really seems to care if you smoke pot.

Coke, on the other hand. . . I'm gonna have a lot of fun watching the RW twist themselves into a knot trying to say coke isn't as bad.


That's one of the things I hate about drug testing. All of the drugs that would affect your work the most pass through your system so quickly that if you can keep from using for a day or 2 you are fine. But marijuana stays in your system for weeks or months. You don't have time to detox between interview and drug test.
 
2013-11-20 03:57:31 PM  
He is not a hypocrite.  This story is ridiculous.  The story here is that a Congressman was caught with cocaine.  I have no problem with what someone spend their salary on.  I have no problem with people doing recreational drugs.  If you have a problem with this, you fundamentally have an issue with drug use, and therefore presumably would want people drug tested.

Let me give you an analogy in an attempt to take your subjective opinions on the ethics of using drugs out of the equation so that you may at the situation objectively.
What if he had voted to disallow welfare recipients from buying the new iPhone, but he has one?

If you have a problem with drug use it is valid, but don't try to turn this into something it isn't.
 
2013-11-20 04:04:25 PM  
So, What would happen to you today, if you were caught with cocaine.


Would you keep your job?

Would you go to jail?
 
2013-11-20 04:13:30 PM  
He's a Teabagger. I'd be more surprised if he wasn't on drugs.
 
2013-11-20 04:15:08 PM  

JK47: Fark It: As someone who has been drug-tested as a prerequisite for employment and acceptance to a healthcare program, I never felt like my dignity was removed, nor did I feel like I was being reminded that I am a "likely drug user."  If people have to get drug tested before they can get a job, then it's only fair that people without jobs collecting benefits get drug-tested.


Which says more of the caliber of employer (or its employees) you work for (or with).  I only had to take a drug test once back when I was entry level at Target fifteen years ago.  I've been doing corporate white-collar work for a decade and I've never had to undergo a drug test and neither has anyone I've worked with.


Or, in other words, drugs are okay if you look like you can afford them.
 
2013-11-20 04:41:43 PM  

ExpressPork: I have no problem with people doing recreational drugs. If you have a problem with this, you fundamentally have an issue with drug use, and therefore presumably would want people drug tested.


I don't like terrorism, but that doesn't mean I want everyone's phone tapped.
 
2013-11-20 04:45:29 PM  
Helpful hint:

For-profit drug-testing clinics don't give a shiat about the gravity of your urine.

Drink a whole gallon (yes, it's painful) of water, pee 2 times and the third one will be straight water.

I mention gravity, because if you try that with a probation or parole officer, they will make you retest later because the gravity is off. Walmart, Target, wherever don't really care about you being on drugs, they only care about you passing a test so they can keep their insurance rates lower. Period. They cut the testing company a check and they won't question any negative result because they don't really get anything out of it.

FYI, you don't pay for drug testing for job interviews so this law is total bullshiat. Anyone with sense can see this is just graft, plain and simple. If the state covered the whole cost of the testing they could claim some moral highground but seeing the money go directly to private entities. I really shouldn't expect much from the South.
 
2013-11-20 04:57:04 PM  

Hugh2d2: Heliovdrake: So, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmen?So, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmenSo, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmenSo, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmen

What would some shlub middle manager at a paper company in Florida get as a sentence?


If it's a first offense, he could probably get drug court and a dismissal of the charges.

The arrest would be public record and would always be available on internet searches, and if he were to be fired from his current job, he would likely would find it hard to get another, ever, for as long as he lives (or at least til many years have passed) that wasn't something like flipping burgers.
 
2013-11-20 04:59:20 PM  

someonelse: ExpressPork: I have no problem with people doing recreational drugs. If you have a problem with this, you fundamentally have an issue with drug use, and therefore presumably would want people drug tested.

I don't like terrorism, but that doesn't mean I want everyone's phone tapped.


You're right, I made an error with my argument there.  I didn't mean to be so broad.  I guess my large point is that he may be a lot of things up to and including a hypocrite, but being caught with cocaine doesn't make him one.  
If he was strictly anti-drug or was proved to vote for anti-drug measures (which he may have, I don't know) then THAT'S your story.  THAT would make him a hypocrite.  That's what we should be talking about.  Not the liberal-agenda "gotcha" leap in logic we're seeing here.  The fact that he was caught with cocaine, and the fact that he advocated drug testing people (who are too poor to feed their children) are completely unrelated.
 
2013-11-20 05:31:05 PM  

Fark It: BMulligan: That's the nice thing about freedom - if you want to debase yourself in the hope of being employed by a gang of piss-sniffing fascists, you're free to do so. The government, however, is not nor should it be empowered to treat human beings with the same level of disdain and contempt with which private employers may.

Would you go to a hospital where no one was drug tested?  Would you get on a bus with a bus driver who was never drug tested?  What about airline pilots?  Cops?


Yes, I would. I did it for years back when we were free.
 
2013-11-20 06:03:17 PM  

kidakita: Fark It: BMulligan: That's the nice thing about freedom - if you want to debase yourself in the hope of being employed by a gang of piss-sniffing fascists, you're free to do so. The government, however, is not nor should it be empowered to treat human beings with the same level of disdain and contempt with which private employers may.

Would you go to a hospital where no one was drug tested?  Would you get on a bus with a bus driver who was never drug tested?  What about airline pilots?  Cops?

Yes, I would. I did it for years back when we were free.



I think it's because we were all so free back then that created the necessity for drug testing now.  Good jorb pissing on our freedoms and getting them taken away from the rest of us.
 
2013-11-20 06:07:13 PM  

clowncar on fire: I think it's because we were all so free back then that created the necessity for drug testing now.  Good jorb pissing on our freedoms and getting them taken away from the rest of us.


Oh? Care to elaborate on this hypothesis?
 
2013-11-20 06:48:10 PM  

Heliovdrake: So, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmen?So, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmenSo, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmenSo, No jail time, and he gets to keep his job as a congressmen


I'm actually surprised that Congressmen aren't rallying against this because they shouldn't worry about harassment by the police while congress is in session and whatnot
 
2013-11-20 07:07:56 PM  

DrBenway: OgreMagi: I won't click on a dailykos link (nor will I click on a fox news link).  But I don't have a problem with drug testing welfare recipients.  I also want elected officials, judges, and cops drug tested,

How about Farkers? Because you sound like you're on drugs.


I'm not receiving public assistance and I don't hold a position of authority, so no drug test.
 
2013-11-20 07:58:54 PM  

Magorn: mr_bunny: I love this bullshiat line:

Radel apologized Tuesday for his cocaine bust and said he'd seek treatment.

"I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice," he said.


That's the great substance abuse dog-whistle: " i am an alcoholic" because somehow being addicted to that substance is more acceptable than being   a druggie , you know, one of   those people so no matter what they catch you smoking, shooting or snorting you just claim, against any reason or sense just to be "an alcoholic"   and you get a pass.  This guy's doing it, Rob Ford's doing it, hell even Marion fricking Barry did that...


And his apology really did sound like he was passing the buck off, to his alcoholism instead of that pesky overzealous staffer, despite what was stated upthread.
 
2013-11-21 12:48:02 AM  

Diogenes: I've been saying we should drug test members of Congress for years and years now.

They have jobs that directly affect the lives, safety, and welfare of everyone.


Throw in an IQ test and a test of basic knowledge and I say go for it.
 
2013-11-21 01:50:06 AM  

Fark It: mrshowrules: The point of drug testing people on food stamps was primarily to shame them and remove what little human dignity they has left in the process.  That's why whenever I give money to a homeless person, I always do it by throwing a fist full of pennies at their face.

First, it is food stamps because you are telling them that they are not responsible enough to feed themselves and their family otherwise, plus you need to remind them that they are likely drug users and that is why they are unemployed.

The idea was never to catch/charge anyone because clearly that didn't happent.  The idea was to kick them while they were down and in that respect it was a complete success.

As someone who has been drug-tested as a prerequisite for employment and acceptance to a healthcare program, I never felt like my dignity was removed, nor did I feel like I was being reminded that I am a "likely drug user."  If people have to get drug tested before they can get a job, then it's only fair that people without jobs collecting benefits get drug-tested.

The problem is that this "small government" solution costs more to implement than the actual benefit that the public receives.  I think that most people are outraged at this, but for the wrong reasons.


lt's more the blatant cronylsm.
 
2013-11-21 11:45:14 AM  

FlashHarry: well, as he himself is also the recipient of taxpayer money as his primary income, perhaps he should no longer receive those funds.


Bravo.
img.fark.net
 
Displayed 137 of 137 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report