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  
•       •       •

1548 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2013 at 12:24 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report