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  
•       •       •

1549 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2013 at 12:24 PM (43 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 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 37 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