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 54
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-20 11:46:57 AM  
11 votes:
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 12:25:37 PM  
8 votes:

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 12:16:28 PM  
6 votes:
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 12:05:28 PM  
5 votes:
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 01:28:18 PM  
4 votes:

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 01:10:44 PM  
4 votes:

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 01:00:09 PM  
4 votes:

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 12:45:51 PM  
4 votes:
It's interesting to see him ask for the forgiveness and understanding he refuses to give others.
2013-11-20 11:48:48 AM  
4 votes:
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 01:30:41 PM  
3 votes:
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 12:49:12 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:01:44 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:01:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:03:46 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:53:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:47:58 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:41:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:32:02 PM  
2 votes:
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 05:31:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:45:29 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:41:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:15:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:13:30 PM  
1 votes:
He's a Teabagger. I'd be more surprised if he wasn't on drugs.
2013-11-20 04:04:25 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:49:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:01:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:59:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:56:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:36:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:29:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:19:12 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:16:56 PM  
1 votes:
thedailyshow.mtvnimages.com www.wtsp.com
2013-11-20 02:08:25 PM  
1 votes:
2013-11-20 01:57:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:56:27 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:47:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:33:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:15:53 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:09:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:04:13 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:55:32 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:54:52 PM  
1 votes:
Any other job in the world would fire someone for this.....
2013-11-20 12:53:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:50:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:47:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:41:43 PM  
1 votes:
i wonder what the mandatory minimum sentence is for being in possession of 3.5 grams of crack in DC
2013-11-20 12:38:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:37:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:28:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:26:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:20:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:13:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:10:12 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:51:08 AM  
1 votes:

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
 
Displayed 54 of 54 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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