Another win for the Constitution

[kallend 1,678]

www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html?_r=0

(Personally I suggest that poor people on welfare should only have to take drug tests AFTER all the execs of corporations receiving government largess have passed one).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 58]

Reminds me of the late 80's to mid-90's when drug addicts received SSDI for being addicts. When they were arrested or absolutely bottomed out Medicare would pay for treatment. I had a client from Chicago that had been in treatment 30 times.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[ryoder 1,408]

Three cheers for common sense!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Boogers 0]

Quote: “The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied”

So how come oorporations can require drug testing of employees for whom they have no just cause to suspect drug usage? Shouldn't that be unconstitutional also?

[ryoder 1,408]

Boogers

Quote: “The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied”

So how come corporations can require drug testing of employees for whom they have no just cause to suspect drug usage? Shouldn't that be unconstitutional also?

The 4th Amendment is a limitation of *government* behaviour.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,408]

RonD1120

Reminds me of the late 80's to mid-90's when drug addicts received SSDI for being addicts. When they were arrested or absolutely bottomed out Medicare would pay for treatment. I had a client from Chicago that had been in treatment 30 times.

What kind of work were you doing?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[RonD1120 58]

ryoder

***Quote: “The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied”

So how come corporations can require drug testing of employees for whom they have no just cause to suspect drug usage? Shouldn't that be unconstitutional also?

The 4th Amendment is a limitation of *government* behaviour.

Something I was recently reminded of, the Constitution limits the government's control of the people. Not everyone in government seems to believe that is true.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[normiss 642]

Unsuccessful.

[sfzombie13 310]

that's what has been said for years. sometimes they say things like, if you don't do drugs, you have nothing to worry about. bullshit. gcms testing is 99.997% accurate. this is around 300 false results in a million tests. pretty good odds, unless you're one of the false positives. and if you actually do any research on it, you would find that it is actually not scientific, but interpretive. meaning the results are NOT cut and dried, they are subject to interpretation. sure, it is based on experience, but there are any number of factors which can add up to someone having a very bad day due to a mistake made by someone interpreting results.

and there is always the possibility of sample contamination. while they do subject the labs to random testing to ensure they are accurate, the samples submitted for the random testing are so highly concentrated that it is virtually impossible to mistake the results.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[RonD1120 58]

ryoder

***Reminds me of the late 80's to mid-90's when drug addicts received SSDI for being addicts. When they were arrested or absolutely bottomed out Medicare would pay for treatment. I had a client from Chicago that had been in treatment 30 times.

What kind of work were you doing?

Most of my latter professional work was as an outpatient substance use disorder counselor. The treatment programs were voluntary and court ordered 60 or 90 day length of stay.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rickjump1 0]

kallend

www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html?_r=0

(Personally I suggest that poor people on welfare should only have to take drug tests AFTER all the execs of corporations receiving government largess have passed one).

I took drug and breathalyzer tests as a pilot and so did the maintenance personnel. Once in a while someone tested positive and walked. I understood you could retest with an independent lab, but never heard of anyone choosing to do so. Sure, we were carrying the public, but so is Congress and the President. Drug testing should start with the top dogs.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rehmwa 2]

kallend

www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html?_r=0

(Personally I suggest that poor people on welfare should only have to take drug tests AFTER all the execs of corporations receiving government largess have passed one).

both are types of welfare - why would one or the other have to go "first" - just because you have a bias only against one and not the other?

both should require some sort of test to make sure that the money and resources they are stealing from others isn't being wasted and abused

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

rickjump1

Drug testing should start with the top dogs.

same comment - if required for anyone getting taxpayer money, then should apply to all.....or none

"start with" and "after" don't make sense if you want all individuals to be equal


as far as I'm concerned - the Pres, Congress, execs from companies that get corporate welfare, individuals the get social welfare.......are employees of the tax paying public. They should contractually be required to all have the same employment conditions


yes - I'm equating the president, senators and congressment to welfare queens (in terms of who is paying their check)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 642]

Drug testing should start with a warrant.

[rehmwa 2]

normiss

Drug testing should start with a warrant.

since it's illegal - and proof of use SHOULD result in criminal prosecution.....

then absolutely - accusations of a crime are serious and due process is required

the problem is enforcement - if you are found to be breaking a law, loss of entitlements or a job should be the least of your worries.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 642]

There generally exists NO probable cause for a whizz test by simply applying for benefits.

But sure, some folks feel empowered and better than the low lifes that need public assistance to continue the socio-economic grip on them.

[BIGUN 1,105]

rickjump1

***www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html?_r=0

(Personally I suggest that poor people on welfare should only have to take drug tests AFTER all the execs of corporations receiving government largess have passed one).

I took drug and breathalyzer tests as a pilot and so did the maintenance personnel. Once in a while someone tested positive and walked. I understood you could retest with an independent lab, but never heard of anyone choosing to do so. Sure, we were carrying the public, but so is Congress and the President. Drug testing should start with the top dogs.

Since when did taking illicit drugs trump one's fiduciary responsibility to the public's domain of funding? And I agree with both sides on this one. Captains of industry who have government contracts (I had to do it)... Politicians, lawyers, the military, etc.

If your money comes from public funds or have a vocation in which you are responsible for others lives; then everyone should be required to take random drug & breathalyzer tests during work hours. I mean if you don't do drugs or do them within the legal limit (i.e., alcohol); what have got to be afraid of from a test? [you see what I did here, right? /smartass]

And yes; welfare recipients. If for no other reason than to help them get into a program so they can start on the path of being productive members of society. Why is that so wrong?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[rushmc 18]

normiss

Drug testing should start with a warrant.

I work a job where I am in a group that is subject to random drug tests (not CDL related) and no one bitches about that!

Why hell anyone thinks freeloaders cant have requirments put upon them to get freebies is beyond me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

normiss

There generally exists NO probable cause for a whizz test by simply applying for benefits.

But sure, some folks feel empowered and better than the low lifes that need public assistance to continue the socio-economic grip on them.

I was agreeing with you. "absolutely" should start with a warrant (since it's a tacit accusation of criminal activity). not sure you got that.

I don't understand your 2nd sentence. Are you saying that there is a segment that doesn't want drug testing for welfare types because that would reduce the welfare membership numbers? and thus the left would lose some of it's support from those dependent upon government payouts?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 642]

Sorry, not quite.

Some folks love keeping the lower incomes stuck there, period.
Since they live such miserable lives, why the hell should they be able to party and enjoy life like the rest of us??
They should remain poor and down trodden forever. Blocking them from receiving federal funds ensures they stay "where they belong".

[rehmwa 2]

normiss

They should remain poor and down trodden forever. Blocking them from receiving federal funds ensures they stay "where they belong".

Interesting - It seems history really shows the opposite - dependency breeds more dependency - and drives a growth in dependency. Not success.


1 - BLOCKING them from getting funds - ensures they "can't advance and stay where they belong"

2 - GIVING them funds - ensures they "stay dependent on the tit and stay where they belong"

^ seems the true bad guys are anyone with an interest in the status quo (incumbents)



Interesting that you note the passive act of letting people fend for themselves is described as 'blocking' (an active verb, not passive).

but the divide is more simply understood when you realize that both sides sincerely (common man, not leaders - they are NOT sincere) truly believe the other team's positions are directly harmful.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 642]

Excellent points.

[kallend 1,678]

rehmwa

***www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html?_r=0

(Personally I suggest that poor people on welfare should only have to take drug tests AFTER all the execs of corporations receiving government largess have passed one).

both are types of welfare - why would one or the other have to go "first" - just because you have a bias only against one and not the other?



Oh, that's an easy one. Someone has to go first, and it should be the one taking the most from the taxpayers. That would NOT be an indigent on food stamps.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sfzombie13 310]

see my post above regarding inaccuracy of said tests.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[rickjump1 0]

normiss

Drug testing should start with a warrant.

Warrant? If I remember right, it was a condition of employment. You knew ahead of time you were subject to drug and alcohol testing. It came with the job, and nobody complained about it.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.