Another win for the Constitution

[ryoder 1,404]

sfzombie13

see my post above regarding inaccuracy of said tests.

Also from the article in the original link:

Quote

State records showed that the requirement cost more money to carry out than it saved.

But apparently some people are bent on continuing the witch hunts, even if it takes more tax dollars. Just like McCarthyism of the 50's and the Salem witch hunts, mandatory random drug testing operates on the principle that you are guilty until proven innocent.

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

[funjumper101 15]

rushmc

***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

So you like being a slave to the company?
They own you 24/7/365? You like that they want to have their nose in your business after hours when you aren't at work?

What you do on your own time is your own business. I thought that as an RWC, you valued your privacy and would not tolerate government and private businesses messing with your personal life.

[BIGUN 1,090]

sfzombie13

see my post above regarding inaccuracy of said tests.

I am exceedingly familiar with testing and results. Being in Disaster Response with federal & state contracts; we had to perform mandatory random tests using an external agency. Most of the false positives are a result of some person in the company (usually HR) not doing the procedure right. And, there are more false negatives than positives. Everyone has the right to get an independent third party lab to do a subsequent test. Those who walk away and do not take the option.... well, that is their choice also.

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

[BIGUN 1,090]

normiss

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".

Mark, I just want to make sure my position is clear... I am not suggesting that the funding gets yanked just because one flunks a test. I am suggesting that the DHS/SSA do its job and get those that are not physically or mentally handicapped on a path to productivity. If it requires help with drugs, job training... Let me just say there it a ton of agencies AND money out there to help just about anyone who needs or wants it.

And, there's even help for those who don't know there's a better way.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

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.

by what math is the person paying no taxes, but getting food stamps, taking less from the taxpayers than the CEOs who pay millions in income taxes each year?

sounds like the kind of math that Douglas Adams would write about.

[sfzombie13 308]

no, you are not remembering correctly. it started with no drug testing before employment, they would ask you if you could do the job and take you at your word that you would follow the rules on the job. then, started drug testing as a condition for employment, some say because people were getting high on the job or whatever. in reality, it was because insurance companies are evil. they say that drug users cost more money, so if you drug test, you won't have to pay as much in premiums. or companies would save money on insurance premiums or it was a requirement for government contracts to have an anti drug program.

and i do believe that it was very hotly challenged in courts when first implemented, but i may be misremembering that, it was a long time ago. but to a lot of people now, they don't remember the times before the madness. so it is understandable. but this is what it's like when we start relinquishing our freedoms starting with the ones a lot of people can agree on, like this. you were a fool to argue against drug testing, a monster. then we gave up just a little more, and a little more, etc. until now people can't expect privacy on a phone call. or we can't go outside without someone watching you or tracking your movements with your cell phone.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[normiss 634]

Doesn't that make it a medical issue and not a welfare issue?
Both?

It's still a testing for an illegal substance with no warrant.


I fully agree that every sort of support needed and available should be provided, but we don't make moral decisions on that while vacating the 4th do we?

If so, why?

[skybill 19]

Hi Norm and all,
It's about the MONEY not the Drugs!!! Before you can say "Bounce" everyone will have "Blow-n-Go's" in all our vehicles!!! A buddy of mine in Texas said they have so many people with DUI's that have them in their cars that there are lines of people with them in their "Drive thru" once a month test stations!! $50 to $100 per pop. Takes 5 minutes to check one, that's $1200 to $2400/hr.!! It's a racket.

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[champu 1]

I'm divided on the issue to be honest.

Any sort of welfare provision should be assumed from day one to be a temporary arrangement. If the program is to remain sustainable in the long-term, the administrators have a duty to see that the arrangements are as temporary as possible. Insofar as drug usage (illegal or otherwise) inhibits the weening/recovery process, which I'll concede as moot, it makes sense to prohibit it as a condition.

[tkhayes 142]

Sadly the drug testing is still being implemented in other states, and more legislation through ALEC and similar organizations being pushed, and using Florida as a 'success' example.

The right wing cannot even admit that something is not working if that does not fit their agenda.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/drug-testing-and-public-assistance.aspx

[kallend 1,659]

kelpdiver

***
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.

by what math is the person paying no taxes, but getting food stamps, taking less from the taxpayers than the CEOs who pay millions in income taxes each year?

sounds like the kind of math that Douglas Adams would write about.

No, it's the kind of math that someone who realizes the ledger has 2 sides would write about.

AND if a CEO makes all her money from government pork, then the tax she pays is hardly relevant.

...

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

[RonD1120 58]

funjumper101

******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

So you like being a slave to the company?
They own you 24/7/365? You like that they want to have their nose in your business after hours when you aren't at work?

What you do on your own time is your own business. I thought that as an RWC, you valued your privacy and would not tolerate government and private businesses messing with your personal life.

IMO, RWCs are not the ones actively using substances that would show up on UAs. Substance use disorder is more common among your tribe. Alcohol is the exception as it is pretty much consumed universally.

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.

[rushmc 18]

funjumper101

******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

So you like being a slave to the company?
They own you 24/7/365? You like that they want to have their nose in your business after hours when you aren't at work?

What you do on your own time is your own business. I thought that as an RWC, you valued your privacy and would not tolerate government and private businesses messing with your personal life.

As far as the company goes you are right. they do not require the drug test ( oh, oh, did your assumptions cause foot and mouth disease again)

No, the Federal Government requires this pool be drug tested
Now don't you look silly

The group I am in falls under federal DOT gas transportation laws if you feel the need to verify

I hope you did not hurt you knee too badly

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

[BIGUN 1,090]

normiss

Doesn't that make it a medical issue and not a welfare issue?
Both?

I see it as both. Not saying I'm right or wrong; but its an issue.

normiss

It's still a testing for an illegal substance with no warrant. I fully agree that every sort of support needed and available should be provided, but we don't make moral decisions on that while vacating the 4th do we?

If so, why?

I can't think of a better discourse than the one presented by champu with an addition in bold:

champu

Any sort of welfare provision should be assumed from day one to be a temporary arrangement except in the case of those who are physically or mentally disabled. If the program is to remain sustainable in the long-term, the administrators have a duty to see that the arrangements are as temporary as possible. Insofar as drug usage (illegal or otherwise) inhibits the weening/recovery process, which I'll concede as moot, it makes sense to prohibit it as a condition of drawing from the public largess.

ETA: You and I had to do it in the military. Cops have to do it. Why not others who draw from the public largess?

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

Substance use disorder is more common among your tribe.

Fact, or assumption?

And please don't cite yourself as a source.

- Dan G

[RonD1120 58]

DanG

Quote

Substance use disorder is more common among your tribe.

Fact, or assumption?

And please don't cite yourself as a source.

I prefaced my post with IMO. Since I worked in the field I will cite myself as opinion. Have a nice day and stay warm.

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.

[DanG 1]

There are more rural white people on welfare than urban black people. Guess who tends to vote Republican?

And drug use is just as prevalent between the two groups.

Oh, I almost forgot, IMO.

- Dan G

[sfzombie13 308]

you are trying to compare apples and oranges. in the military (not sure about leo's) you give up a lot of rights, one of which says you can't just get up and go wherever you want to, without the proper authorization. another is that you do what they tell you, like piss in this cup, usually at 4 in the morning when they wake you out of bed and make you stand in formation when you have to piss really bad, but the latrines are off limits. i do not remember any cases where average citizens give up rights like this.

and the supposition is not testing for drugs because the public is footing the bill, it's because you are in a position of authority, and carry guns, and are allowed to shoot people, so that you shouldn't be under the influence of drugs. now, it has been proven (no citation, experience here) that you can get blackout drunk (legally) and be totally out of commission the next day (legally), and everything is all right; or you can get so high you lay down and go to sleep, and be totally fine the next day. which officer would you prefer in an emergency situation?

now, i am talking about mary jane here, not heroin or some other equally nasty substance. but i do not make allowances for those, nor would i provide exceptions for anything. my stance is: every legal citizen should have the same rights as every other legal citizen. no exceptions. what you do on your own time is your own business, so long as it does not affect somebody else. smoking pot at your house? ok. stealing to get money to buy pot? not ok. drinking alcohol? ok. driving drunk? not ok.

we could take that bold statement and make it the supreme law of the land, and base all other laws on it, and do away with all lawyers and most politicians on the face of it. it could be applied equally to every person and corporation in this country and we would have a much better place. no more confusion. the only thing courts would be for is to determine if anyone else were affected. would it stop all crime? no. but it would make it pretty clear what is right and what is wrong.

the one conflict i can see is abortion. hard to say whether the fetus would be considered "anyone else" and would have rights. i would lean towards if the fetus were able to sustain it's own life, then it's a person with the same rights. but if it had to be in an incubator for weeks in order to live, then no. but that would be a great debate no matter what. keeps it from being a utopian country.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[BIGUN 1,090]

Quote

and the supposition is not testing for drugs because the public is footing the bill, it's because you are in a position of authority, and carry guns, and are allowed to shoot people, so that you shouldn't be under the influence of drugs.

Ahhh... so it's a matter of public trust and responsibility?

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

[rickjump1 0]

sfzombie13

no, you are not remembering correctly. it started with no drug testing before employment, they would ask you if you could do the job and take you at your word that you would follow the rules on the job. then, started drug testing as a condition for employment, some say because people were getting high on the job or whatever. in reality, it was because insurance companies are evil. they say that drug users cost more money, so if you drug test, you won't have to pay as much in premiums. or companies would save money on insurance premiums or it was a requirement for government contracts to have an anti drug program.

and i do believe that it was very hotly challenged in courts when first implemented, but i may be misremembering that, it was a long time ago. but to a lot of people now, they don't remember the times before the madness. so it is understandable. but this is what it's like when we start relinquishing our freedoms starting with the ones a lot of people can agree on, like this. you were a fool to argue against drug testing, a monster. then we gave up just a little more, and a little more, etc. until now people can't expect privacy on a phone call. or we can't go outside without someone watching you or tracking your movements with your cell phone.

It wasn't just insurance companies, it was the FAA, and the public demanded sober, drug free people in the cockpit. I saw a great change in behavior on the job because most realized that their job was more important than getting stoned or drunk. There was a distinct change with drug/alcohol testing. Of course some didn't and they were gone. This has nothing to do with "relinquishing our freedoms". It's about safety and being sober in the workplace, and an employer has a right to expect this. Someone flying a helicopter or operating an offshore crane can switch to operating a broom or shovel anytime. It's their choice.

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

[sfzombie13 308]

yeah, if you're a pilot. but if you work at, say a shoe store, then where is the public outcry and outrage when you sell someone the wrong shoe? and show me how a drug test can tell if you are actually ON drugs AT THAT TIME? you can't because those things don't exist. when they can, i will be a strong supporter of them, provided they are 100% accurate.

i stand by my statement that what you do on your own time is your own business, so long as it does not affect others. say you're a pilot, and when you get out of the cockpit for the weekend you want to smoke a joint. you should be able to. if you want to smoke 10, you should be able to. then you should be able to go to work on monday and have no fear that you'll lose your job, because you are not hurting anyone, nor are yo putting anyone in jeopardy.

so, yes, it is all about freedom. we have all given up most of our freedoms, little by little, and in the name of safety. it's sickening. kind of like that guy who gave the speech in a meeting on gun control. i loved his statement in the end, "my freedom trumps your dead". and it does. http://conservativepost.com/army-vet-3-minutes-destroy-obama-gun-control-plan-2/

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[champu 1]

sfzombie13

Now, it has been proven (no citation, experience here) that you can get blackout drunk (legally) and be totally out of commission the next day (legally), and everything is all right; or you can get so high you lay down and go to sleep, and be totally fine the next day.

You would certainly be considered "totally fine" if compared to a person who was out all night drinking, but you're not "totally fine" compared to someone who did neither. I've seen the "hangover" from both, the duration is on the same order of time even if the symptoms are quite a bit different. There's a reason it's called "dope."

But I think your point was that high or drunk you're impaired, that's fine, but BAC tests will show you're sober even when you're hung over and useless while UA tests will show you've got drugs in your system weeks after you've recovered. I agree and have lamented this here before. This will only get more contentious as more states legalize pot but still go after people for pot DUIs.

sfzombie13

The only thing courts would be for is to determine if anyone else were affected.

And there is, as they say, the rub. This is basically an "interstate commerce" clause.

[turtlespeed 212]

DanG

There are more rural white people on welfare than urban black people. Guess who tends to vote Republican?

And drug use is just as prevalent between the two groups.

Oh, I almost forgot, IMO.

Not true.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Southern_Man 0]

BIGUN

ETA: You and I had to do it in the military. Cops have to do it. Why not others who draw from the public largess?

There is nothing inherent in the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a concrete danger that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[DanG 1]

Quote

Not true.

Which part?

- Dan G