Americans Want Congress Members To Pee In Cups To Prove They're Not On Drugs

[bobandtorey]

WASHINGTON -- While most Americans like the idea of drug testing for welfare recipients, they LOVE the idea of drug testing for members of Congress.

According to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, 64 percent of Americans favor requiring welfare recipients to submit to random drug testing -- a measure pushed by Republican lawmakers in recent years -- while 18 percent oppose it. But an even stronger majority said they're in favor of random drug testing for members of Congress, by a 78 percent to 7 percent margin. Sixty-two percent said they "strongly" favor drug testing for congressional lawmakers, compared to only 51 percent who said the same of welfare recipients.

[+Malamute]

Noone(almost) should be drug tested.

 

 I do not wish to destroy other peoples constitutional rights because I have had mine infringed upon.

 

 It is the exact opposite argument I wish to make. 

 

 It is wrong for everyone.

[trichcycler]

true Mal. consider this however. If the powers that be

require me to pee then so shall there pee in my public cup for scrutiny

. They should be held to a much higher standard than a working class citizen.

After all they have our very lives in their hands.

 

 

I'll make a deal. stop the pee tests for us, and I wont vote for testing them.

[Restorium2]

You would have to test them for being drunk at work for this to have any power at all. Then you would have em by the short hairs .... 

[trichcycler]

yeah, better to just leave them to their vices and the laws they perpetuate while under that influence maybe. Perhaps our country is in a state of disrupt for the state of drunkenness that historically has plagued law makers and kings, as well as their decisions , forever. We cannot trust a person to flip a frozen beefish patty after toking a joint two weeks ago ! Doctors cut our services when we test positive for their chosen products, even if we have a permit to use!. I wonder if organs/transplants are denied for drug use? Or blood donations? there must be a better alternative of course, but ops article is a first step to recognizing an obvious issue imo.

[+Malamute]

Here is the issue,... it is unconstitutional to require drug testing.  Constitutionally we cannot force them to pee test. 

 

There has to be a lever of waiving your rights to be forced to drug test.

 

 Currently the drug testing companies have used groups like ALEC(American legislative exchange council:  a mostly republican corporate trading house for corporate and 'money'd interests to exchange prewritten laws) and anti drug groups to push through this money making scheme. 

 

 This whole drug testing welfare recipients idea was created by drug testing corporations, written by their  lobbyists and attorneys, then fed through, for a few million dollars, groups like ALEC(who have thousands of rep/sen members. (The republicans in Michigan just within like the last two years, wanted the taxpayer to pay for their memberships to ALEC). 

 

 Well the first time the drug companies tried this, they got greedy and sent out legislation that asked for mandatory drug testing.  It failed in federal court to be constitutional.  Now they are using the "suspicion based" nonsense and so far it is working.  I believe about 11 or 12 states have voted in some sort of this legislation.

 

Once ya peel back the layers..,   it is very rotten.  And once ya know the truth to these things,... it can be very disheartening. 

[Restorium2]

Yes, like the cops write our laws for us. They lobbied legislature with our tax dollars so they are NOT drug tested to be a cop or a prison guard. 

[+Malamute]

I mean,.. everyone knows there is some scam,.... but once ya learn to watch these things from seed to fruition,... ya realize how icky it is and how uneducated people are.  And not like derogatory uneducated. Just ignorant to the situations and what is behind the curtain.

[+Malamute]

I mean,... like the average joe representative that is deciding whether to vote on a piece of legislation is usually uneducated completely to why and how that language is crossing their desk. They have an idea,... but the key to groups like ALEC is that the original perpetraitors are rarely known. Thus why they drop these legislative drafts into a figurative 'pool'  and just let them bubble and circulate and sit there until some douche rep/sen decides they want to do something about something and they go to ALEC's private website and research a bill on.... for example" screwing over welfare recipients".. and *poof*  20 bills show up.  "model language".

[+Malamute]

And then the group ALEC themselves will start pushing and highlighting certain model language in their newsletters, depending on how much a certain corporation has paid them,... and that is when you see sudden booms in certain laws passing in different states at the same time.

[Restorium2]

It all starts with a little idea that " screwing over welfare recipients" will get me some votes from my constituents because they just loved it when I got behind the 4 year cap deal....

[+Malamute]

I mean, groups like MPP and DPA(marijuana policy project/Drug policy alliance) have basically served as the marijuana movements "ALEC".

 

See all sides of the issue and conundrum.  Hate em all as ya might,.. they make ya play their legislative game.

[Restorium2]

Oh yeah, they had to do things to lower wages first so that everyone is looking around for a reason someone else isn't pulling their load. Back in the 90's when things were going better not so many people were worried about who got some help.

[+Malamute]

I guess what I am saying is, by turning us against each other and having us screaming for more drug testing is doing nothing but doing the originators dirty work for them. Don't be a tool for the basstards that are forcing this on americans.

[Restorium2]

As the gap between the richest and the poorest was shrinking their opening move was to turn us on each other. Now that's working and the gap is widening again. 

[+Malamute]

Exactly.

 

Why is it that 65% or more of people think it is ok to drug test welfare recipients?

 

 Why?

 

What possible good reasoning is there to it?  I mean, right here on a marijuana forum when this plan was first announced to be passed,... I was hit with ALOT of people in this forum stating they thought welfare people should be drug tested.

 

 

Shame.  Shame on all of you.  :-)

 

Unreasonable search my friends.  What ever made you think that type of intrusion is ok?  What mind training occurred for you to lose sensibility and compassion?

[+Malamute]

OLD ARTICLE 2011

 

A Rasmussen poll released this week found majority support for automatic drug testing of new welfare applicants and lesser, but still high, levels of support for drug testing people already receiving welfare benefits.

 

The poll comes as a new law Florida law mandating the suspicionless drug testing of welfare applicants and recipients is about to be implemented. Missouri has also passed a law requiring the drug testing of welfare recipients if there is "reasonable suspicion" to suspect drug use.

Bills to drug test welfare recipients have become increasingly popular as states face tough economic times and seek ways to tighten their belts, even though it is not clear that the costs of drug testing tens or hundreds of thousands of people would be offset by the savings generated by throwing drug users off the dole.

Such bills are also constitutionally dubious. A 1999 Michigan law subjecting welfare recipients to suspicionless drug testing was thrown out by the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003 when the court found that it amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

But that doesn't stop politicians, and this Rasmussen poll suggests why legislators find supporting drug testing such an enticing position.

The national telephone survey of likely voters found that 53% believe all welfare applicants should be drug tested before receiving benefits.  Another 13% only supported random drug testing, while 29% said welfare applicants should only be tested if there was a reasonable suspicion they were using drugs.

That is a whopping 95% who said they thought welfare applicants should be drug tested either routinely, randomly, or upon suspicion. That high number may be an artifact of the poll design; the poll questions only gave those three options when respondents were asked about whether welfare applicants should be drug tested. Rasmussen polling is also reputed to tilt in the conservative direction, which could also skew the findings. But with such a high number, the the general meaning of the results seems clear.

Respondents were more divided when it comes to testing people who are already receiving benefits. Some 35% said recipients should be tested only where there is reasonable suspicion, 31% supported random drug tests, and 29% said all recipients should be regularly tested.

If welfare recipients are found to be using illegal drugs, 70% of respondents said they should lose their benefits. Only 15% said they opposed taking away benefits, while another 15% were undecided. Of those who said benefits should be ended, 58% said it should happen for a first offense, while 40% said there should be one or more warnings before cutting benefits.

[+Malamute]

Posted: 12/03/2014

 

WASHINGTON -- A federal court has ruled once again that Florida's short-lived effort to drug test all welfare applicants violated their constitutional rights.

 

For several months in 2011, Florida required all applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to submit urine samples to prove they weren't on drugs. The Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of a single dad named Luis Lebron and a federal court halted the drug testing scheme with a preliminary injunction.

 

Florida Gov. Rick Scott ® appealed the injunction, then appealed the court's final decision. Now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has affirmed it once again, ruling that making all welfare applicants take drug tests violates their Fourth Amendment rights against involuntary search and seizure.

 

A key factor in the court's decision is that the state has failed to demonstrate "a more prevalent, unique, or different drug problem among TANF applicants than in the general population," the panel wrote in its decision Wednesday. Just 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for drugs before the program was halted.

 

Earlier this year the Florida ACLU mocked Scott for spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on futile appeals.

 

"It’s become a costly and embarrassing boondoggle for Floridians," Florida ACLU staff attorney Shalini Goel Agarwal said at the time.

 

A Scott spokesman said Wednesday the governor is reviewing the court's decision.

 

Ever since Scott ran afoul of federal courts, other states that have sought to drug test welfare recipients have tried to avoid civil liberties lawsuits by testing only applicants the state has reason to suspect might be on drugs.

[+Malamute]

And republicans believe in rights and the constitution?

[+Malamute]

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201410322.pdf

 

Link to ruling from Dec 3rd.

[+Malamute]

Also, reasonable suspicion is a BS excuse.

 

I would say at minimum a probable cause must be established, and even then I find it ridiculous. :-)

[trichcycler]

Yes, here it is. Thanks again for your advocacy, grassmatch. I see time and time again from your posts that trustworthy decisions and actions cannot be made under the influence of cannabis.

That's baloney Zap. First the article bit that op posted didn't mention cannabis, but "drug testing". Keep this within context please. Second I spoke specifically of "the state of drunkenness" not cannabis use as you proposed.

 

If you're referring to my statement of "We cannot trust a person to flip a frozen beefish patty after toking a joint two weeks ago" I'm surprised you could not sense, as in a contextual manner, that I was referring to the vibe of America and their standards, testing standards even currently.

 

as in " geesh, the man wont even let us flip burgers if we used bhang two weeks ago, yet, they can go on and make laws that imprison our citizens in record breaking numbers, without ever being drug tested" . Sorry , I thought the general ideal came through there. Composition is not my strong point. I reread the post and heard it in the way I intended, so I left it be.

[trichcycler]

Also, reasonable suspicion is a BS excuse.

 

I would say at minimum a probable cause must be established, and even then I find it ridiculous. :-)

right, and all along, we have been and will continue to be subjected to spot drug tests, even if we don't like it right?

If that never stops, and politicians never need to get tested, here we are in our current state of affairs. I'd enjoy the end of public drug testing for citizens more first, before I squashed the notion of public servant testing personally.

[Wild Bill]

No one should ever be drug tested by any government agency or a private company hired by any government agency ever. But if the politicians feel that those who receive government money need to be tested then EVERYONE who receives government money should be tested. That should pass their "constitutional fairness" tests. These pricks wouldn't know the constitution if you slapped them in the face with it.

 

What are they after, those who use drugs or poor people? The main motivation seems to be some sort of vengeance. The attitude is if you have no money it's your own fault and you need to be brow beaten and abused for it. It's low hanging fruit again. Those who can't afford to defend themselves in court.

 

Urine tests! Our pioneer ancestors would pi*s in their graves at the thought of urine tests to decide whether a man is competent to do his job. - William S. Burroughs

 

[Willy]

yeah, better to just leave them to their vices and the laws they perpetuate while under that influence maybe. Perhaps our country is in a state of disrupt for the state of drunkenness that historically has plagued law makers and kings, as well as their decisions , forever. We cannot trust a person to flip a frozen beefish patty after toking a joint two weeks ago ! Doctors cut our services when we test positive for their chosen products, even if we have a permit to use!. I wonder if organs/transplants are denied for drug use? Or blood donations? there must be a better alternative of course, but ops article is a first step to recognizing an obvious issue imo.

yes they are, 

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org%2Fdrugs%2Fdenied-liver-transplant-using-medical-marijuana-and-dying-it-heartlessness-prohibition&ei=mJuFVPmAE4mfNq-FhPgI&usg=AFQjCNFVEbYbzntm_QBMutlxwkOel-_kLg&sig2=Le3DlhvchD-uX6-LfP7ETA&bvm=bv.80642063,d.eXY

Edited December 8, 2014 by Willy