Politician who wanted to drug-test welfare recipients busted for drugs.

Isn't it amusing the level of hypocrisy we see from our elected officials. Just like oftentimes the most homophobic of people may turn out gay, does it not surprise people that situations like this appear?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Trey Radel, Busted On Cocaine Charge, Voted For Drug Testing Food Stamp Recipients

WASHINGTON -- In September, Rep. Trey Radel voted for Republican legislation that would allow states to make food stamp recipients pee in cups to prove they're not on drugs. In October, police busted the Florida Republican on a charge of coc aine possession.

“It’s really interesting it came on the heels of Republicans voting on everyone who had access to food stamps get drug tested," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told BuzzFeed Tuesday. "It’s like, what?”

Are different standards ok to be applied, depending on which strata of society you exist on, or should the laws be one and the same for all, regardless of wealth or position?

Why aren't politicians drug tested? People working with things as simple as dishwashers are often required to be checked. So why aren't those "in charge of the laws" being tested too? Someone working a dishwasher has to be cold sober but a politician doesn't have to be? Sick country.

S + F

Cool maybe we should drug test politicians and bust them for drugs too .

Test Obama first!

If we Drug Tested Politicians...

They would be no one left.

a reply to: cuckooold

But you misunderstand! He wants people who receive State or Federal funds to be drug tested. He pays for his stuff out of his pocket.

Um....wait a minute...

a reply to: whyamIhere

If we drug tested politicians the laws would change so fast their heads would spin.

RunForTheHills: Obama probably uses medical weed. Like most in charge he enjoys a medical program, while the citizens are labeled criminals

a reply to: cuckooold

but, but, but that's ok...Politicians arn't on welfare, the salaries they use to buy their drugs are just paid by the hard working tax payers of this country. (sarc)

Do as I say, not as I do.



Hard to trust anybody these days.

Just a question: If someone who was not paid by tax dollars, and was not receiving government aid paid for by tax dollars, and was a proponent of drug testing welfare recipients was then found to be using drugs, would anyone care?

The reason I pose this is that I only partially agree that this is complete hypocrisy. I for one think if you earn your own way (and yes, that does include politicians... they "do" a job and receive compensation for it,) you should be free to spend your money as you see fit, so long as it isn't hurting anyone else directly.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

If they were a politician in a legal state who voted for/supported legality then it's not a problem. But his person voted against it. And honestly, they all should be tested. The system wages the drug war, these clowns vote for it and work for the same bird regardless of which wing they flap. It's utter hypocrisy.

Legal state, voted for/support it, it's not a problem but still should be tested.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Very fair point.

To vote against legalization, and then partake, is complete hypocrisy... Unless they are voting as their constituents want them to.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Problem is the constituents don't decide the policies, TPTB do. And they decide ultimately what the governments do.

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
Just a question: If someone who was not paid by tax dollars, and was not receiving government aid paid for by tax dollars, and was a proponent of drug testing welfare recipients was then found to be using drugs, would anyone care?

The reason I pose this is that I only partially agree that this is complete hypocrisy. I for one think if you earn your own way (and yes, that does include politicians... they "do" a job and receive compensation for it,) you should be free to spend your money as you see fit, so long as it isn't hurting anyone else directly.

If it was just some average joe that wanted to drug test people before they were able to get food stamps, that would not be hypocrisy. A despicable person, but not a hypocrite.

However, a politician is getting welfare just like the person on food stamps. I'd personally rather hand money to the local hungry junkie than to a coke-rattled politician any day. Or any politician, for that matter, drugs or not. If my taxes are going to fund a person who might fail a drug test, I would rather fund somebody in need and not some greasy would-be used car salesman that got a few breaks in politics.

a reply to: Cuervo

I can't call what a politician does welfare. I think they should be paid much less, but they are at least employed. (Not that I think politicians really do anything, but many employed people don't either.)

Care to elaborate why you think the average Joe would be "a despicable person" for wanting to drug test people receiving other people's money and doing nothing to earn it?

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: Cuervo

I can't call what a politician does welfare. I think they should be paid much less, but they are at least employed. (Not that I think politicians really do anything, but many employed people don't either.)

Care to elaborate why you think the average Joe would be "a despicable person" for wanting to drug test people receiving other people's money and doing nothing to earn it?

When a person is allowed to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists to vote in direct opposition of the American peoples' interests, it's worse than doing nothing. So, yeah... I think the average poverty-stricken person on both welfare and drugs provides more value to me than the average politician.

As far as a person being "despicable" for wanting to drug test? It's because it's a prejudiced assumption in the first place and, where it actually took place, was proven totally inefficient and to be an even bigger waste of tax dollars. Besides, I don't care how many addictions and problems the lady in line with her kids has, I want her to feed her kids. If you want to help, then provide counseling and rehab if it's a problem... taking away food helps nobody.

Maybe, just maybe the MSM is starting to focus our attention on drugs for a purpose.

As states are beginning to legalize a certain drug, people are becoming more accepting. You have to sign for it, though.

You are not legally allowed to own a firearm in America if you are known to use drugs- legal or not.

My suspicious mind thinks this would be a darn good way to eliminate gun ownership while giving people something that they want. It would take a few more years to implement, but the gov. has shown their willingness to take rights away through deception many times before, even if it takes years to do so.

We're paying six figure incomes to a bunch of criminals in DC, and we're not getting our money's worth.

a reply to: nugget1

Why are they making drugs an issue now? Manufactured rebellion is one part. But now they want to make more money from it, completely screw up the genetics/benefits of the plant, introduce toxins, evne though many will be labeled as "organic" they want to promote it as an escape instead of a medicine. Another way to dull the populace. The population is already using it as a party drug, even moreso in the states where it's legal.

They reaped the trillion from their drug trade/war so now they want it in the next phase.

a reply to: Cuervo

Thanks for the insight.

As I stated, I agree on the politician side when it comes to the money they receive (especially the money from lobbyists.)

I have read the results when they did in fact do this, and I personally would not want to spend tax dollars to do drug testing. However, I also do not want tax dollars to go towards fueling drug use of welfare recipients. I do not think someone on welfare is any more or less likely to use drugs, but if you are employed and earning you own money, I say waste it on whatever you want if you aren't hurting anyone else. A parent with a drug problem, on welfare or not, is hurting their children. It's a tough scenario for me to rationalize, and I certainly don't have all the answers.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Good point, for instance, I could have sworn Bush was on crack with half the tripe that came out of his mouth.

Seriously - crack.