Congressman busted with Cocaine. Votes for drug testing food stamp recipients....

reply to post by Cabin

I do not see hyprocy in it, to be honest, as the congressman is not on foodstamps himself.

Not becasue he is on foodstamps, because he wants poor people who get a couple bucks a month food aid to be drug free. At the same time he is busted using Cocaine.

If you do not see the hypocrisy in that then I don't know what to say. Hell, even to stock shelves at a grocery store or some other min wage job that any dummy can do you can't even smoke a joint without pissing hot.

Drug testing costs a lot, especially at US prices.

Yep, and that is why it is mandatory all over the place. These drug testing companies make lots of money having mandatory employment and random drug screenings in the workplace. I think Drug testing should be banned unless you keep coming to work F' ed up. Besides, anyone who has been smoking or whatever for any length of time knows ways around the different tests, so they really aren't a foolproof way to detect if someone uses or not. Not to mention the whole privacy thing that relates to it all.

The hardcore drugs are out of your system anyways in a day or two. Its the most harmless illegal drug that stays in your system for a long time the vast majority of people get busted with on drugs tests.

I`m sure he isn`t the only one,congress addicted to coc aine huh? well that explains how obamacare got passed. We seem to have a bunch of drunken drug addicted meatheads running the country.

reply to post by NaturalDizaster


What's with the blame Republican attitude while making it look like Democrats are innocent of these things too? Republicans and Democrats are two heads of the same bad penny, and it keeps turning up. You need to distance yourself from this whole Democrat vs. Republican thing, maybe then you'd understand how things really work. Blaming one party while giving the other a pass is what has gotten us into the mess we are in and is continuing to keep us there.

colddeadhands
reply to post by Cabin

 

No the congressman is not on food stamps. He is however supported by taxpayer dollars. Here's an example that might help you to see the point(if you care to). Let's suppose you own a company(the taxpayers do it's called USA). Would you want your managers making drug induced decisions on your behalf? That is what is happening when our government officials are hyped up on drugs and making decisions about "What's good for the people". As for welfare recipients I would tend to be a little more lenient just because there are those truly in need(maybe I would allow them one and only one chance to test positive. Only if they agreed to extensive drug rehab effective immediately). I would rather pay a little more to give them a chance to get off drugs than support their drug habit!

He is not supported on taxpayer dollars - he earns them. Here for example hospitals are not private, so the doctors are paid from taxpayers dollars, just the same ways as people building roads, as government contracts the company and pays them for the work. This does not mean they are on taxpayers welfare.

Food stamps or whatever else social welfare is not a salary, congressman is a job, whether one has respect for the job or not. At the end they are working for their salary on their job. Government employees are not on taxpayers welfare...

Don´t get me wrong. I support social welfare fully, although I still do not see it as hypocricy, as the congressman is not on welfare, he simply works for the government which is funded by taxpayers - job like any else.

It is quite clear when somebody is on drugs or not. I do not know how it is in US, but here every local congress voting is recorded and shown on TV, usually these are full of reporters. If anybody was on drugs, it would be all over the news. Behavioural cues would simply betray their drug use. I guess it is simiral at US too, not many closed congress/senate votings.

We do not know how often the congressman does hard drugs. The fact that he was caught once does not mean he is doing daily or weekly. Maybe every once in a while, every couple of months at some party, maybe for the first time in years. This does not necessarily mean he is on drugs while working. I know several successful people, who party hard when not working, sometimes even doing harder drugs. This does not mean they are incompetent at their job. Office is office, home is home. What one does at home, does not mean they are the same at office. You are judging him based on one occasion he got busted. Based on that one occasion you make the prejudice that he is taking drug-induced decisions at work, when taking decisions for the taxpayers.

I could care less what any of my managers or team members under my supervision is on drugs when out of office or not as long as they are not like that at work. If they are, that would be a large problem, but so far I have yet to meet a drunk or high person at job, despite knowing that some have problems with drinking or drugs. As long as it doesn´t affect their job, I don´t care. I have talked with them, but it is their life and they can do whatever they want outside office, as long as it doesn´t affect their productivity at work.

reply to post by Cabin

Food stamps or whatever else social welfare is not a salary, congressman is a job, whether one has respect for the job or not. At the end they are working for their salary on their job. Government employees are not on taxpayers welfare...

I'll break it down for you again.

Almost any job in the U.S. these days requires you to pass a pre-employment and random drug tests while performing said job.

You yourself just said Congressman is a job, and a more important one than something like a walmart janitor, right? So why should the politicians get a free pass all the while they pass legislation that favors these drug testing companies and then said company in many cases, gives that politician some kickbacks/bribes for expanding their business. In many cases these drug tests do nothing but get poor folks fired for eight dollar an hour jobs for smoking a doobie. (In the majority of cases.)

Good ol' fashioned American Capitalism at its finest.

Used to, maybe 15 years ago, you could go and get a most jobs and keep them without this drug testing hassle. Nowadays it is everywhere, even flipping burgers at Micky D's. So now they want to test people that don't even have jobs so these companies can make even more money and they can have more control over people?

One more point, you didn't need to make this into some stupid partisan attack thread. All you needed to do was point out the hypocrisy of the congressman trying to push drug testing for welfare recipients then proceed to post a few links

Welfare Drug Testing Catches Only 12 Users In Utah
Oklahoma's drug screening of welfare applicants proves costly
Drug Testing Welfare Recipients to Prevent Abuse

that show that doing these programs is a waste of money and never produces the results the legislators are looking for. Then we ALL could have a good (united) laugh or at the least "tsk tsk" at the corrupt politicians doing dumb things. Instead you immediately put all Republicans on the defensive as they enter the thread. Again rise above the partisan bickering if you truly want to see change implemented in our country.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Yea the drug testing approach was simply a big "hay we need to clean this up" platform issue.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


My points was:

If a person can afford drugs, he does not require food aid, as drugs are expensive. Just the same way I do not see alcoholics or heavy smokers poor enough for food aid.

I am heavy smoker, smoking one-two packs a day. One pack costs 3 euros. 1,5 packs a day equals 45 packs a month = 45*3=135 euros a month. When I worked at a factory as engineer, most of the lower level line workers smoked, usually even more than me. And yet they constantly complained about low salaries, not being able to afford even food. The salaries were not behind them not being able to afford food, but their expensive habits. Same goes for drug users, who are simply putting all their money on the wrong things and then complaining they don´t have money for food and asking for help...

I understand the wrongness in that thing, although I do not agree with the solution of drug-testing. I would rather have free rehab clinics opened, which would cure the root of the problem, not the symptoms as drug-testing does and possibly it would simply increase crime rates. I never get the right-wing solutions to such problems.


I agree drug-testing should not happen. As long as the employee is not high/drunk/on drugs at work, they can do whatever they want at home.

reply to post by Cabin

If a person can afford drugs, he does not require food aid, as drugs are expensive. Just the same way I do not see alcoholics or heavy smokers poor enough for food aid.

Drugs aren't that expensive in alot of cases. Especially if you can make or grown your own illegal drugs.

You've never gotten drunk off cheap wine? Really? It does'nt take that much to be an alcoholic. A couple bucks will get you a bottle of MadDog 20/20 here and that stuff will tear you up drunk as hell. I'm sure you Brits have a cheap wine over there too.

I am heavy smoker, smoking one-two packs a day. One pack costs 3 euros. 1,5 packs a day equals 45 packs a month = 45*3=135 euros a month. When I worked at a factory as engineer, most of the lower level line workers smoked, usually even more than me. And yet they constantly complained about low salaries, not being able to afford even food. The salaries were not behind them not being able to afford food, but their expensive habits. Same goes for drug users, who are simply putting all their money on the wrong things and then complaining they don´t have money for food and asking for help...

Everyone in Europe smokes!! Seriously, its part of the culture there. They have cigarette machines on alot of the street corners in germany for chrissake. A bunch of Euros spending money on smokes first is a bad example. It is the most addictive thing and I think your example just testifies to the addictiveness of nicotine and not peoples behavior.

I would rather have free rehab clinics opened, which would cure the root of the problem, not the symptoms as drug-testing does and possibly it would simply increase crime rates.

I know people that use illegal drugs recreationally, alot of them actually, and only one of them is a deadbeat with no job that gets a crazy check. The rest are decent people that you would never suspect as "druggies" if you met them and shook their hand.

reply to post by Cabin


Im sorry but I have to retort... That statement is about the most ignorant i have heard in a while...

I could care less if somebody not on social security, who earns their money, does drugs every once in a while, as long as they do not harm others because of it.

Do you have on idea how many people got killed transporting that coc aine from south america... obviously u dont... Check your facts!!!

reply to post by NaturalDizaster


It is cases such as these that sort of support the notion that the legislation of morality is inherently immoral in a free society.

All prohibion laws against the selling, purchasing, manufacturing, or possession of any good or service should be abolished. They do more harm than good.

reply to post by Iqarus

Do you have on idea how many people got killed transporting that bootlegged whiskey from [insert state]... obviously u dont... Check your facts!!!

It wouldn't be an issue of it wasn't illegal.

There would be no more drug cartels or gangs getting funding through the black market sale of prohibited goods.

Maybe you need to check your facts. History proves that prohibition does more harm than good. If you support murders taking place over disputes that could have been resolved in a court between legalized businesses...then you should continue supporting prohibition.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


I got mine straight .. but it seems you need to check your glasses I wasnt debating legallity or illegallity of drugs, just the ignorance of thinking that you as things are now can be a consumer of drugs without it having consequences for people elsewhere.

But hey im all for legalizing

Begone with shady cartels and hello corporate legal highs

Lets counter hiprocacy with more hiprocracy:

A North Dakota legislator from Fargo was arrested Monday night for driving under the influence. Democratic Rep. Scot Kelsh was pulled over on Interstate 29 shortly after 11:30 p.m. Monday in Fargo. “Mr. Kelsh was stopped … and arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence,” said Sgt. Troy Hischer of the North Dakota Highway Patrol. Hischer said Kelsh was northbound on I-29 heading toward the Main Avenue exit in Fargo at the time of his being stopped.

Here's the kicker:

Kelsh voted for a tougher DUI law earlier this year during the legislative session that increased fines and penalties for each offense.

bismarcktribune.com...

You dems aint so innocent, no??

ETA: argh, wont let me LINK the story

This congressman's own party, collectively, should be calling for him to resign. Remember when Anthony Weiner was "caught" tweeting suggestive pics to someone? Yes, what he did was totally legal; yet his party collectively asked him to resign. This guy breaks the law, drug possession at that, and not a peep from his peers. Shaking my damn head.

Retired, drawing my social security after 42 years of working and paying into the system.
Welfare was intented to help the unfortunate get back on their feet and eventually find a job. It was never intended to be a way of life. So I believe if someone has been collecting welfare more than four years then they have no intention of trying to better themselves and should be subjected to drug screens at their own expense if they want to continue to collect welfare.

If it were required of me to drug test for my social security payments, illegal drugs only, I would not have a problem doing so, albeit I would not like it.

Give me a beer. Need to fight my boredom.

reply to post by NaturalDizaster


Pretty much what I thought this thread would be. Lefties are all for cancelling the war on drugs and legalizing them... until someone they don't like uses them. Then throw the book at them!

I love how the lefties dont say anything about the post I made lol

HomerinNC
I love how the lefties dont say anything about the post I made lol

Maybe because the comparison you made doesn't quite fit. The guy who got the DUI is innocent until proven guilty. The Congressman discussed in the OP has already plead guilty.

Furthermore, the Congressman in the OP is a US congressman; who has sway on issues nationwide; whereas, the story you linked, is a merely in the state legislature.

Nevertheless, both should resign their respective positions.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


Same thing, they both were busted for something they were rallying against, dont matter if its state or national level