Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
Newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr Instagram
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 25, 2014, 02:46:47 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
  • Total Members: 23786
  • Latest: rvarona
Stats
  • Total Posts: 643566
  • Total Topics: 48969
  • Online Today: 191
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: (This Is Only) A Test  (Read 9614 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Solo_LTSurvivor

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,176
  • Twerk Baby Twerk
(This Is Only) A Test
« on: June 01, 2011, 12:55:09 PM »
Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill on Tuesday that would require welfare recipients to take a mandatory drug test.

If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.

Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill on Tuesday that requires benefit recipients to undergo drug testing.

Applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment.

Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving the funds for three years.

"While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Scott said. "This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars."

If welfare candidates pass the drug screening, they'll be reimbursed for the test.

The legislation instantly came under a barrage of criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union and several of the Sunshine State's Democrats. They argued the bill is an invasion of privacy.

"The wasteful program created by this law subjects Floridians who are impacted by the economic downturn, as well as their families, to a humiliating search of their urine and body fluids without cause or even suspicion of drug abuse," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

"Searching the bodily fluids of those in need of assistance is a scientifically, fiscally, and constitutionally unsound policy. Today, that unsound policy is Florida law."

The law, which will be enacted July 1, is likely to be challenged. A similar bill was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in Michigan in 2003.

Gov. Scott...
 
don't equate intelligence with lack of masculinity
Jim Phelps, Mission Impossible
____________________________

Seroconverted: Early 80s
Tested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. 
Last regimen:  Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky ::))
Past regimens
Fun stuff (in the past):  HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

Jan 2012: 818/21%
Apr 2012: 964/22%
Jul. 2012: 890/21%
Oct. 2012: 920/23%

Still UD after all these years

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,932
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2011, 02:47:50 PM »
He looks like a leader of a cult.
Like that one, remember, Hale Bopp.
http://io9.com/5562509/the-aliens-are-coming-speech-that-convinced-39-cultists-to-take-their-lives

Sorry for the tangent.  But sometimes we should judge politicians by their scary fucking faces. 
ďFrom each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needĒ 1875 K Marx

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,038
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2011, 07:57:09 PM »
Jesus Christ made people take a urine drug screen before handing out those loaves and fishes.

Offline hope_for_a_cure

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,502
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2011, 08:24:38 PM »
There is talk about doing it here in SC too.

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2011, 08:27:44 PM »
He's also requiring all state employees be tested -
He is a one-termer - a real asshole...
Rumor has it that he owns a substantial portion of a drug testing company/lab that has been contracted to provide services related to the tests - don't know how true it is, but it wouldn't surprise me.
He actually was recently voted the most disliked governor in the United States.  His term can't come to an end quick enough --- too bad he just took office in January.
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline hope_for_a_cure

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,502
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2011, 08:33:51 PM »
I hear ya Phil.  Sounds like he had an 'asshole attack' for sure.  If he pisses off enough people down there hopefully a recall will do him in.  That idiot up in WI is going to get his due also.

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 12,196
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2011, 08:34:28 PM »
The party of limited government strikes again ! .  

Offline Solo_LTSurvivor

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,176
  • Twerk Baby Twerk
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2011, 12:11:56 AM »
He looks like a leader of a cult.
Like that one, remember, Hale Bopp.
http://io9.com/5562509/the-aliens-are-coming-speech-that-convinced-39-cultists-to-take-their-lives

Sorry for the tangent.  But sometimes we should judge politicians by their scary fucking faces. 

No apologies needed, Mecchie.  You're absolutely right. He does resemble that crazy assed fucker who thought the UFOs were coming to beam his ass away.
don't equate intelligence with lack of masculinity
Jim Phelps, Mission Impossible
____________________________

Seroconverted: Early 80s
Tested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. 
Last regimen:  Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky ::))
Past regimens
Fun stuff (in the past):  HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

Jan 2012: 818/21%
Apr 2012: 964/22%
Jul. 2012: 890/21%
Oct. 2012: 920/23%

Still UD after all these years

Offline J.R.E.

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,218
  • Joined Dec-2003 Living positive, since 1985.
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2011, 12:37:04 AM »


Yep,   This guy is pure evil.   He also wants to drug test State employees. And one of the places to get tested at, is " Solantic"  ( his wifes company )


http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/03/rick-scotts-new-gift-to-solantic-drug-testing-state-employees/
Current Meds ; Viramune, Epzicom, 40mg of simvastatin, 12.5mg of Hydrochlorothiazide.
Metoprolol tartrate 25mg



http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=40802.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=45159.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39722.msg495621;topicseen#msg495621

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=46806.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39414.msg491701#msg491701


 In October of 2003, My t-cell count was 16, Viral load was over 500,000, Percentage at that time was 5%. I started my first  HAART regimen  on October 24th,03.

 As of 8/2514,  t-cells are at 402, Viral load <40

 Current % is at 11%

  
 62 years young.

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2011, 09:20:38 AM »


   This is about the only thing I agree with that Rick Scott has touched with his dirty little paws.  I live in a low income neighborhood.   It grates my nerves when I see people buying alcohol and crack pipes with their EBT card(i think that's what it's called) at the corner store.   

   Speaking of Scott.   How did ya'll like that 625+ million dollar budget cut he made earlier this week?  Here in Central Florida we have centers for youth offenders that are already closing their doors.  I have a lot of friends that work for the local Prison who are having to look for jobs in a already non-existant job market.  My 19 year old works for nursing home and said they're receiving calls from the local mental institutions trying to place patients in anticipation of their own doors closing.
 
Way to go Tricky Ricky.... >:(
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline leatherman

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,272
  • Google and HIV meds are Your Friends
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2011, 10:04:06 AM »
It grates my nerves when I see people buying alcohol and crack pipes with their EBT card(i think that's what it's called) at the corner store. 
you need to call and report this store. EBT card purchases are only for food items. While soda is included, prepared foods (like from the deli) are not and neither is alcohol, or pet food and no cleaning supplies or toiletries. You do not need to report individuals for misuse of this card; but you should report the store that is allowing an illegal transaction. ;)

personally, I have been reporting locations for illegal transactions since the days when "food stamps" came in booklets that look like "monopoly money". Often food stamp benefits are given to households with children; but the drug/alcohol addicted parent (who usually receives no help to overcome their addiction) will "trade" these benefits for drugs/alcohol. By reporting the stores that make these illegal transfers you could very well be saving some child from starvation.

EBT Customer Service 1-888-356-3281
http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/ebt/EBTCustomerService.shtml
leatherman (aka mIkIE)


chart from 1992-2013; updated 2/09/13  Reyataz/Norvir/Truvada

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 12,196
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2011, 10:05:05 AM »
   This is about the only thing I agree with that Rick Scott has touched with his dirty little paws.  I live in a low income neighborhood.   It grates my nerves when I see people buying alcohol and crack pipes with their EBT card(i think that's what it's called) at the corner store.  


If desperate people are denied aid because they are addicted then it would be my guess all hell is going to break loose in these areas you speak of once this law takes effect . Its my view that treatment not punishment is the ansewer to addiction , neither one will help those that do not wish to be helped .    

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2011, 10:15:05 AM »
you need to call and report this store. EBT card purchases are only for food items. While soda is included, prepared foods (like from the deli) are not and neither is alcohol, or pet food and no cleaning supplies or toiletries. You do not need to report individuals for misuse of this card; but you should report the store that is allowing an illegal transaction. ;)

It has been reported already.



If desperate people are denied aid because they are addicted then it would be my guess all hell is going to break loose in these areas you speak of once this law takes effect . Its my view that treatment not punishment is the ansewer to addiction , neither one will help those that do not wish to be helped .   

It depends on how you look at it.  Perhaps part of the reason they are not working is due to drug addiction.   It's not the state's responsibility to enable this.   
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline leatherman

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,272
  • Google and HIV meds are Your Friends
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2011, 11:21:12 AM »
It has been reported already.
that's good to hear. ;) but don't give up hope that nothing is being done if you don't think anything is happening about your report.

Around 1996 where I lived in Ohio, 3 brothers who were running small neighborhood markets, and were allowing all sort of items to be bought with foodstamps (including liquor and according to some marijuana in the backroom) and would even trade cash for stamps - $3 for each $5 foodstamp - were all busted, sentenced and put in jail. I and others had been reporting those establishments for a couple of years. It took time while the local police, state police, feds, FBI, etc put together a sting, gathered evidence and eventually took them down.

you'll need to keep filing reports and getting other friends to do so when they see these illegal incidents occur. These sorts of issues (like using EBT benefits to purchase non-food items) are more a moral crime on the merchant's end than the poverty-ridden, drug-addicted citizens whose terrible situation is preyed upon. And these sorts of legal crimes continue to happen only when enough "good people" do not speak up to inform authorities that the crime is happening.

having myself used foodstamp benefits for a long time now, my empirical evidence is that these kinds of crimes are not that widespread though. Forcing innocent citizens to go through drug testing on the premise that this is some large (as in the amount of people and the amount of money) problem is just a waste of time and money when the problem can be stopped at the source (the merchants that commit these crimes). Instead of drug-testing, perhaps more law enforcement is needed to resolve these issues; but of course many state governments would rather solve issues on the backs of the poor than investing into long-term cost-saving solutions.

by the way there's a great article with interactive maps about foodstamps (mainly as the only source of income) from the nytimes http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/03foodstamps.html
leatherman (aka mIkIE)


chart from 1992-2013; updated 2/09/13  Reyataz/Norvir/Truvada

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,227
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2011, 11:26:30 AM »
I've never understood why soda is included for EBT -- really wasteful.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline leatherman

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,272
  • Google and HIV meds are Your Friends
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2011, 11:35:15 AM »
I've never understood why soda is included for EBT -- really wasteful.
agreed
oh! you can also buy seeds with an EBT card and grow your own food  ;)
leatherman (aka mIkIE)


chart from 1992-2013; updated 2/09/13  Reyataz/Norvir/Truvada

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,227
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2011, 11:42:25 AM »
I'd rather toilet paper be paid for then some items -- that's really a necessity! Especially for a pozzie.

But back to the topic, exactly how much will this program cost tax payers to implement?
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2011, 12:03:07 PM »
Not sure of what the cost is going to be to implement.
However, a couple of other notes on it:
1) it will only impact those persons on public assistance receiving cash benefits - having worked for the state in the Economic Self-Sufficiency office, this only about 40,000 individuals.  Cash benefits are rarely given out these days, are pretty restrictive, time limited, and only amount to a couple hundred dollars a month.
2) If the person on cash benefits tests positive, but has children, the children can still receive the benefits, but the money has to go to another adult (perhaps, the drug dealer?)
3) Most of the $600 million that Scott veteod was for what are called "turkeys" - these are hometown projects that legislators put in to appeal to their local constituents.  (Similar to pork-barrel spending at the federal level).  While some of the projects are worthwhile - there are many that really are unnecessary.  They are supposed to have a statewide impact, but few do.  The college I work for took a $10 million hit to a construction project that was supposed to add a new building to a campus desperately in need of it - which would have served additional students (we are a state supported community colllege).
4) Scott also turned down over $2 billion in federal funding which would have funded high-speed rail.
5) He is also privatizing the prison system
6) He is also putting in a plan to force all Medicaid recipients into managed care organizations - this is being done even after a pilot program that did the same thing in Broward County and Duval County Florida showed miserable outcomes.

We can not wait til the end of his term.
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Online Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,797
  • 31 Years Poz
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2011, 12:26:39 PM »
The real concern I have, regarding programs like these, is exactly how long will it take, until everyone is tested for something to receive government assistance?  Maybe they could drug test the millions of unemployed people and if you are not drug free, then no unemployment benefits for you.  Or maybe ADAP?  We'll be happy to give you your ARVs as soon as you piss in this cup.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 12:28:32 PM by killfoile »

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2011, 12:40:22 PM »
The real concern I have, regarding programs like these, is exactly how long will it take, until everyone is tested for something to receive government assistance?  Maybe they could drug test the millions of unemployed people and if you are not drug free, then no unemployment benefits for you.  Or maybe ADAP?  We'll be happy to give you your ARVs as soon as you piss in this cup.
Exactly my thoughts Joe -
Although, I have a feeling, it is more political tea party grandstanding - as the ACLU is fighting it and I don't know if it will actually get implemented - I would think that an injunction will be issued while the case being brought by the ACLU makes its way through the court system.  But, in the meantime, Scott will be able to say that he tried to follow the tea party agenda.  The amazing thing is that they call for less government interference - but this screams of the ultimate in government interference and "big brother" is watching mentality.
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,975
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2011, 12:42:18 PM »
A law similar to this passed in Michigan and later was ruled unconstitutional.

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2011, 12:52:30 PM »



   About 80% of employers drug test in Florida; why shouldn't those seeking public assistance be held to the same standard as the general public?  In my opinion, many of those who seek public assistance (foodstamps/cash aid) are not doing drugs but indeed feeding themselves and buying necessities.

   

   
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,202
  • Fall is in the air!
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2011, 01:13:06 PM »
While I agree with the intent behind Scott's proposal (people shouldnt be spending their assistance on drugs), Under the law I believe it is uncosntitutional based on unreasonable search and seizure.

I believe it's been held that the 4th Amendment prohibits widespread "blanket" testing.

I undestand the idea that these people are recieving something from the government and thus should be "required" to do certain things such as submit to drug testing. But If this passes, what's next? Drug testing the people of Joplin before they receive Emergency Disaster assistance?

-W

« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 01:26:24 PM by WillyWump »
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
6/3/14 CD4- 736, UD 34%
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2011, 01:15:50 PM »



   No worries, you can't drug test dead people anyways... ::)


   ewww that was bad...
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Online Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,797
  • 31 Years Poz
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2011, 01:34:25 PM »

   No worries, you can't drug test dead people anyways... ::)

   ewww that was bad...

That was beyond bad.  It was cold and insensitive and I have some friends who live near Joplin and they lost almost everything.  To joke about those who lost their lives is beyond the pale.

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2011, 01:49:57 PM »
That was beyond bad.  It was cold and insensitive and I have some friends who live near Joplin and they lost almost everything.  To joke about those who lost their lives is beyond the pale.

Well Joe, I could really care less if you thought I was cold and insensitive.  After speaking to you years ago it just so  happens I came to the same conclusion about you.  Surprised you didn't plagiarize an obit or two for added effect.

My apologies to everyone else.
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2011, 02:03:19 PM »


   About 80% of employers drug test in Florida; why shouldn't those seeking public assistance be held to the same standard as the general public?  In my opinion, many of those who seek public assistance (foodstamps/cash aid) are not doing drugs but indeed feeding themselves and buying necessities.

      
Actually, Drug Free Workplace laws are pretty clear - most employers can only test as a) part of pre-employment; b) if there is a reasonable suspicion someone is using drugs; and c) if a person is in a job that impacts directly on public health or safety (i.e. bus drivers, pilots, police officers).  Random drug testing, for no other reason than to drug test has been found by most courts to be unconstitutional and a violation of a person's right to privacy.  Also, there is the aspect that the nature of testing also can result in a violation of a person's privacy regarding various health problems (i.e. whether a person is diabetic, has kidney disease, takes various medications -- such as Atripla, which can cause false positives for marijuana.

The problem with requiring all public assistance recipients to take a test is that it assumes all are using drugs - which, like you stated, that is not the case.  Punishment has never been a deterrent to drug use.  Additionally, there are so many ways to beat a drug test - that for the most part, testing would probably not be effective.

But, the real foundation for my argument against this law is that it impedes on the very rights that the constitution was established to protect.

And, personally, I think it is ironic that a governor whose company had a $1 billion payback for Medicare fraud while he was its CEO is now concerned about a "few"dollars that a "few" public assistance recipients may be spending on illegal drugs.
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2011, 02:31:27 PM »
Actually, Drug Free Workplace laws are pretty clear - most employers can only test as a) part of pre-employment; b) if there is a reasonable suspicion someone is using drugs; and c) if a person is in a job that impacts directly on public health or safety (i.e. bus drivers, pilots, police officers).  Random drug testing, for no other reason than to drug test has been found by most courts to be unconstitutional and a violation of a person's right to privacy.  Also, there is the aspect that the nature of testing also can result in a violation of a person's privacy regarding various health problems (i.e. whether a person is diabetic, has kidney disease, takes various medications -- such as Atripla, which can cause false positives for marijuana.

Good point, but may I add...

  Bus drivers, pilots, and police officers are not the only groups subjected to random drug testing.  Any company operating under OSHA standards does this as well.   Btw, many of those warehouses and companies doing business internationally around you down there follow these regulations.

 And drug testing is not invasive at all in regards to a person's privacy,  I've taken plenty to know.  If you list your medication as Atripla the testing doctor, by law, should not tell your employer you take Atripla.   Also, by listing it, the drug testing will be for certain cannabinoids only found in pot and not in Atripla.  In other words, the test becomes more specific.

  All a weed smoker needs to pass a drug test without disclosure of THC is to get a script for marinol from their doctor.  It worked for me.
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 12,196
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2011, 02:40:16 PM »
Good point, but may I add...

  Bus drivers, pilots, and police officers are not the only groups subjected to random drug testing.  Any company operating under OSHA standards does this as well.   Btw, many of those warehouses and companies doing business internationally around you down there follow these regulations.

 And drug testing is not invasive at all in regards to a person's privacy,  I've taken plenty to know.  If you list your medication as Atripla the testing doctor, by law, should not tell your employer you take Atripla.   Also, by listing it, the drug testing will be for certain cannabinoids only found in pot and not in Atripla.  In other words, the test becomes more specific.

  All a weed smoker needs to pass a drug test without disclosure of THC is to get a script for marinol from their doctor.  It worked for me.

As someone that uses recreational drugs like you do I just cant understand your hard stance on this . I personally wouldn't want to forego medicaid ( if a law was passed for that ) or other aid because I used something privately . Not all people who use drugs meet the criteria as a drug addict and it seems this law is casting a wide net . This law is what somebody already pointed out , cheap politics and tea party point scoring .       

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,227
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2011, 02:41:22 PM »


   About 80% of employers drug test in Florida

doubtful
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,975
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2011, 03:14:27 PM »


  All a weed smoker needs to pass a drug test without disclosure of THC is to get a script for marinol from their doctor.  It worked for me.

So it's okay to break the law as long as you get a script.

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2011, 03:44:46 PM »
As someone that uses recreational drugs like you do I just cant understand your hard stance on this . I personally wouldn't want to forego medicaid ( if a law was passed for that ) or other aid because I used something privately . Not all people who use drugs meet the criteria as a drug addict and it seems this law is casting a wide net . This law is what somebody already pointed out , cheap politics and tea party point scoring .      

What can I say, I'm a man of contradiction, but I also don't expect public assistance while I lite my nightly bed-time joint.  I work to afford my vice.   If someone is getting public assistance it should be used for what it is intended.  To feed your kids as well as cloth them, not on drugs.  Sorry if you feel pointed out in all this, but you're taking ownership and that was not my intent.  

doubtful

And you would know how?   C'mon down here babe, then report back to me.


So it's okay to break the law as long as you get a script.

Depends on how you look at it.   I'm passing the random drug test while operating that forklift at high speeds all red eyed and stuff, as opposed to taking foodstamps.  Foodstamps, welfare, and the likes are for those who need it.  I would never qualify at this point in time; drug test or not.

Hugs
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,227
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2011, 03:46:57 PM »

And you would know how?   C'mon down here babe, then report back to me.

Ah, so you yanked that "80%" statistic from between your butt cheeks amirite? If not then provide a link.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 12,196
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2011, 03:53:13 PM »
 Sorry if you feel pointed out in all this, but you're taking ownership and that was not my intent.  

I am not on medicaid and do not receive assistance nor do I use weed  but if I did I would hope for some compassion and understanding if I wanted or needed to light one up or have a drink now and then .

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2011, 03:54:26 PM »
Ah, so you yanked that "80%" statistic from between your butt cheeks amirite? If not then provide a link.

No link necessary my friend.  Like I said, c'mon down here and try applying at any one of the companies  by Phil.  I can't speak for PA, but as for where I live I can.  It's probably even higher than that.  Hell, even bagboys for Publix get drug tested.
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2011, 03:55:54 PM »
Good point, but may I add...

  Bus drivers, pilots, and police officers are not the only groups subjected to random drug testing.  Any company operating under OSHA standards does this as well.   Btw, many of those warehouses and companies doing business internationally around you down there follow these regulations.

 And drug testing is not invasive at all in regards to a person's privacy,  I've taken plenty to know.  If you list your medication as Atripla the testing doctor, by law, should not tell your employer you take Atripla.  Also, by listing it, the drug testing will be for certain cannabinoids only found in pot and not in Atripla.  In other words, the test becomes more specific.

  All a weed smoker needs to pass a drug test without disclosure of THC is to get a script for marinol from their doctor.  It worked for me.
The OSHA standards still have to follow the Drug Free Workplace Act federal law ---- random testing is not allowed except in the instances I noted previously - or if there is a workplace accident that might involve worker's compensation.  Believe me, I used to write state policy on this as well as confidentiality policies related to 42CFR2.

Anytime you are disclosing a medical condition or medication taken - whether it be in writing or verbal - the possibility of a breach of privacy exists  - thus, this information should only be shared on a need to know basis.  Adding mandatory drug testing for public employees and for public assistance recipients and having them have to disclose various medications and/or medical conditions that may impact their test result or show up in a test is just another potential for a breach.

Additionally, if we are going to require those that receive federal assistance or other government assistance to get drug tested - then, let's see, student loans are government assistance, FHA/VA mortgages are federal assistance, Earned Income Tax Credit could be seen as federal assistance, Medicare and or Medicaid and Social Security, while not entirely needs based programs, but rather entitlement programs, would also constitute government assistance - so, how long before we require testing of everyone receiving this type of assistance.

Oh, that's right, that would probably never happen ----- not as long as we can settle for testing others who are disenfranchised, disempowered, and vulnerable.  

Maybe we should just provide Governor Scott the keys to our homes, the account number to our bank, a list of all medications we take and medical conditions.

BTW, this is the same governor who was deeply opposed to a prescription database that would stop people from doctor shopping for opiods, because he felt it would be an invasion of privacy.  Me thinks he may have been worried about his fellow Republican, tea partier Rush Limbaugh being unable to get his pain scripts......
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,975
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2011, 04:03:20 PM »



Depends on how you look at it.   I'm passing the random drug test while operating that forklift at high speeds all red eyed and stuff, as opposed to taking foodstamps.  Foodstamps, welfare, and the likes are for those who need it.  I would never qualify at this point in time; drug test or not.

Hugs

No matter how you parse it the tax payer is on the hook for your drug use whether you receive public assistance or not.

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2011, 04:03:32 PM »
I am not on medicaid and do not receive assistance nor do I use weed  but if I did I would hope for some compassion and understanding if I wanted or needed to light one up or have a drink now and then .

Compassion?  Really Jeff?  Your painting that picture, I never once mentioned anything about those on disability.   I'm referring to those who can work, but for reasons beyond their control are not doing so at this time.  I think you would be surprised at the number of people who receive foodstamps and welfare who are not disabled.    
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,227
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2011, 04:04:49 PM »
No link necessary my friend.  Like I said, c'mon down here and try applying at any one of the companies  by Phil.  I can't speak for PA, but as for where I live I can.  It's probably even higher than that.  Hell, even bagboys for Publix get drug tested.

It might be "80% for jobs aimed at applicants with a high school education" but I doubt this is so for a college degree professional job.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:06:33 PM by Miss Philicia »
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2011, 04:12:01 PM »
Oh, that's right, that would probably never happen ----- not as long as we can settle for testing others who are disenfranchised, disempowered, and vulnerable.  

Maybe we should just provide Governor Scott the keys to our homes, the account number to our bank, a list of all medications we take and medical conditions.

I never bought into this whole big brother idea like you guys.   And what's with this whole "they may know our medical condition" thing?   
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2011, 04:14:03 PM »
It might be "80% for jobs aimed at applicants with a high school education" but I doubt this is so for a college degree professional job.
Ms. P. I would have to agree with that --- the majority of jobs that I have seen that say we drug test all prospective employees are usually the service-oriented positions (i.e. restaurants, department stores).  As far as in the college degreed professional arena, it is primarily the human services agencies that test - and that is mainly because they receive federal, state, or local grant funding, which requires them to have a Drug Free Workplace Policy (DFWP) -

And, the DFWP only allows for testing a) pre-hire; b) suspicion of use; c) position that can impact directly on health/safety of public -----------  I know of two cases where an employer tried to do a random test without meeting the above criteria and was taken to court by the employee and the employer lost and/or settled out of court.  
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 12,196
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #41 on: June 02, 2011, 04:14:21 PM »
Compassion?  Really Jeff?  Your painting that picture, I never once mentioned anything about those on disability.   I'm referring to those who can work, but for reasons beyond their control are not doing so at this time.  I think you would be surprised at the number of people who receive foodstamps and welfare who are not disabled.    

Yes compassion really . I have compassion for low income family's who may be cut off assistance because of a law that will probably be found unconstitutional . I'm not attacking you personally its just I disagree with this type legislation and do not understand why people support laws like this that does little in the way of addressing real problems that exist in the system .    

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #42 on: June 02, 2011, 04:21:48 PM »
I never bought into this whole big brother idea like you guys.   And what's with this whole "they may know our medical condition" thing?  
If you read up on one of the reasons why drug testing by employers, government, etc. is so heavily fought - in addition to it being a violation of constitutional rights - it is because human blood and/or urine - can also be used to diagnosis/identify medical conditions.  Turning either of these products over for the sake of a government mandated drug test risks possible identification of medical conditions (like I said, read up on this and you will see that this is one of the other primary reasons why the ACLU and others fight against these tests being done).

Oh, and Skeebs, it's cool if we agree to disagree on this point 
I see you a smiley ;D  and raise you a smiley  ;D
and if you post a pick of two giant smilies with spliffs in their mouths I will have to call Gov Scott and have him order a drug test for you   ;D
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:25:00 PM by phildinftlaudy »
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #43 on: June 02, 2011, 04:24:29 PM »
I have compassion for low income family's who may be cut off assistance because of a law that will probably be found unconstitutional .

Fair enough, I'll stand by my stance that if a family is using the meager amount given by the state of Florida to buy any drugs then they should probably be holding down a 9 to 5.  I'll go even further to add that if they are using it's probably the reason they're not working.  Why should the state foot the bill and/or enable it?

I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #44 on: June 02, 2011, 04:29:31 PM »
If you read up on one of the reasons why drug testing by employers, government, etc. is so heavily fought - in addition to it being a violation of constitutional rights - it is because human blood and/or urine - can also be used to diagnosis/identify medical conditions.  Turning either of these products over for the sake of a government mandated drug test risks possible identification of medical conditions (like I said, read up on this and you will see that this is one of the other primary reasons why the ACLU and others fight against these tests being done).

Oh, and Skeebs, it's cool if we agree to disagree on this point 
I see you a smiley ;D  and raise you a smiley  ;D
and if you post a pick of two giant smilies with spliffs in their mouths I will have to call Gov Scott and have him order a drug test for you   ;D

LOL see the part in bold?  Can does not mean they will....  Like I said, part of this disagreement stems from this whole big brother spying on us thing.   I blames Keanu Reeves for making you guys buy into this.

Btw, for what it's worth, my urine should be clean in another week.
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline Cliff

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,645
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #45 on: June 02, 2011, 04:46:48 PM »
What will happen to people who get their benefits taken away cause of drugs?  Crime?

Not sure that's any better (for the addict) or cheaper (for the government).  Difficult choice really. 

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #46 on: June 03, 2011, 03:29:43 AM »
I totally agree with testing for drug usage in order to benefit from public money in any fashion, but I would think it's cost prohibitive.  Essentially how much money will you spend determining who's using and who isn't and how much would that save the program.  If it's just a moral dilemma then really who cares?

This could be used to help treat addicted persons, but I doubt it would be.

As for the being given the option of ADAP for a drug-free piss test just show me the cup and I'll be on my way.  You can bet your ass that would be some motivation.  Show me the bar and tell me how high and my ass would be doing olympic level high jump.  No drugs?  Sure.  No Booze?  Fine.  No Carbs?  OK you sadist.  Now please give me my lifesaving medication.

I don't think offering public assistance with the only string attached being that you be able to pass a piss test is unreasonable, but I don't particularly feel strongly that it should be in place.

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #47 on: June 03, 2011, 08:03:27 AM »
I totally agree with testing for drug usage in order to benefit from public money in any fashion, but I would think it's cost prohibitive.  Essentially how much money will you spend determining who's using and who isn't and how much would that save the program.  If it's just a moral dilemma then really who cares?

This could be used to help treat addicted persons, but I doubt it would be.

As for the being given the option of ADAP for a drug-free piss test just show me the cup and I'll be on my way.  You can bet your ass that would be some motivation.  Show me the bar and tell me how high and my ass would be doing olympic level high jump.  No drugs?  Sure.  No Booze?  Fine.  No Carbs?  OK you sadist.  Now please give me my lifesaving medication.

I don't think offering public assistance with the only string attached being that you be able to pass a piss test is unreasonable, but I don't particularly feel strongly that it should be in place.

This is a pretty slippery slope.  It is very difficult to find someone who does not "benefit from public money in any fashion"



Attend a public unversity?  -- state taxes support your tuition

Drive? -- you know taxes pay for road building

HIV Drugs? -- who do you think financed the initial research?

Oh -- and I hope you aren't reading this on the Internet  ...  DARPA and all that (not to mention the cost of Al Gore's salary  :) )



If these offend your sense of privacy and proportion, well that's why we need to preserve and defend our constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.


5/06 VL 1M+, CD4 22, 5% , pneumonia, thrush -- O2 support 2 months, 6/06 +Kaletra/Truvada
9/06 VL 3959 CD4 297 13.5% 12/06 VL <400 CD4 350 15.2% +Pravachol
2007 VL<400, 70, 50 CD4 408-729 16.0% -19.7%
2008 VL UD CD4 468 - 538 16.7% - 24.6% Osteoporosis 11/08 doubled Pravachol, +Calcium/D
02/09 VL 100 CD4 616 23.7% 03/09 VL 130 5/09 VL 100 CD4 540 28.4% +Actonel (osteoporosis) 7/09 VL 130
8/09  new regimen Isentress/Epzicom 9/09 VL UD CD4 621 32.7% 11/09 VL UD CD4 607 26.4% swap Isentress for Prezista/Norvir 12/09 (liver and muscle issues) VL 50
2010 VL UD CD4 573-680 26.1% - 30.9% 12/10 VL 20
2011 VL UD-20 CD4 568-673 24.7%-30.6%
2012 VL UD swap Prezista/Norvir for Reyataz drop statin CD4 768-828 26.7%-30.7%

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #48 on: June 03, 2011, 08:49:49 AM »
This is a pretty slippery slope.  It is very difficult to find someone who does not "benefit from public money in any fashion"

I know this although the inalienable right to use smack isn't high on my list of necessities.

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #49 on: June 03, 2011, 08:56:42 AM »



   My butt cheeks will be shooting out numbers for tomorrow night's lotto this afternoon.

http://www.pre-employ.com/blog/post/2009/08/Survey-Reveals-3-Out-Of-4-Companies-Have-Drug-Test-Policy.aspx

   
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #50 on: June 03, 2011, 09:26:12 AM »


   My butt cheeks will be shooting out numbers for tomorrow night's lotto this afternoon.

http://www.pre-employ.com/blog/post/2009/08/Survey-Reveals-3-Out-Of-4-Companies-Have-Drug-Test-Policy.aspx

   
The key to this article/survey is:
1) Companies have a drug test policy - it does not mean they "do" it
2) Those companies that do drug testing do it as part of "pre-employment" - which is what Drug Free Workplace regulation states and is allowable (See my previous multiple posts in this thread) -
3) The "survey" says that 84% of respondants said employees SHOULD undergo testing - not that they do - also, it is a survey of OPINIONS, not facts -
thus, my dear Skeebs, this does not support that employers ARE actually doing drug tests after a person is hired (as, like was stated previously, this would open them up to potential legal action, unless it meets DFWP rules)

So, you may want to hold off on playing the lotto.

Excerpt from article:
Jobseekers hoping to find a job in todayís rough economy should be prepared for a drug test as well as an interview during the pre-employment background screening process.

A new study by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) found that three-quarters of companies polled had a drug test policy, and almost all (95 percent) of those companies said that pre-employment  screening Ė or "prior to hire" Ė drug tests were the most common type, a figure that increased to 100% in organizations with 10,000 or more workers.

The Drug Screening Pulse Survey Ė conducted by i4cp in July of 2009 with almost 300 respondents Ė also revealed that among companies that did drug tests during pre-employment background screening, almost half (47%) required that the test be conducted within four days of the applicantís acceptance of a position. In addition, the majority of respondents (84 percent) said the entire workforce should undergo drug tests, and more than half (61 percent) of the companies were satisfied with their in-house or vendor-administrated drug test programs, according to the study findings.




September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #51 on: June 03, 2011, 09:44:22 AM »



   You keep harping on the random drug testing.  I never once said it ran at 80%.   I said 80% of companies do drug test for employment.  You also agreed yesterday during our conversation that pre employment drug testing probably does run higher than 80% in Florida.     

   Read the article again.  It says roughly 3 out of 4 do, and 84% of respondents say they should.  You do know the difference right?    I can give you other links that suggest the number is even higher, but for whatever reason, I fear you will once again read the data incorrectly.

   As I told you my own experience yesterday with OSHA regulations, random drug testing is indeed done.  If you want to look at it as something that should be fought in court (theoretically), I'll look at the concrete facts in that almost all cases are not brought forth.  Once again, you seemed to agree that for Florida this was most likely the case.   

   Once again, I can't speak for PA or anywhere else for that matter.  But, I do know how it is in Florida and I know this unfortunately through my own failures and experiences from them.
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #52 on: June 03, 2011, 09:53:16 AM »
To keep the focus where it should be - Governor Scott signing the law to test recipients of cash benefits under public assistance programs, here is what an ACLU article says about drug testing of public assistance recipients.  There should be more than enough data here to show that it isn't just the ACLU that knows this is wrong - but the scientific and medical community. 

Also, I stand by everything in my post yesterday - I have always stated that pre-employment testing is allowed under DFWP policies ----- I don't know what part of that you aren't getting.  Also, look again at the article you posted and who conducted the survey and who posted the article - this is a company that gets paid to do pre-employment drug testing (I think they may be a little biased).  Also, there are SURVEYS and there is RESEARCH and FACTS - surveys are not facts.  Surveys, for the most part, are OPINIONS (and we know what they say about opinions).

But anywhoooooo, here is the link to an excellent article - full of actual RESEACH and medical, scientific, and other notable conclusions regarding the effectiveness and legality of testing public assistance recipients:

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

Enjoy (Word of Caution:  It may be easier to understand if you don't fire up a spliff prior to reading  ;D)
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,227
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #53 on: June 03, 2011, 10:26:24 AM »

As for the being given the option of ADAP for a drug-free piss test just show me the cup and I'll be on my way.  You can bet your ass that would be some motivation.  Show me the bar and tell me how high and my ass would be doing olympic level high jump.  No drugs?  Sure.  No Booze?  Fine.  No Carbs?  OK you sadist.  Now please give me my lifesaving medication.

I guess you have little exposure to exactly how many people with HIV have substance abuse issues -- and I'm not talking about recreational activity here, I mean hardcore addiction.  Are you willing for these people to forego HIV treatment while they spend 2-3 years getting clean?
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #54 on: June 03, 2011, 10:33:00 AM »
I guess you have little exposure to exactly how many people with HIV have substance abuse issues -- and I'm not talking about recreational activity here, I mean hardcore addiction.  Are you willing for these people to forego HIV treatment while they spend 2-3 years getting clean?

I was just talking about my personal commitment level in order to ironically, get drugs.  Although I've always had trouble understanding addiction as there is very little in life I feel I can't go without.  It's always been difficult for me to empathize or sympathize with that level of physical addiction, the best I can relate to it would probably be caffeine.  If I don't have caffeine for a couple of days running I feel terrible for a day or two.  A pale comparison if ever there were one.

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,227
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #55 on: June 03, 2011, 10:46:49 AM »
I was just talking about my personal commitment level in order to ironically, get drugs.  Although I've always had trouble understanding addiction as there is very little in life I feel I can't go without.  It's always been difficult for me to empathize or sympathize with that level of physical addiction, the best I can relate to it would probably be caffeine.  If I don't have caffeine for a couple of days running I feel terrible for a day or two.  A pale comparison if ever there were one.

Well, that's just swell sweetheart -- but the argument here is about public policy, not your current whims and fancy.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,975
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #56 on: June 03, 2011, 03:22:03 PM »
It's always been difficult for me to empathize or sympathize

Many folks can't empathize with dudes taking it up the butt and catching da AIDS. They don't want one dime of their tax dollars going to sodomites. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #57 on: June 03, 2011, 04:25:01 PM »
Today's latest Miami Herald, shows that this fool of a governor now is named in 5 separate lawsuits in less than 6 months on the job -

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/03/2249778/aclu-sues-rick-scott-to-stop-voter.html

Excerpt from the article:

The lawsuit is the fifth one to name Scott as a defendant in his role as governor. The other suits relate to drug-testing state workers, high-speed rail, constitutional amendments over redistricting and an executive order that froze state rules.


I have no intention of following or agreeing with any of the decisions this idiot makes ---- trusting in his decisions or supporting his policies -----   I don't think so, not on this planet, not in this lifetime.


September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline BT65

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,975
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #58 on: June 04, 2011, 05:40:11 AM »
Although I've always had trouble understanding addiction as there is very little in life I feel I can't go without.  It's always been difficult for me to empathize or sympathize with that level of physical addiction,

Well, at least in this point in my life, I cannot understand what having ovarian cancer is like.  I do know, however, it is a medical disease, just as addiction is, and necessitates treatment, just like addiction does.

Just because your self-righteousness cannot understand what it's like to have writhing pain that would be settled down by a fix, does not mean addiction is not a real disease that, I believe, should afford a person real help.
I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #59 on: June 16, 2011, 02:43:40 PM »
And the saga continues - maybe our "Governor" (I use the term loosely) will figure out that he is not "god" and cannot trample on the Constitution and people's rights:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/health/fl-scott-suspends-employee-drug-testi20110616,0,6797555.story

Also, interesting excerpt from the above article, which supports what I had previously pointed out....(See bold)

Scott had ordered the so-called "suspicion-less" drug tests Ė so termed because all state employees would be subject to the tests, regardless of whether they were suspected of using drugs and regardless of what job they performed Ė shortly after he took office. He also successfully urged the Legislature to require drug tests of all new applicants for welfare assistance.

The ACLU challenged the employee testing and is also expected to sue to block testing of welfare recipients. In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Miami last week, the group said no court has upheld drug tests without a reason Ė such as suspicions of drug use or an employee working in a job that might endanger the public if he or she were impaired.[/u]


September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #60 on: June 20, 2011, 10:58:19 AM »
Add another lawsuit against Florida's "Governor" Rick Scott to the ever-rising tally -
He is being sued by the teacher's union, as are members of the legislature, for voting unilaterally to require state employees to contribute 3% towards retirement beginning July 1, 2011.

I pay into the Florida Retirement System (FRS) as part of my job - and the argument here is that the statute which regulates the FRS specifically states that employees do NOT have to contribute - it has been that was since 1974.  So, if the governor and his cronies in the legislature wanted to require the contributions a) they would need to change the statute b) they would need to get union approval as it is part of the collective bargaining agreement of employees and c) they could only impose the change on new employees - not those who in good faith began employment with the state under the premise that the FRS was completely employer funded and regulated by statute.

It basically was the governor's way of balancing the budget by arbitrarily imposing a 3% tax on employees who are part of the Florida Retirement System - without subjecting others to the tax - and directly violating Florida Statutes. 

The union is asking that any monies collected (the 3% from state employees) be placed into an interest bearing account until the case is settled - so, that if the state loses - then the employees would get their money back - retroactive and with interest.

The impact of the 3% contribution on my monthly bring home pay is about $120 - and while it is pretax and does go into my retirement - I don't agree with the governor and legislature overstepping their constitutional bounds and unilaterally implementing this in violation of the existing law:

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/06/fea-annouced-first-in-a-series-of-judicial-challenges-against-gov-and-legislator.html
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,038
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #61 on: June 20, 2011, 01:42:34 PM »
To further illustrate what an idiot Governor Rick Scott is let me present another lawsuit being filed against him.

Florida doctors defend right to discuss guns with patients

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110606/us_nm/us_florida_doctors_guns

NEW YORK (Reuters) Ė A group of Florida physicians filed a federal lawsuit on Monday seeking to overturn a new state law that limits doctors' ability to ask patients about guns in the home.

 The lawsuit, filed in Miami federal court, says the new law is an unconstitutional ban on physicians' free speech and prevents them from counseling patients on firearm safety.

 The statute, titled "Privacy of Firearm Owners" and signed into law by Florida's governor last week, prohibits healthcare professionals from asking patients about gun ownership unless the information is relevant to the patient's medical care, safety or the safety of others. The law also bars practitioners from entering the information into a patient's medical record.

 "By severely restricting such speech and the ability of physicians to practice such preventative medicine, the Florida statute could result in grievous harm to children, adolescents, adults and the elderly," the lawsuit said.

 Lane Wright, press secretary for Florida Governor Rick Scott, said the law defends patients' right to bear arms and protects gun owners from potential discrimination and harassment. The law does not prevent doctors from having medically relevant conversations about guns with their patients, he said.

 But the plaintiffs -- three individual doctors and the Florida chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians -- alleged the law is "so vague, overbroad, and ambiguous" and the penalties so harsh that doctors will steer clear of any discussion of gun safety with their patients.

 Physicians who violate the law risk losing their medical licenses and face fines up to $10,000 per offense, according to the complaint.

 The suit, filed by lawyers with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and law firms including Ropes & Gray, named Governor Rick Scott and four other state health officials as defendants and requested an injunction blocking the state from enforcing the law.

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #62 on: June 20, 2011, 06:51:35 PM »
Wait a second, why would doctors be asking about guns in the first place and who cares enough to ban it?  This is getting weirder and weirder.

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,038
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #63 on: June 20, 2011, 07:17:59 PM »
As a mental health counselor I ask every patient I see if they have access to guns or weapons. It is an important question. The idea that we are forbidden by law for asking a question is ridiculous.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/florida-doctors-fight-bac_b_874224.html

Just as pediatricians have long advised parents on the best ways to reduce the risks of harm to children from household poisons, unsupervised swimming pools and riding bikes without safety helmets, they also have advised them how to best protect their kids from the lethal danger of firearms. The fact is that more than forty percent of gun-owning households with children and teens store their guns unlocked and one quarter of those homes store them loaded. These loaded, unsecured guns are like ticking time bombs, posing a clear and present danger to young people. In 2007, 138 children and teens were killed in unintentional shootings; in 2008, almost 4,000 were wounded. Indeed, the rate of unintentional firearm death for children 14 years and younger is nine times higher in the U.S. than in twenty-five other industrialized countries combined.

The presence of easily-accessible guns in the home also increases the risk of adolescent suicide. Each day, two American teenagers commit suicide with guns, the vast majority with their parents' gun. More than ninety percent of suicide attempts with guns are fatal, whereas the fatality rate for attempts with drugs or cutting is around three percent. Unsecured guns in the home have cost thousands of young lives, as they transform momentary adolescent depressions, over romantic break-ups or bad grades, into unspeakable tragedies.

Because of these well-established risks, the American Academy of Pediatrics has long recommended advising parents that firearms should be removed from homes with children or, if parents choose to have guns in the home, they should be stored unloaded, locked and separate from ammunition. For homes with adolescents, AAP also has recommended that practitioners inform parents that guns in the home are particularly dangerous because of the potential for impulsive use by teens, resulting in suicide, homicide or unintentional injury.


I would think the NRA would support responsible gun ownership and safety and even supply doctors with free  literature. This law is such a knee-jerk reaction from nut jobs who are too stupid to even recognize that keeping people from shooting themselves is in their own political party's best interests.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2011, 07:28:55 PM by GSOgymrat »

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #64 on: June 21, 2011, 02:17:13 AM »
I wasn't really considering the mental health aspect.  I was trying to find the connection between a general health overview and gun ownership.  That makes more sense.

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #65 on: June 22, 2011, 03:25:17 PM »
Another reason why it makes sense for physicians to discuss guns with patients and why Gov. Scott, once again, got this law wrong (that prohibits physicians and other healthcare providers) from having conversations about guns with patients, except in very narrowly defined circumstances) ---- but, what else is new:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/22/2279213/four-year-old-playing-with-gun.html
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline Bucko

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,947
  • You need a shine, missy!
    • The Spin Cycle
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #66 on: June 22, 2011, 09:28:13 PM »
I belong to another MB where this has been hashed to death; in that case, the OP is a fire-brand "fiscal conservative/social moderate" (whatever the fuck that even means) who claims to be more Libertarian than anything else. The way I framed the issue, which has stopped him cold in his tracks, is that I couldn't understand why a "Libertarian social moderate" would have any interest in upping the ante on The Drug War.

His first response was some lameo-assed pontification about "taxpayer funds", but when I reiterated that I found his support for an escalation for a greater police presence within at-risk demographics and the inherent prohibitionism in his approach reprehensible, he clutched pearls and refuses to respond.

Make no mistake about it: this escalation of The Drug War will help no one and cost much more than it saves. It's a piece of disgusting teabaggery dressed up as a "feel-good" measure for the vilest of his base.

As to drug testing here in FL: it was only after my fourth interview with a large local privately-owned furniture retail chain that I was informed that I'd be responsible for the cost of my own drug test. I almost went (it would have been completely clean), but when they balked at paying me a $500 draw while expecting me to commute from FtL to Boca every day, I walked  ::)
Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

Blathering on AIDSmeds since 2005, provocative from birth

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #67 on: June 23, 2011, 05:44:44 AM »
"fiscal conservative/social moderate" (whatever the fuck that even means)


It means that on fiscal issues you hold a conservative viewpoint and on social issues you hold a moderate viewpoint.

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #68 on: June 23, 2011, 12:52:27 PM »
"fiscal conservative/social moderate" (whatever the fuck that even means)


It means that on fiscal issues you hold a conservative viewpoint and on social issues you hold a moderate viewpoint.

The problem is that the term "fiscal conservative" has been co-opted, often unknowingly, by the fiscally ignorant -- people who do not know the difference between an expense and an investment, people who think budget deficits are fine if their party controls the branches of government but not when the other party does, people who believe in the myth that a fiscally stable organization targets annual balanced budgets instead of targeting long term balance or surplus...

The fact that the fiscally ignorant describe themselves as fiscally conservative makes it difficult to know what the fuck it means when someone self-identifies as fiscally conservative.

5/06 VL 1M+, CD4 22, 5% , pneumonia, thrush -- O2 support 2 months, 6/06 +Kaletra/Truvada
9/06 VL 3959 CD4 297 13.5% 12/06 VL <400 CD4 350 15.2% +Pravachol
2007 VL<400, 70, 50 CD4 408-729 16.0% -19.7%
2008 VL UD CD4 468 - 538 16.7% - 24.6% Osteoporosis 11/08 doubled Pravachol, +Calcium/D
02/09 VL 100 CD4 616 23.7% 03/09 VL 130 5/09 VL 100 CD4 540 28.4% +Actonel (osteoporosis) 7/09 VL 130
8/09  new regimen Isentress/Epzicom 9/09 VL UD CD4 621 32.7% 11/09 VL UD CD4 607 26.4% swap Isentress for Prezista/Norvir 12/09 (liver and muscle issues) VL 50
2010 VL UD CD4 573-680 26.1% - 30.9% 12/10 VL 20
2011 VL UD-20 CD4 568-673 24.7%-30.6%
2012 VL UD swap Prezista/Norvir for Reyataz drop statin CD4 768-828 26.7%-30.7%

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #69 on: June 23, 2011, 02:09:35 PM »
The problem is that the term "fiscal conservative" has been co-opted, often unknowingly, by the fiscally ignorant -- people who do not know the difference between an expense and an investment, people who think budget deficits are fine if their party controls the branches of government but not when the other party does, people who believe in the myth that a fiscally stable organization targets annual balanced budgets instead of targeting long term balance or surplus...

The fact that the fiscally ignorant describe themselves as fiscally conservative makes it difficult to know what the fuck it means when someone self-identifies as fiscally conservative.



Oh definitely.  I laugh when Republicans are touted as the party of fiscal responsibility considering that their mantra is lowering taxes and they've gotten us involved in multiple pointless wars.  Fiscally responsible my ass.  As much as I want universal healthcare to be a reality in this country I have absolutely no idea how we're going to pay for it without raising taxes by a large margin.  To help achieve that goal defense spending needs to be cut considerably, but this is a time in history when we need to be taking our cues from the British who are aggressively reducing their deficit while still providing healthcare to their citizenry.

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #70 on: June 23, 2011, 03:54:20 PM »
    As much as I want universal healthcare to be a reality in this country I have absolutely no idea how we're going to pay for it without raising taxes by a large margin.  To help achieve that goal defense spending needs to be cut considerably, but this is a time in history when we need to be taking our cues from the British who are aggressively reducing their deficit while still providing healthcare to their citizenry.

The facts on the ground are that the British are actually seeing that reducing government during a downturn prolongs the downturn.  Fiscal responsibility means countering the effects of a recession -- not accelerating them.  The time for tax increases and less government is when times are good, not when they are bad.

As far as paying for healthcare, the US government currently pays half the cost of healthcare anyway.  (A little over half this past year).  Since the US spends 50% to 100% more of its gross domestic product per capita than countries with systems that have better health outcomes, it is not at all clear that we need to increase taxes to provide universal healthcare.  Politically, it is hard to make the sort of sweeping changes that would be needed to get to a better healthcare system -- but it is VERY difficult to argue that the resulting system would cost more than the inefficient, patchwork quality system we have today.

(Sorry -- I'll stop hi jacking now)
5/06 VL 1M+, CD4 22, 5% , pneumonia, thrush -- O2 support 2 months, 6/06 +Kaletra/Truvada
9/06 VL 3959 CD4 297 13.5% 12/06 VL <400 CD4 350 15.2% +Pravachol
2007 VL<400, 70, 50 CD4 408-729 16.0% -19.7%
2008 VL UD CD4 468 - 538 16.7% - 24.6% Osteoporosis 11/08 doubled Pravachol, +Calcium/D
02/09 VL 100 CD4 616 23.7% 03/09 VL 130 5/09 VL 100 CD4 540 28.4% +Actonel (osteoporosis) 7/09 VL 130
8/09  new regimen Isentress/Epzicom 9/09 VL UD CD4 621 32.7% 11/09 VL UD CD4 607 26.4% swap Isentress for Prezista/Norvir 12/09 (liver and muscle issues) VL 50
2010 VL UD CD4 573-680 26.1% - 30.9% 12/10 VL 20
2011 VL UD-20 CD4 568-673 24.7%-30.6%
2012 VL UD swap Prezista/Norvir for Reyataz drop statin CD4 768-828 26.7%-30.7%

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic

Offline J.R.E.

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,218
  • Joined Dec-2003 Living positive, since 1985.
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #72 on: April 19, 2012, 06:52:28 PM »


Here's an update on Florida's welfare recipient  drug testing....

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2012/4/19/report_welfare_drug_.html



Report: Welfare drug tests costing Florida taxpayers money
The numbers show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs at an average of $35 per screening. The state's net loss was $45,780.

The numbers show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs at an average of $35 per screening. The state's net loss was $45,780.
Last Updated: Thursday, April 19, 2012 @ 12:12PM
 

Requiring drug tests for welfare applicants is costing Florida taxpayers more than it saves, according to new data released this week.

According to Bay News 9's partner paper, the Tampa Bay Times, a little more than 100 out of 4,000 applicants failed the tests.

The numbers show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs at an average of $35 per screening.  The state's net loss was $45,780.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida is suing the state over the program.  It won a temporary ban on the tests in October.

The court results could have nationwide consequences.  Since Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law, 25 other states have considered similar test requirements.


 ;D

Current Meds ; Viramune, Epzicom, 40mg of simvastatin, 12.5mg of Hydrochlorothiazide.
Metoprolol tartrate 25mg



http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=40802.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=45159.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39722.msg495621;topicseen#msg495621

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=46806.0

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=39414.msg491701#msg491701


 In October of 2003, My t-cell count was 16, Viral load was over 500,000, Percentage at that time was 5%. I started my first  HAART regimen  on October 24th,03.

 As of 8/2514,  t-cells are at 402, Viral load <40

 Current % is at 11%

  
 62 years young.

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,988
Re: (This Is Only) A Test
« Reply #73 on: April 20, 2012, 12:11:24 AM »
Perhaps they will get rid of this law now.  However, I really doubt it.  If you're going to drug test to qualify for state funds, then anyone (including company employees where the company gets a state contract or tax break/incentive) who gets state funds should have to do a drug test. 

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.