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.
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. ;)
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.
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. ;)
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 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.
I've never understood why soda is included for EBT -- really wasteful.agreed
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 -
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.
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.
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.
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.
About 80% of employers drug test in Florida
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 .
doubtful
So it's okay to break the law as long as you get a script.
And you would know how? C'mon down here babe, then report back to me.
Sorry if you feel pointed out in all this, but you're taking ownership and that was not my intent.
Ah, so you yanked that "80%" statistic from between your butt cheeks amirite? If not then provide a link.
Good point, but may I add...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.
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.
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 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 .
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.
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.
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) -
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 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).
I have compassion for low income family's who may be cut off assistance because of a law that will probably be found unconstitutional .
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
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"
The key to this article/survey is:
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
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?
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.
It's always been difficult for me to empathize or sympathize
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,
"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.
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.