florida passes drug testing law

[Coach is Back!]

Jim, there's a difference between tying one on and going out and snorting rails all night. I think most everyone can relate to letting loose with a few drinks but drugs are a whole other world.

[tbombz]

ever hear of self-employment, fuckface?

simply not an option for most people, outside of dealing drugs of course.

where do you think the government gets its money from you stupid fuck?  and since when do us commoners get to choose which government programs we support and which we dont?

you're fucking painfully stupid.

not sure what your first question is about but we have always been allowed to choose what we support and what we dont support  or did you think i meant that my taxes dont contribute to welfare .. ? in which case , are you high?

Jim, there's a difference between tying one on and going out and snorting rails all night. I think most everyone can relate to letting loose with a few drinks but drugs are a whole other world.

drugs a drug, if we arent alloowing people to intoxicate themselves then alcohol is no exception.

[The True Adonis]

Yes because if I owned a Private Airplane company I think hiring the drug addict with the Pilots License is a better idea than hiring the Non-Drug Addict with the Pilots License. 

Whom would you rather have flying the Airplane?

If I owned a Daycare, I`d rather hire the Heroin addict versus the Non-Drug user since you know, both are equally great around children. 

Whom would you rather have around your children?

[tbombz]

Yes because if I owned a Private Airplane company I think hiring the drug addict with the Pilots License is a better idea than hiring the Non-Drug Addict with the Pilots License. 

Whom would you rather have flying the Airplane?

If I owned a Daycare, I`d rather hire the Heroin addict versus the Non-Drug user since you know, both are equally great around children. 

Whom would you rather have around your children?

not being able to execute the job description proficiently is ample reason for not hiring someone, drug use outside of working hours is not

[The True Adonis]

not being able to execute the job description proficiently is ample reason for not hiring someone, drug use outside of working hours is not

If a person who hires you simply does not like the shirt you are wearing that day, they should have the right to fire you.

[tbombz]

If a person who hires you simply does not like the shirt you are wearing that day, they should have the right to fire you.

right, any reason why an employer feels the applicant wouldnt be a good fit, they have the right to not hire them.

but they dont have the right to FIRE someone without good reason or a forewarning, and they dont have the right to require drug tests.  if they suspect drug use, they can fire the person.

[JOCKTHEGLIDE]

not being able to execute the job description proficiently is ample reason for not hiring someone, drug use outside of working hours is not

not so tdong,,,I know fellas who smoke weed outside of work and totally watted,,and then come into work an hour later,,,what he did outside of work effected him at work,,,the SOB couldnt do his job anymore and he almost put sulfuric acid on some mans arm,,,,because he thought it was WATER!!!!! So I fired him,,,guess what he had the nreve to do aftewards,,,he sued my companie,,,the outcome was that i won and he lost the suit,,he tried to sue me for 1 million dollars in compensation because,,,I MADE HIM SOMKE WEED OUTSIDE OF WORK,,,,DUE TO THE ECONOMY STRESS THAT HAS PUT ON HIM,,,HE SAID HE DESERVED TO SMOKE WEED TO RELEAX AT WORK,,, 

[tbombz]

not so tdong,,,I know fellas who smoke weed outside of work and totally watted,,and then come into work an hour later,,,what he did outside of work effected him at work,,,the SOB couldnt do his job anymore and he almost put sulfuric acid on some mans arm,,,,because he thought it was WATER!!!!! So I fired him,,,guess what he had the nreve to do aftewards,,,he sued my companie,,,the outcome was that i won and he lost the suit,,he tried to sue me for 1 million dollars in compensation because,,,I MADE HIM SOMKE WEED OUTSIDE OF WORK,,,,DUE TO THE ECONOMY STRESS THAT HAS PUT ON HIM,,,HE SAID HE DESERVED TO SMOKE WEED TO RELEAX AT WORK,,, 

that doesnt contradict what i said. i bet you have tons of employees who smoke weed and do it responsibly when it wont effect their performance at work.

[Emmortal]

but they dont have the right to FIRE someone without good reason or a forewarning, and they dont have the right to require drug tests.  if they suspect drug use, they can fire the person.

This is up to the states to decide which is why you have varying degrees of employer power such as in right-to-work states such as Florida where you can be fired for any reason without notice and places like California where you have to jump through 75 hoops and hire a team of lawyers before firing someone at McDonalds.

[Tapeworm]

This has come up on here before - the welfare drug test thing.  My position wasn't too popular then either.

Rights under US law aren't something that you "afford."  They aren't predicated on purchasing power.  Every legal citizen, rich or poor, has them in an equal amount.  In theory.  In practice, drug testing is a lower class phenomenon (yes, with some exceptions like pilots).  If you graduated from Harvard Law, no one is going to tell you to go pee in a cup.  If you want a job at Walmart, you're probably going to have to.  

Restructure financial aid into workfare or make it hard to use for an unintended purpose as discussed above, or both, but to make financial aid contingent on waiving one's right to privacy is really insidious.  It says that it's ok to use financial blackmail to wrest away people's rights (as does corporate drug testing, although not a law).  It says that rights are not guaranteed by law but by wealth, and less money means less rights.  That is not ok.  And surprisingly (or maybe not), it gets strong support from working class "So I gotta pee in a cup too" and "Yeah well maybe they outta just get a job" types who are no more than a few paychecks from the unemployment office themselves and who are [rightfully] proud of themselves for being hard workers.  Those who can afford to be a little farther from the financial melee tend to take a less emotional view of these proceedings and see the broader implications of laws like this.  Told you not popular, flame on, etc.

[deceiver]

Jim, there's a difference between tying one on and going out and snorting rails all night. I think most everyone can relate to letting loose with a few drinks but drugs are a whole other world.

Bullshit. Alcohol is a drug, period. It's considered more dangerous than many illegal drugs including pot and so on.

All drugs should be made legal and controlled. They lost war on drugs, they just cannot admit it yet. The only way to win it is to test and control everyone. In my book that's against human rights. Actually I believe that penalization of possesion is against human rights. I have right to decide what to do with my body including intoxicating it with any drugs I want. Please don't bullshit me with "medical care" arguments. First of all I pay my fucking taxes. Secondly you forget that this kind of philosophy telling you that individual rights are less important than society is communistic bullshit. There are hundreds of ways of financing medical care for drug abusers when they are made legal. When they are illegal you cant do shit.

If you think that everyone who takes drugs is a junkie and/or an addict you are a fool. There are many people who used or even abused various drugs without getting addicted. Mental addiction is a tricky thing and it works same with every fucking drug, including alcohol. It's complicated psychological process which cannot be simplified to amount of drug taken. 

[CalvinH]

is tdongz fucked?

He's been getting fucked for awhile now....

[dr.chimps]

Bullshit. Alcohol is a drug, period. It's considered more dangerous than many illegal drugs including pot and so on.

All drugs should be made legal and controlled. They lost war on drugs, they just cannot admit it yet. The only way to win it is to test and control everyone. In my book that's against human rights. Actually I believe that penalization of possesion is against human rights. I have right to decide what to do with my body including intoxicating it with any drugs I want. Please don't bullshit me with "medical care" arguments. First of all I pay my fucking taxes. Secondly you forget that this kind of philosophy telling you that individual rights are less important than society is communistic bullshit. There are hundreds of ways of financing medical care for drug abusers when they are made legal. When they are illegal you cant do shit.

If you think that everyone who takes drugs is a junkie and/or an addict you are a fool. There are many people who used or even abused various drugs without getting addicted. Mental addiction is a tricky thing and it works same with every fucking drug, including alcohol. It's complicated psychological process which cannot be simplified to amount of drug taken. 

Oh, they all admit it, privately. But, there is so much money involving in trying to police it that are 'forced' to keep the machine running. Just hypocrisy, at the basest level.

[Tre]

Oh, they all admit it, privately. But, there is so much money involving in trying to police it that are 'forced' to keep the machine running. Just hypocrisy, at the basest level.

Correct. The 'war on drugs' - like the 'war on terror' - is just a catchy term for another for-profit, right-wing, feel-good scheme.

Jim, there's a difference between tying one on and going out and snorting rails all night. I think most everyone can relate to letting loose with a few drinks but drugs are a whole other world.

The ultra-rich (white folk) have conditioned you to believe that alcohol is not dangerous.  Wake up.

[Disgusted]

OK then can someone tell me what good this program will do? I'm mean this as a serious question.

[Coach is Back!]

OK then can someone tell me what good this program will do? I'm mean this as a serious question.

Stop sucking tax payer money out of our pockets.

[ManBearPig...]

Bullshit. Alcohol is a drug, period. It's considered more dangerous than many illegal drugs including pot and so on.

All drugs should be made legal and controlled. They lost war on drugs, they just cannot admit it yet. The only way to win it is to test and control everyone. In my book that's against human rights. Actually I believe that penalization of possesion is against human rights. I have right to decide what to do with my body including intoxicating it with any drugs I want. Please don't bullshit me with "medical care" arguments. First of all I pay my fucking taxes. Secondly you forget that this kind of philosophy telling you that individual rights are less important than society is communistic bullshit. There are hundreds of ways of financing medical care for drug abusers when they are made legal. When they are illegal you cant do shit.

If you think that everyone who takes drugs is a junkie and/or an addict you are a fool. There are many people who used or even abused various drugs without getting addicted. Mental addiction is a tricky thing and it works same with every fucking drug, including alcohol. It's complicated psychological process which cannot be simplified to amount of drug taken. 

It's not a human right to do drugs while we pay for it, you dicksmack.  Do all the drugs you want and jump off a bridge, just don't ask me to pay for it.

[Van_Bilderass]

What about the multitude of drugs you can get with an Rx? I bet this wasn't included in the "ban".
You can get on pharma heroin (equivalent) and speed for your "back pain" and "concentration difficulties".
America =medicated nation. Half the people high all the time, with governenment approval.

[dr.chimps]

Stop sucking tax payer money out of our pockets.

If this agency/program ever gets up and running, Coach, some subsequent 5 years later, some wonk will do the accounting and find out that the agency spends $10/$20 to every $1 they save through fraud. By then it's too late to get off the highway. There'll be your tax dollars at work. This is GOV101, Coach.   

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Most of the ones who are career, generational, and persistent welfare recipients are bums.  

I live in the Bronx and gre up here and in yonkers and Mt. Vernon, NY, home to the vaunted DMX, Lox, Mary J., etc.  i have seen enouh of these leeches and bums for 50 lifetimes to know that they suffer cultural and societal rot that makes improvement impossible absent a total makeover.  

Boot Camp, PT, DI barking at them from 5:30 am to lights out at 8:30 pm is what these fools need.  

So if they are doing this every day, where would they find the time or energy to seek employment or go in for an interview

In any event, being unemployed isn't a crime and people should not be treated like criminals

[Tre]

Stop sucking tax payer money out of our pockets.

It's going to cost them more to do what they were already going to do anyway and then you're still getting the bill for it.

But because you're driven by emotion instead of intelligence, you're thinking "Yeah, we sure showed those marijuana users who's boss!"  

[dr.chimps]

It's going to cost them more to do what they were already going to do anyway and then you're still getting the bill for it.

But because you're driven my emotion instead of intelligence, you're thinking "Yeah, we sure showed those marijuana users who's boss!" 

Burn the country down to the ground, as long as they 'win.' 

[Jack T. Cross]

So you are quoting a Tupac Shakur song, a rapper who was shot in 1996 as your "proof and statistical evidence" that welfare requirements are not enforced in Chicago?   

LOLOL  I've seen it all.

[Jack T. Cross]

By the way, the thing about "drug testing" is that the nastiest drugs such as meth (hi, Coach) and crack/coke etc. will leave your system very quickly so a test can be easily duped.

[ManBearPig...]

LOLOL  I've seen it all.

no you haven't, it was a joke and he acknowledged it as such.

i think it's hilarious how the hippies are somehow anti government involvement as soon as there's a threat of benefits cuts.