Friday, January 28, 2011

What kinda brownies are they baking up in that capital cafeteria ?

Most types of drug tests fail to detect alcohol abuse – the most commonly abused substance among Americans – and are most likely to detect marijuana use since the active ingredient in marijuana stays in the body’s system longer than any other illicit substance. Therefore, drug tests often fail to identify people who are using more powerful, more addictive and more dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine, which exit the body’s system in a matter of hours or days. If you really want to deal with the problem of addiction, provide treatment on demand," Wexler offered.

Welllll it's that day again Taylor Gang, when we ask you about the smoke screens preventing us from progressing as a nation of level headed individuals. the new congress has stuck it's head up it's ass more than any freshman class that we can remember from recent memory. Can you imagine that now they want mandatory drug testing for anyone receiving public assistance ?
What kinda brownies are they baking up in that capital cafeteria ? Damn.. check this out and then we'll continue to the response

Welfare Drug Testing Bills Introduced in Four States

With this year's state legislative season barely under way, bills have been introduced in four states -- Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oregon -- to require drug testing for people receiving public assistance. And in a novel twist, a bill in Indiana would require unemployment recipients to declare they are not using illegal drugs and threatens them with up to three years in prison for perjury if they are found to be using them.
But while such bills may be popular with politicians of a certain stripe, they don't find much support among professionals in the field. Groups that have lined up against such bills include the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, the National Health Law Project, the National Association on Alcohol, Drugs and Disability, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, the National Black Women’s Health Project, the Legal Action Center, the National Welfare Rights Union, the Youth Law Center, the Juvenile Law Center, and the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which successfully litigated against Michigan's welfare drug testing law, has also come down strongly against welfare drug testing. Such laws are "scientifically, fiscally, and constitutionally unsound," in the ACLU's opinion. The group cites studies showing welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population and that 70% of illicit drug users are employed. It also cites research showing that drug testing is an expensive, but ineffective way to uncover drug abuse. (Full citations and more information are available at the ACLU link above.)
But the kicker for the ACLU is the unconstitutionality of warrantless drug testing by the state, as determined by the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Michigan case. Michigan was the only state to actually implement a welfare drug testing program, but the appeals court found that the program violated the Fourth Amendment's provision barring unreasonable searches.
The persistence of such attempts is drawing concern from the drug reform community as well. Given the fiscal pressures facing the states, legislators could be even more susceptible to pseudo-populist demagoguery than usual.
"I am quite concerned that recurring legislative proposals to require drug testing of welfare and/or unemployment applicants and beneficiaries will gain new momentum with the budget crises confronting so many states, and also in Congress," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA). "The proposals are mean-spirited, counter-productive and will ultimately cost much more than they save by depriving needy Americans of access to benefits. DPA will do all it can to ensure that these proposals do not become law."
"These kinds of laws aren't going to stop someone who is addicted from being addicted," said Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. "They're just going to drive them further away from getting any kind of help. Also, it is often poverty that causes the stress that helps create addiction. If you make someone poorer, you just deepen that despair," he pointed out.
"If you really want to deal with the problem of addiction, provide treatment on demand," Wexler offered. "And if people are worried that not everyone will take advantage of it, let's put that to the test. Make drug treatment immediately available and see if the claim that people will turn it down has any merit ."
Yeah you buncha clowns - anyway the entire piece can be seen here at In case you're a youngin this is how it happened - wayyyyyyy back in 1998 the ACLU tackled this issue and won.
There's on reason to think that they've got a new argument so why these clowns keep parading this one trick pony around in a circle is the real question.

are there some new folks with stock in testing companies in these states who are so self righteously demanding this stupidity ?

Hmmmmmmm.. inquiring minds are gonna find out. Betcha !

This is how it's laying right now - Thanks to the ACLU and the Good Old Michigan Supreme Court. this is a short clipping from the full piece which is very interesting reading. no doubt this will be used during the determination phases of this proposed bill. at the point that it's introduced, we expect to see the same thing happen all over again - except it will be the supreme court this time. no doubt about it -they love pre established precedents and have rarely differed with the previously issued rulings.

Random drug testing of welfare recipients is likely unconstitutional under both the U.S. Constitution and some state constitutions:

Drug Testing of Public Assistance Recipients as a Condition of Eligibility

  • Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.[16]
  • At the time Michigan’s drug testing scheme was struck down, the 49 other states had rejected such a program for a variety of fiscal and practical reasons: at least 21 states concluded that such a program “may be unlawful”; 17 states cited cost concerns; 11 states had not considered drug testing at all; and 11 gave a variety of practical/operational reasons.[17]
  • In halting the implementation of Michigan’s drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients “could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.”[18] Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well.
  • Some states’ constitutions actually offer greater privacy protection to individuals than does the U.S. Constitution. It is very possible that random drug testing schemes for welfare recipients will run afoul of these state-specific protections as well.
so now that we know the facts, lets take a deep breath; then inhale this fatty right here son.

Download Mixtape Free | Mixtape Player

Remember We're baking it fresh just for you,


msladydeborah said...

Thanks for providing me with an intelligent read early in the a.m.

At my previous job, a drug testing policy was established that went way too far on the side of imposing on our rights. The company reps stated if we were off from work and they called us to be tested, we had to come in. This clause ended up being the end of that whole scenario. I started laughing out loud when it was brought up by the rep. He tried to make it seem like it was do it or be fired. I pointed out that if we were not at work, the company had no right to impose upon our rights as a private citizen. The rep was stunned by my response. He continued to try and push the firing aspect. I countered with the point that if we were off due to a medical reason or for reasons such as death in the family, an emergency of some sorts, that dismissal threat was not enough to make me come in.

Our union ended up taking the matter to court. They had not factored in that our jobs require that teachers be present according to Ohio law. It was a wrap.

The herb is not the problem. It might be the natural medicine that keeps someone from going the hell off! I agree that instant rehab is a lot more sensible than trying to jail someone or denying them benefits.

FishHawk said...

"A BadGal Says - The SUSS" has been included in this weeks A Sunday Drive. I hope this helps to attract even more new visitors here.

RE Ausetkmt said...

Ms Lady Deborah you and I are on the same page. they can take a big draw offa my "kissmyass". I ain't pissin in no damn cup for no freaks.

RE Ausetkmt said...

Thanks FishHawk