It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida's drug testing conspiracy

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Here we go again, and the MSM wonders why there is absolutely no confidence in the political system.

Florida Governor Rick Scott is ignoring the Supreme Court to instill a drug testing policy on employees and welfare recipients. Your opinion on this may vary, but here is the kicker:

The Governor was the co-founder of Solantik (solantik.com) which specializes in drug testing. Not to worry, he claims that there is no conflict of interest as he has transfered his portion of the business to... yes, his wife.

In case you think this is an isolated incident which does not prove how totally absent of any ethical and moral fiber our politicians are, there is more.

Before joining the Repulican Party, Scott ran Columbia HCA (newspaper article on scandal) which was investigated by the FBI and guilty of 14 felonies paying a record $1.7B in fines. Not to worry, good old Rick left the company with $300 million in stock options.


The people who are given to us as potential vote recipients lack any and all ethics, or are outright criminals, no wonder there is such a low voter turnout and an utter lack of credibility in government.

Yes, something smells funny, but it isn't pee in a cup!

the Billmeister



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


I dont really like Scott for my governor to be honest. He killed our high speed rail system that many, many people in this area have been calling for for years. But that being said, I dont really mind this. Ive know plenty of people on welfare, unemployment, etc. who do spend some of that money on buying drugs. To me, if you need help you should spend it on the stuff that you actually need and not something to get a buzz. Same goes for alcohol and smokes. That money should be going to food, clothing, water and shelter for you and your family and not to things to catch a buzz.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by dizzie56
 


My point of interest is not with the "for or against" validity of his argument, but more so, the obvious, and massive conflict of interest involved.

The politicians we get offered are nothing but egomaniacs with no ethical or moral compass whatsoever.

the Billmeister



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
The high speed rail program he killed was a boondoggle in the making. Florida dodged a huge bullet when he killed it. There is no demand for high speed rail. Think about it seriously for a few minutes. Who would actually use it? The USA is not Europe. Mass transit does not work here except in a few large cities where there are enough users to justify it. Most mass transit just ends up sucking taxpayer dollars for support. There is not enough ridership to justify it. Amtrak is a prime example.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


Have you ever driven from Tampa to Orlando or vice versa? How bout from either of those cities to Miami? One little accident and it takes at least an extra 30 mins to get where you are going. Massive accident, add at least another hour on top of the half hour. Id be willing to bet that the demand is there. If you dont believe me, stand at the I4 intersection with 275 for a couple of hours and see just how many cars pass thru there in that time frame. You would be amazed.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


I understand your point that it can be considered a conflict of interest but in all reality, most of these people that get into big politics all have friends that have huge businesses like this. If it was his friend that owned the company and not his wife now, would you still consider it a conflict of interest? I sure would, but it wouldnt deter me from thanking him for what he is doing in this matter. Now, if that company gets the sole contract with Florida then yes, id have a HUGE problem with it. But I doubt that will happen and if it does, he wont last to long. Its actually doubtful that he will get reelected at this point in time anyways from what the polls have said.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


If Scott or his political financiers had had a stake in the rail industry, you can bet that the project would have been supported.

Decisions are not based on what is good for the population, but rather, what is good for the politicians' and their friends' bank accounts.

the Billmeister



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Billmeister
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


Decisions are not based on what is good for the population, but rather, what is good for the politicians' and their friends' bank accounts.

the Billmeister


So are you saying that testing welfare recipients for drugs is not a good thing? I dislike them having to pay for the drug testing as they dont have the money for it in the first place but to me if your taking that money and spending it on drugs then its just a wasted handout.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56

Originally posted by Billmeister
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


Decisions are not based on what is good for the population, but rather, what is good for the politicians' and their friends' bank accounts.

the Billmeister


So are you saying that testing welfare recipients for drugs is not a good thing? I dislike them having to pay for the drug testing as they dont have the money for it in the first place but to me if your taking that money and spending it on drugs then its just a wasted handout.


I made no such statement, in fact, from my original post, I stated that this thread is not focused on whether this particular policy is right or wrong, but on what type of character traits are drawn to political power.

I agree that using taxpayer money to support a drug habit is definitely not what its intended use is. However, I think that investing in job creation would be far more positive than spending the money on testing, which would likely lead to an increased spending in the prison system (as drug use is considered a crime) which would end up costing the taxpayer much more in the long run.

the Billmeister



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Billmeister

which would likely lead to an increased spending in the prison system (as drug use is considered a crime) which would end up costing the taxpayer much more in the long run.

the Billmeister


Actually, it would lead to a decrease in spending since having the drug in your system isnt a crime in Florida, its having actual posession of the drug that would land your butt in jail. A positive drug test would just cut you off from getting the welfare.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


Have you ever driven from Tampa to Orlando or vice versa? How bout from either of those cities to Miami? One little accident and it takes at least an extra 30 mins to get where you are going. Massive accident, add at least another hour on top of the half hour. Id be willing to bet that the demand is there. If you dont believe me, stand at the I4 intersection with 275 for a couple of hours and see just how many cars pass thru there in that time frame. You would be amazed.
I have. I have been an I-4 hostage. I used to be stationed at the navy base in Orlando and I used to hang out at Indian Rocks Beach and Treasure Island almost every weekend. The train between the two is a useless idea. When you get to Tampa from Orlando, then what? How do you get to the beach? The ball park? Mass transit cannot handle the needs of a highly mobile society like the US. Consider that the train between New York and Washington DC is not self supporting. If that run cannot be self supporting how the heck can the Orlando to Tampa run ever hope to be? Driving to Miami is actually much better since you have several viable routes. You can take I4 I95, you can take SR 50 to I95, you can take the turn pike, and if in the mood for adventure, you can even drive surface streets the whole way. I did that once and discovered some of the best gator tail and key lime pie I have ever had anywhere.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56

Originally posted by Billmeister
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


Decisions are not based on what is good for the population, but rather, what is good for the politicians' and their friends' bank accounts.

the Billmeister


So are you saying that testing welfare recipients for drugs is not a good thing? I dislike them having to pay for the drug testing as they dont have the money for it in the first place but to me if your taking that money and spending it on drugs then its just a wasted handout.
I agree, and moreover failing the test should result in an immediate loss of benefits for life.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Again, I really am not disagreeing with either of you on the drug testing issue.

I am from Canada, where our welfare net not only covers the basic cost of living allowance, but all health care is provided by the state.

Being the case, the welfare recipient does not participate in funding the system, yet becomes an added burden on it when they abuse drugs, alcohol, tobacco, heck, even fatty foods etc...

I definitely am not against some sort of measure that would encourage them toward a healthy lifestyle which, in return, would cause them to be less of a burden on the system. In my humble opinion, if you are under tutelage of the state, the state can impose some measures to guarantee that you do not abuse this privilege.

the Billmeister



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


I don't think this is going to happen. I actually hope they do drug test these folks, but it will have to go through the normal bid process, and hopefully some other company wins the contract.

I work for the state, and I would welcome drug tests. As a supervisor, my hands are basically tied, even if I am positive someone is high at work. I would risk my career by sending them for a drug test, because on the off-chance that I was wrong, it would be an instant lawsuit, which they would win, and I would be fired.

Scott has overstepped his bounds as Governor in many ways, and he has already alienated his own party to a large degree, but I think he has good intentions. x crosses fingers and hopes x



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


I say he needs to be first in line.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
So are you saying that testing welfare recipients for drugs is not a good thing?


I absolutely will say it is not a good thing. Putting the 4th Amendment thing aside the whole concept is a slippery slope. If we allow this as acceptable how long before we're all drug tested to say.... get our tax refunds? Or maybe we all get drug tested to receive ANY government services. We should never give a corrupt government power like this, no matter how strongly you feel about what other people do with their welfare money.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Billmeister
yet becomes an added burden on it when they abuse drugs, alcohol, tobacco, heck, even fatty foods etc...


Exactly. I want personal GPS systems attached to all welfare recipients to make sure they DO NOT enter McDonald's and buy their kids unhealthy food with MY taxpayer money.

[/sarcasm]

See where this slippery slope is going to lead yet?



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
How about drug testing for all government employees?

These "kick 'em while they're down" policies are no good.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Billmeister
 

Scott has overstepped his bounds as Governor in many ways, and he has already alienated his own party to a large degree, but I think he has good intentions. x crosses fingers and hopes x


I have been called overly-cynical (probably justifiably so), and I'll admit that I should wait on the open call for bids on the contract before jumping to conclusions.

Only, the pattern of corruption between business and government seems to be getting so blatant. In the "good old days" at least they tried to hide it a little. U

the Billmeister



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Billmeister
yet becomes an added burden on it when they abuse drugs, alcohol, tobacco, heck, even fatty foods etc...


Exactly. I want personal GPS systems attached to all welfare recipients to make sure they DO NOT enter McDonald's and buy their kids unhealthy food with MY taxpayer money.

[/sarcasm]

See where this slippery slope is going to lead yet?


That is my point exactly... where to draw the line?
-Should we force them to run 5 miles per day?
-eat at least 10 grams of fiber?
-stay off the mayonnaise?

As traditionaldrummer has also pointed out, how can we be sure this will be limited to spheres of employment or welfare?

Again, perhaps I am overly cynical of government, but I don't see anything positive at the end of this tunnel.

the Billmeister



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join