Bill which would require drug testing welfare recipients pulled after amended to include legislators

page: 1
35
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+7 more 
posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Wonder WHY


The same Indiana State Representative that introduced a bill to drug test welfare recipients actually withdrew his own legislation after an ammendment to require the same testing for legislators was added !!!!


The added language only required the drug test for current elected officials, not candidates.

The reason may have been because current officials are already getting paid State monies.


Saturday, January 28, 2012 -- Activist Post

In a classic show of political hypocrisy, Indiana State Representative Jud McMillin pulled his bill which would have created a pilot program for the drug testing of applicants for welfare after it was successfully amended to require drug testing for lawmakers as well.

“There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill,” MicMillin, a Republican from Brookville, and sponsor of the original legislation, said.

McMillin seems to be taking the stance that this legislation with the amendment intact would not survive a constitutional challenge. This is based on a ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in 1997 which prevented drug testing political candidates. They ruled in Chandler v. Miller that drug testing for political candidates was unconstitutional and thus struck down a Georgia law.

However, this is hardly applicable given that they would not be requiring political candidates to be tested, instead they would be requiring the individuals who had already been elected and were receiving government funds to be tested.

Speaking to the Huffington Post, McMillin stated, “I’ve only withdrawn it temporarily,” claiming that his original bill was painstakingly crafted to pass challenges on its legality and constitutionality.
""Temporarily until I clean up my act"" maybe ?


Why didn't the paid lawyers tell somebody about "constitutionality" BEFORE they made the changes ?



Afraid of Something? Hmmm


Who are THEY Kidding ??




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I think it is a very bad sign for their grasp on reality if they think they can do this and the reason isn't clear as day.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


What a tool bag....way to lead by example...nice pick up OP



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
But they REALLY need to drug test those bastards! Cmon.. Who in their right, sober minds would make the choices that these windbags make?!?

They're all obviously on coke or "the pot". Nah.. Cant be pot. They would actually make more sense than they do now.


I wish this info would get to everyone's ears and eyes. This needs to be addressed and shoved in their faces.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 




I agree !!

BTW, your avitar is hard to see, brighten up the font color a little !



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


This was a good find!

You gotta love the duplicity.

I am not sure the first bill was Constitutional but whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Why shouldn't politicians be asked to maintain
and PROVE the same drug free condition we might ask of welfare recipients?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I actually think its a great idea.

We have a huge issue in Australia with welfare cheats or as we call them dole bludgers, in OZ unless you are highly specialised in your profession or live outside a capital city (not many people do though) there is no reason to be out of work. I know plenty of people who dont even bother looking for work and almost without exception they are substance abusers of some kind.

And anyone who is if only in theory paid and employed by the public to make decisions on their behalf should be screened as a matter of course.

Now dont get me wrong I abuse the occasional substance myself but the big difference here is I pay for it with money I earn myself not given to me by a system that in effect is giving you other peoples hard earned money and I dont make decisions on behalf of other people on a daily basis.

In my opinion people on welfare and lawmakers who get caught using drugs should be cut off and have mandatory jail sentences imposed on them



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Haven't read your link to determine the validity, but I will say that if I have to drug test for my employment then HECK YEAH everyone from welfare recipients to Congress ought to submit to the same thing.

Either that or do away with drug testing across the board.

If anything is worthy of the death penalty, then serial hypocrisy should be at the top of the list.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I have asked this very question for years now....
If the people have to be drug tested for a regular job, why not the congress and the president himself? After all, arent WE THE PEOPLE their employers???



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


I think your being a bit unfair there! I say this from personal experience, I've been seeking work for four years now unsuccessfully. Do I use drugs? No, I don't. I also don't collect welfare either though. I'm not sure what I'm really arguing here! But, yes, there are many who sit on welfare and do drugs. Personally, I prefer they do that than the "professionals" who are out there that also do drugs...

I'd prefer them smoking it up with the Marley on, rather than driving a mower on the side of the road off their heads!



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
With not enough jobs what else are they supposed to do? Its the only recreation they can afford.

Also who's it gona hurt the most? the suppliers and we all know who they are dont we.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
In my opinion people on welfare and lawmakers who get caught using drugs should be cut off and have mandatory jail sentences imposed on them


Most arrogant and ignorant thing I've ever read.

Kudos for being the first.

Can't talk now, dr phil is on, rolling blunt..


- on topic,

This thread was a good laugh, how ironic that the guy advocating a bill to drug test welfare recipients, pulls it if HE has to submit to one. Brilliant. Made me smile.

Just goes to show, that if you're paris hilton or senator twatalot you can do anything you want, unless your job relies on it, then.. "Oh wut wut? Maybe I shall reconsider my stance!"

do as I say, not as I do... say the judge to the court.

edit on 28-1-2012 by mainidh because: (no reason given)


PS 2!

Anyone who says drug using welfare recipients should get mandatory jail sentences, should start writing up a list of Approved activities for these vermin scum... You know "Bed before 9pm, no ice cream. No butter. No fat on your steak, NO STEAK, no bottled water, no biscuits containing peanut, no 2 minute noodles, get up by 5am and do an hour of cardio...."

Because, hey, it's YOUR money they are living on, you have every right to control them to the grave... right?

edit on 28-1-2012 by mainidh because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-1-2012 by mainidh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Were they afraid that pushing this bill would encourage law makers to legalize drugs? I do think this is a good idea though. If police officers, soldiers and most government employees have to drug test. Shouldn't elected officials? Let's not stop at the legislators though, let's test the judges, governors, mayors, city planners. Let's test Obama's dog. That pooch is on dope.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by iamthelaw614
 

I couldn't agree with your sentiments more about elected officials being good for their own testing laws. If anyone should be put to that degree of intrusion by the Government then ALL Government officials should have to follow the same.

Leading by example shouldn't have to be law, but since they can't seem to BE an example worth following, I suppose we ought to pass the needed laws so this gets addressed for them being held to what they pass.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
i guess his hatred for black, hispanics and poor white people only goes so far as long as it doesn't effect him or his buddies.

i think all government posts should be drug tested. i guess it's only humiliating to pee in a cup if you're a governor
or a senator than if you're poor and ethnic.

even though someone with the power to vaporize the world should be clear minded and sane and not potentially snorting rails of coke off the resolute desk in the oval office without any body knowing.

or getting some crazy vision while their baked in the lincoln bedroom. especially when it's apparently cool for presidents to admit they smoked pot and even bumps of blow.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I live on an Indian reservation in northern NY. We drug test our chiefs. Once they get elected, they have to go have a hair test(drug test). I think it's great idea, drug testing legislators.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Typical government behavior. No one should be surprised by this or the fact that I haven't heard anything about it on the MSM. Maybe I'm watching the wrong channels



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Qumulys
 


Hey Dude,

Sorry to hear that mate,

Are you in Australia? I dont know about anywhere else so my comments were exclusively about there. From what I hear on here things in the Us are pretty grim work wise so I dont think my comments were valid for yanks.

If you are in Oz mind if I ask where u live and what sot of work ur looking for?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mainidh

Most arrogant and ignorant thing I've ever read.

Kudos for being the first.

Can't talk now, dr phil is on, rolling blunt..



Well I guess its a good thing I held back then,
Its not ignorant or arrogant, as I stated Im talking from personal experience. My Auntie married a good for nothing piece of feces that hasnt worked in 13 years, when I asked him why not not his response was " why would I look for work, I get $400 a fortnight and get to spend more time with the kids"
Thats one example but Ive got dozens more




Anyone who says drug using welfare recipients should get mandatory jail sentences, should start writing up a list of Approved activities for these vermin scum... You know "Bed before 9pm, no ice cream. No butter. No fat on your steak, NO STEAK, no bottled water, no biscuits containing peanut, no 2 minute noodles, get up by 5am and do an hour of cardio...."

Because, hey, it's YOUR money they are living on, you have every right to control them to the grave... right?


I appreciate your being sarcastic and deliberately exaggerating my point but thats not a bad idea!!!!!
I think telling what time to go to bed or exercise may be going a bit far but how they spend their money hells yeah great idea, no non essential items at all in my opinion. Bread, rice, milk, sugar, fruits and veg and maybe a small weekly ration of coffee.

I dont think this should apply to people on disability benefits and that sort of thing but anyone whos capable of earning their own living and doesnt should get sweet bugger all in my opinion.
Once again Im not saying this should apply on a global level, I dont know how things are else where but I do know in Australia there is NO EXCUSE to not have a job unless you are highly specialised or in a remote area.

Out of curiousity are you Aussie?






top topics



 
35
<<   2 >>

log in

join