Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Drug testing of legislators and judges bill in Florida introduced --

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Drug testing of legislators and judges bill in Florida introduced --

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4905777.html

    State Rep. Dane Eagle (R-Cape Coral) filed his "Drug-Free Public Officers Act" on Tuesday. HB1435 would include those elected or appointed to federal, state or local constitutional offices as well as municipal and school district positions, along with justices and judges of the Supreme, appellate, circuit and county courts.





  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    If I have to pee to work they should too. Period. The end. Close thread.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    I played on my high school basketball team for 4 years. We got mandatory drug testing every year.

    I played 2 years of college basketball. We got mandatory drug testing each year.

    My guess is this bill wont pass because the masters wont allow themselves to be tested by their servants.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    I wonder what excuse they'd have to not pass this. Have nothing to hide right?

    All I can see is they say it costs too much money. Then it'd be a cost/benefit analysis. Meaning if it costs 10 billion a year to pay for it (made up number) to catch the .00002 percent that do blow (made up number) then I doubt the tax payers would want to pay it. If there's a rampant drug or alcohol problem and you need to weed it out (get it?) Then by all means, bring the cups and the holders/watchers.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    They passed the welfare drug testing bill. If this one doesn't pass, they are a bigger bunch of hypocrites than I thought.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    I have a solution: stop buying pastries, coffee, high-end liquor, crystal glassware for consuming said liquor, and barbers' services on the taxpayer dime. Use the money saved to test our "representatives" at random.
    If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear, right?
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  7. #7
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Lawyers, judges, cops, and to some degree people in public office who see the criminal element have access to the same temptations.

    They see sexual favors, recreational use, and other 'perks' as part of their entitlement.

    I would suggest at least 30-50% of judges use and 80% or more lawyers.

    In fact when you consider that judges were once lawyers and some had access to high end clients, sports, entertainment and show biz, there's another route (and perhaps the primary one) that's available, the number for judges might be even higher. It's a relatively boring job, so certain recreationals have a draw.

    They do not consider themselves in the same class as their subjects. Like they say about the bike riders 'you think they're doing that job day-to-day on bagels and water?'. Of course, right now, we don't know, probably a few have been caught.

    So, no, that bill won't pass. I am glad to see it proposed, though. I think coaches, managers, trainers, and the other side of sports should be tested also.
    Last edited by Maverick9; 03-09-2014 at 11:20 AM.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    Lawyers, judges, cops, and to some degree people in public office who see the criminal element have access to the same temptations.

    They see sexual favors, recreational use, and other 'perks' as part of their entitlement.

    I would suggest at least 30-50% of judges use and 80% or more lawyers.

    In fact when you consider that judges were once lawyers and some had access to high end clients, sports, entertainment and show biz, there's another route (and perhaps the primary one) that's available, the number for judges might be even higher. It's a relatively boring job, so certain recreationals have a draw.

    They do not consider themselves in the same class as their subjects. Like they say about the bike riders 'you think they're doing that job day-to-day on bagels and water?'. Of course, right now, we don't know, probably a few have been caught.

    So, no, that bill won't pass. I am glad to see it proposed, though. I think coaches, managers, trainers, and the other side of sports should be tested also.
    IMO a baseless allegation w/o merit and in violation of several Forum Rules.

    In that each owner of OCDO is an attorney, do you conclude that one (1) is so inclined? Dangerous ground there....even w/o the forum rules.

    I do concur that public servants be subjected to the rules/laws in the same manner as the rest of us. Goose meet gander.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    IMO a baseless allegation w/o merit and in violation of several Forum Rules.

    In that each owner of OCDO is an attorney, do you conclude that one (1) is so inclined? Dangerous ground there....even w/o the forum rules.

    I do concur that public servants be subjected to the rules/laws in the same manner as the rest of us. Goose meet gander.
    I don't want to break the rules, but an 'I would suggest' is hardly an allegation. Perhaps a better sentence would be 'that would suggest'?
    Last edited by Maverick9; 03-09-2014 at 01:39 PM.

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    I don't want to break the rules, but an 'I would suggest' is hardly an allegation. Perhaps a better sentence would be 'that would suggest'?
    30-50% of judges use and 80% or more lawyers.......really?

    That calls attention to something not in evidenc; therefore, there is no cite to support that which would otherwise suggested.

    I am "suggesting" that is not a good route to take.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    IMO a baseless allegation w/o merit and in violation of several Forum Rules.

    In that each owner of OCDO is an attorney, do you conclude that one (1) is so inclined? Dangerous ground there....even w/o the forum rules.

    I do concur that public servants be subjected to the rules/laws in the same manner as the rest of us. Goose meet gander.
    I don't care what people put into their bodies ... this is really a question of the employer-employee relationship. If the owners of OCDO are lawyers and their employer mandates that they take a drug test, then they take it or not & accept whatever, if any, consequences associated with the finding of drugs or the refusal to take the test.

    I don't think that taking bodily fluids or testing of body parts is something that employers should even be allowed to tinker with.

    When requiring those that make laws now be subjected to the outrageous employer-mandated drug testing ... the law will change very quickly I would guess.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    If I have to pee to work they should too. Period. The end. Close thread.
    The "piss test" should only be done for illegal drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    They passed the welfare drug testing bill. If this one doesn't pass, they are a bigger bunch of hypocrites than I thought.
    They are taking stolen money and not having to work for it, they should not be able to buy anything but what is needed while accepting welfare checks/payments.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    The "piss test" should only be done for illegal drugs.
    .
    For gov't employees ... not just for illegal drugs...

    for non-gov't employees, no ******* testing at all

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    For gov't employees ... not just for illegal drugs...

    for non-gov't employees, no ******* testing at all
    I agree.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Unfortunately, drug testing of public officials and/or government employees has as little value or genuine utility as does drug testing of anyone else.

    Not that their ilk haven't earned it anyway.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Woopie!!! Another law.

    I'd rather that the number of laws currently on the books be reduced to a significant degree, not increased.

    How many judges are there in Madison County ILL-inois? One dead from using heroin and one in jail?
    EAST ST. LOUIS • An Illinois judge’s guilty plea Friday in a federal drug case does not end the investigation of circumstances that led to prison for him and a probation officer, and left another judge dead, officials said.

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...8d3fb3679.html

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Woopie!!! Another law.

    I'd rather that the number of laws currently on the books be reduced to a significant degree, not increased.

    How many judges are there in Madison County ILL-inois? One dead from using heroin and one in jail?
    Normally I would agree ... but since this one harasses gov't officials .. then wHoppie!

  18. #18
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    727
    from the article " Even if the bill passes, Floridians will be no closer to knowing whether or not legislators are sober. Though positive results would be referred to the state's Commission on Ethics, Eagle has also filed a companion bill HB1437, that exempts public officials' drug testing results from the public record, citing possible "unwarranted damages to the reputation of a public officer."

    "...The Legislature finds that the chilling effect to a public officer who is seeking treatment for his or her substance abuse which would result from the release of this information substantially outweighs any public benefit derived from disclosure to the public," the bill reads, adding, "Further, making this information confidential and exempt will encourage public officers to seek treatment for substance abuse and thereby preserve the integrity of government institutions and agencies."

    Weird... my job would fire me if i tested positive for any drug. Why would police or legislators be fired as well? I would be extremely concerned if any LEO tested positive for any drug. I mean, they arrest some 16 yr old kid for a joint then go home and smoke one themselves?
    Last edited by Kopis; 03-10-2014 at 10:40 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    from the article " Even if the bill passes, Floridians will be no closer to knowing whether or not legislators are sober. Though positive results would be referred to the state's Commission on Ethics, Eagle has also filed a companion bill HB1437, that exempts public officials' drug testing results from the public record, citing possible "unwarranted damages to the reputation of a public officer."

    "...The Legislature finds that the chilling effect to a public officer who is seeking treatment for his or her substance abuse which would result from the release of this information substantially outweighs any public benefit derived from disclosure to the public," the bill reads, adding, "Further, making this information confidential and exempt will encourage public officers to seek treatment for substance abuse and thereby preserve the integrity of government institutions and agencies."

    Weird... my job would fire me if i tested positive for any drug. Why would police or legislators be fired as well? I would be extremely concerned if any LEO tested positive for any drug. I mean, they arrest some 16 yr old kid for a joint then go home and smoke one themselves?
    If a particular legislator's constituents want to have a doper/boozer in office, who are we to prevent that. If the legislator's conduct, while on the clock, is otherwise lawful then it is a membership issue. No legislator is going to toss his buddy under the bus.

    But for the grace of God, there go I. Know what I mean?

  20. #20
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    For gov't employees ... not just for illegal drugs...

    for non-gov't employees, no ******* testing at all
    Good thing they're not planning on testing for evidence of impairment, lol.

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    Good thing they're not planning on testing for evidence of impairment, lol.
    You slipped that in very politely
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    Good thing they're not planning on testing for evidence of impairment, lol.
    Yes, well, when you start comparing the average government employee/politician to the average drug user in terms of impairment… things start looking pretty good for the drug users.


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    why was my post deleted ?

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    why was my post deleted ?
    Violation of Forum Rules.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    from the article " Even if the bill passes, Floridians will be no closer to knowing whether or not legislators are sober. Though positive results would be referred to the state's Commission on Ethics, Eagle has also filed a companion bill HB1437, that exempts public officials' drug testing results from the public record, citing possible "unwarranted damages to the reputation of a public officer."

    "...The Legislature finds that the chilling effect to a public officer who is seeking treatment for his or her substance abuse which would result from the release of this information substantially outweighs any public benefit derived from disclosure to the public," the bill reads, adding, "Further, making this information confidential and exempt will encourage public officers to seek treatment for substance abuse and thereby preserve the integrity of government institutions and agencies."

    Weird... my job would fire me if i tested positive for any drug. Why would police or legislators be fired as well? I would be extremely concerned if any LEO tested positive for any drug. I mean, they arrest some 16 yr old kid for a joint then go home and smoke one themselves?
    That bill, HB1437, may be meaningless ... because you have common law rights to inspect public records. Chk your open record provisions and see if your common law rights are not abridged by statues...(that's how it is in my state):


    Section 1-206. (Formerly Sec. 1-21i) - Denial of access to public records or meetings. Appeals....
    Nothing in this section shall deprive any party of any rights he may have had at common law prior to January 1, 1958....

    All the exemptions and exceptions are garbage unless they mirror common law....

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •