• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/05/dane-eagle-drug-test_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.




:banana::banana:
 

onus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
699
Location
idaho
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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

mustangkiller

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
300
Location
, ,
They passed the welfare drug testing bill. If this one doesn't pass, they are a bigger bunch of hypocrites than I thought.
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
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?;)
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
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:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
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:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.

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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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/...cle_c57ed9f1-3ff0-522c-832f-c5f8d3fb3679.html
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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!
 

Kopis

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
674
Location
Nashville, TN
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:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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?
 
Top