Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Pops

Fort Thomas, KY

#22512 Nov 30, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the job seeker consents to that "search." That's the difference.
So should the welfare seeker! You want a Welfare check, S.N.A.P., Section 8, or a medical card you should do what it takes & PROVE that YOU are NOT a lawbreaker/felon. There is NO difference. Income for income. It is still a choice. IF I couldn't pass a drug test, I wouldn't apply for welfare or apply to work at Boeing or to be a Rent-A-Cop or a Meter Maid or whatever IF I would test dirty.
NO ONE is promised a check, but IF there are hurdles to get that check, one needs to clear those hurdles, NOT run around the hurdles.
Passing a drug test is absolutely NO different than any other qualification for a job/pay check.
Because I am color blind should I still be a pilot? Because I have lost an arm, should I still be a wall paper hanger? Because I am illiterate should I still be a Driving Instructor?
Please get real!!
This is a combonation of Consent & Qualification. Fill the Bill or move on.
Republican 101

Lima, OH

#22513 Nov 30, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the job seeker consents to that "search." That's the difference.
Oh cool, are we blaming random drug tests on liberals now, too?
The real question is, why should anyone actually listen to us paranoid rightwingers anymore? We've been PROVEN wrong, time and time again, but we keep making the same failed predictions, the same mistakes, and still, we keep falling for the same corporate sob story.
Oh yeah, and secondhand smoke is less dangerous than popcorn...
Republican 101

Lima, OH

#22514 Nov 30, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Because I am illiterate should I still be a Driving Instructor?
This is a combonation of Consent & Qualification. Fill the Bill or move on.
ARE you a driving instructor?
Pops

Fort Thomas, KY

#22515 Nov 30, 2013
Republican 101 wrote:
<quoted text>ARE you a driving instructor?
LOL Of course not. Just an example for the sake of this discussion that I am in about drug testing/job qualifications.
Your question is Funny tho when we think of some of the driving that ALL of us have witnessed.

Since: Nov 13

Commercial Point, OH

#22516 Nov 30, 2013
John K. is a good choice and would make a great president.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#22517 Nov 30, 2013
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Not brainwashed, eh? Just because every single time you guys post a link, it ends up being propaganda from the Koch Brothers is all just yet another one of the kookie little coincidences...again. Tell us some more how Al Gore invented the dangers of smoking. With things like FEMA Death camps and desperate birth certificate scandals, why would you expect anyone to take you guys seriously? So what environmental device went wrong on your truck this week?
Everything that disputes your claims is propaganda. That's the problem. In your world, everything you post is legit and everything other than what you post is propaganda, lies or has an ulterior motive. and you don't see a problem with it.

Didn't it ever strike you funny how something with no empirical evidence like MM global warming or climate change can be agreed on by this supposed 97% of scientists? What if I told you that 97% of all scientists believed Jesus Christ is our Lord, wouldn't you question that? Wouldn't it seem a little obvious something was amiss?

You got your information from some left-wing blog somewhere. So should I automatically dismiss it because it didn't come from one of my right-wing sources?

“I luv Canton”

Since: Sep 13

The 57th state

#22518 Nov 30, 2013
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Strange how all of the links you provide are rightwing propaganda sites. Wonder why? Thanks but I'll stick with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community while you continue to get your "news" from the village idiot. Get it right, little corporate fetch boy. Snap snap! Daddy Koch says jump and you ask "How high?"
LMFAO @ you loser...

When did NASA become a right wing tool?????????

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha haha

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20...

read it and weep libitard..........

If you want more data click on THIS dumb ayse...

http://lmgtfy.com/...
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#22519 Nov 30, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you have a job (truck driving) where the public safety aspect has been decided to trump your Fourth Amendment protections. This was decided in "Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association" in 1989. This was a controversial decision at the time.
"At face value, random drug testing appears to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects the right of citizens "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." In addition, the Fourth Amendment states that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." However, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Skinner that random drug testing is permissible for employees in safety sensitive positions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Railw...
What you may or may not realize is drug testing is far from detecting intoxication on the job. Marijuana can stay in your system up to three weeks. So if I decided to smoke some pot on Thanksgiving, and then got drug tested on Monday morning, got positive results when the substance has no impact on my performance or duties, how is that a public safety issue?

To reenforce Pop's point, there is no difference how somebody is financially supported. People on public assistance are living off of taxpayers money, and I would be willing to bet that most taxpayers have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients.

It's not just drug testing either. Do you realize that the DOT can pull me over anytime they desire and search my truck? They look inside of the cab, inside of the trailer, underneath the trailer, underneath the hood, and they don't ask for my consent? They have no warrant or probable cause either.

Okay, so it's all for public safety. Don't you think that a parent using illegal narcotics is a safety issue for their children?
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#22520 Nov 30, 2013
what_me_worry_ wrote:
<quoted text>
LMFAO @ you loser...
When did NASA become a right wing tool?????????
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha haha
http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20...
read it and weep libitard..........
If you want more data click on THIS dumb ayse...
http://lmgtfy.com/...
Canton didn't know that. He doesn't click the links. He doesn't read them. If he did read the links, he would realize that our "right-wing sources" have hyperlinks in the paragraphs that would take him to the research or sources that the writer of the article got their information from.
Pops

Fort Thomas, KY

#22522 Nov 30, 2013
Canton wrote:
Now, a little more about who wrote the article...James Taylor. He works for the Heartland Institute which is run by the Koch Brother oil billionaires.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/11/01...
So basically, yet another direct link of your beliefs leading right back to guess who? The Koch Brothers. I'll stick with getting my facts from the experts. You guys continue to show us what corporate fetch boys you are by getting your "science" from oil billionaires.
How about this link? www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/... Combined with or compared to what you & others have produced; it still says, "No one knows Chit & NO one has a crystal frickin ball"
One may be right or the other may be right, ONLY time will tell.
BUT what the current evidence says for a fact is that YOU are a PUTZ!!
Pops

Fort Thomas, KY

#22523 Nov 30, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
What you may or may not realize is drug testing is far from detecting intoxication on the job. Marijuana can stay in your system up to three weeks. So if I decided to smoke some pot on Thanksgiving, and then got drug tested on Monday morning, got positive results when the substance has no impact on my performance or duties, how is that a public safety issue?
To reenforce Pop's point, there is no difference how somebody is financially supported. People on public assistance are living off of taxpayers money, and I would be willing to bet that most taxpayers have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients.
It's not just drug testing either. Do you realize that the DOT can pull me over anytime they desire and search my truck? They look inside of the cab, inside of the trailer, underneath the trailer, underneath the hood, and they don't ask for my consent? They have no warrant or probable cause either.
Okay, so it's all for public safety. Don't you think that a parent using illegal narcotics is a safety issue for their children?
I am PROOF that there is a 'sliding scale' of culpability/guilt on some drugs.
I grew up so to speak, in the 60's & 70's & have 'done' everything that did not require a needle. At 1 time I Smoked it, swallowed it, snorted it or whatever. I am NO 'prude' nor am I open to anything.
One time after I learned to be 'moderate' I attended a wedding on a Saturday & took a few 'celebratory tokes' & still passed a Monday afternoon drug test.
It is a FACT that most drugs pass thru a human system in very short order. 24-72 hrs or less. The exception being CHRONIC pot consumption & that still depends on Pot quality, frequency, total indulgence/consumption, body fat, fluid intake etc etc.
If one 'passes' a drug test it doesn't mean that they are an Angel. They can still smoke some dope, consume some Meth,'snort a line', drop some acid, or whatever at the back yard BBQ or the camp out etc
IF one can't wait for 36-72 hrs or so B4 testing, they do not deserve a job or any help other than detox.
Republican 101

Lima, OH

#22524 Nov 30, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>How about this link? www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/... Combined with or compared to what you & others have produced; it still says, "No one knows Chit & NO one has a crystal frickin ball"
One may be right or the other may be right, ONLY time will tell.
BUT what the current evidence says for a fact is that YOU are a PUTZ!!
I think the point was that these braindead frightwingers are dead wrong. Every. Single. Time. Those are the facts.
Secret Muslims? Nope. Uva ring abortion on demand parties? Wrong. Riots in the streets if Romney isn't elected prez? Never happened. Commie death squads taking away people's guns? Not even close. Secondhand smoke is safer than popcorn? Come on now, REALLY?
So why wouldn't a rational, thinking person dismiss their corporate agenda as the meaningless, desperate fear mongering propaganda that it is?
Pops

Fort Thomas, KY

#22525 Nov 30, 2013
Republican 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
So why wouldn't a rational, thinking person dismiss their corporate agenda as the meaningless, desperate fear mongering propaganda that it is?
Good question.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#22526 Nov 30, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>So should the welfare seeker! You want a Welfare check, S.N.A.P., Section 8, or a medical card you should do what it takes & PROVE that YOU are NOT a lawbreaker/felon. There is NO difference.
The Supreme Court feels otherwise. I know you think your opinion is superior to theirs, but their opinion has the force of law.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#22527 Nov 30, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
What you may or may not realize is drug testing is far from detecting intoxication on the job. Marijuana can stay in your system up to three weeks. So if I decided to smoke some pot on Thanksgiving, and then got drug tested on Monday morning, got positive results when the substance has no impact on my performance or duties, how is that a public safety issue?
I understand your point. I was explaining the rationale for the Supreme Court decision regarding the prohibition on random drug testing, and the exception made for "public safety" reasons. You can disagree with their decisions if you like. But don't be mistaken and think that it is my opinion. It's not.

You and Pops both seem to have trouble understanding the meaning of "consent." It must be freely given. If a welfare recipient says "I don't want to be tested", they are within their legal rights to do that. Just as you can not be compelled to testify against yourself. It violates Constitutional protections. Do you really not understand this point?
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#22529 Dec 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Our drug testing is a requirement of the federal government. Is the federal government wrong too? My employer has no use for drug testing for our company. It costs money to hire a service that pulls our names at random, pay for the clinic services to take the test, and pay us for travel time to and from the clinic plus whatever time it takes for us to muster up enough urine to fill that cup.
Bottom line is I have to submit to drug tests because if I refuse, the federal government pulls my medical card. So if the federal government can force me to take a drug test in order to work, why can't the federal government do the same for welfare recipients?
I've witnessed two of our drivers fail drug tests. One of them tried to use some sort of stuff that was supposed to cover up the pot he was smoking. The government pulled his medical card for six weeks and he was forced to go to some sort of rehab center. The second time they pulled his name, he just walked into the office and told my employer he'd save him some money by just quitting the job. It's a shame because he was a good employee too.
That's some real irony from someone who claims that he gets nothing from the government. You work for a private company, yet you have a 'government medical card.' It was always my understanding that if you got a DUI, failed a pee test or had so many violations in a certain period of time that you lost your CDL. Never knew you got medical coverage through the government and not your employers insurance.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#22530 Dec 1, 2013
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>That's some real irony from someone who claims that he gets nothing from the government. You work for a private company, yet you have a 'government medical card.' It was always my understanding that if you got a DUI, failed a pee test or had so many violations in a certain period of time that you lost your CDL. Never knew you got medical coverage through the government and not your employers insurance.
Geeze.

Medical CARD. It's a document that shows you had your DOT physical and passed. You have to carry it at all times while driving and are required to submit (like your drivers license) it to a DOT officer when asked. Suspending your medical card is like suspending your license. If you are ever pulled over and don't have your medical card on your person, you can be put out of service on the spot.
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#22531 Dec 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Geeze.
Medical CARD. It's a document that shows you had your DOT physical and passed. You have to carry it at all times while driving and are required to submit (like your drivers license) it to a DOT officer when asked. Suspending your medical card is like suspending your license. If you are ever pulled over and don't have your medical card on your person, you can be put out of service on the spot.
Okay, that makes a little more sense.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#22532 Dec 1, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your point. I was explaining the rationale for the Supreme Court decision regarding the prohibition on random drug testing, and the exception made for "public safety" reasons. You can disagree with their decisions if you like. But don't be mistaken and think that it is my opinion. It's not.
You and Pops both seem to have trouble understanding the meaning of "consent." It must be freely given. If a welfare recipient says "I don't want to be tested", they are within their legal rights to do that. Just as you can not be compelled to testify against yourself. It violates Constitutional protections. Do you really not understand this point?
Sure I do. But if we had a requirement that people who accept public assistance have to take drug tests in order to get benefits, we are not forcing them to comply. If you don't want to take the drug tests, fine. Get a job instead.

Pops

Fort Thomas, KY

#22533 Dec 1, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court feels otherwise. I know you think your opinion is superior to theirs, but their opinion has the force of law.
That my opinion is superior is not quite what I said. I mentioned a caveat. That being that I don't know how the case was argued. The lawyers arguments are what their decision is to be based on & as they presented it may legitimize the SCOTUS ruling may be valid based on that.
My personal opinion (without knowing the arguments) is still based on these drug test being a choice of the tested. And that it is not for criminal court prosecution. IF the laws don't allow for the suppression of the test, I would have NO problem with such a law being enacted.
My mindset is to NOT support people that don't work because of their drug consumption. Example being that they won't apply to work somewhere because that company does drug test. That means that they are willfully unemployed.
The specifics of that SCOTUS argument would interest me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lynchburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fatboy 3 hr mynameis25charact... 4
Harambe vs boy: the Re-match 8 hr DeerHunter 2
Is Harambe in Hell? 8 hr Why oh why 13
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 8 hr Mike torres 20,504
Ben Lamb (Apr '13) 10 hr Live life 6
Vote for Hillary 11 hr Go Blue Forever 63
Melania Trump a Tranny??? 19 hr Marla 26

Lynchburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lynchburg Mortgages