Comments on: Drug Testing Law Heads To Appeal Court http://www.northescambia.com/2012/10/drug-testing-law-heads-to-appeal-court Local News for Molino, Bratt, McDavid, Century, Walnut Hill, Cantonment Sun, 05 Apr 2026 17:56:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David Huie Green http://www.northescambia.com/2012/10/drug-testing-law-heads-to-appeal-court/comment-page-1#comment-154202 David Huie Green Sun, 04 Nov 2012 02:54:00 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=116508#comment-154202 REGARDING: “Not for nuthin’ but they have tested the theory here. They tested 4,000 people and got a hit on 108.” According to you 2.7% tested positive. If the test cost $50 each, then it would cost $1,852 per positive test. ($10/test would cost $370/positive test) So if the sole goal were to save money, not paying that 2.7% $370-$1,852 or more would break even, depending on test expense. And that’s ignoring the people who just wouldn’t ask because they knew or suspected they’d fail the test. Further, if the test is easy to fool, it’s the wrong test. It might also find people who were abusing children by their actions, but probably not since the smarter ones wouldn't ask or agree to be tested. David contemplating numbers and child abuse REGARDING:
“Not for nuthin’ but they have tested the theory here. They tested 4,000 people and got a hit on 108.”

According to you 2.7% tested positive.

If the test cost $50 each, then it would cost $1,852 per positive test. ($10/test would cost $370/positive test) So if the sole goal were to save money, not paying that 2.7% $370-$1,852 or more would break even, depending on test expense.

And that’s ignoring the people who just wouldn’t ask because they knew or suspected they’d fail the test. Further, if the test is easy to fool, it’s the wrong test.

It might also find people who were abusing children by their actions, but probably not since the smarter ones wouldn’t ask or agree to be tested.

David contemplating numbers
and child abuse

]]> By: David Huie Green http://www.northescambia.com/2012/10/drug-testing-law-heads-to-appeal-court/comment-page-1#comment-154199 David Huie Green Sun, 04 Nov 2012 02:33:25 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=116508#comment-154199 REGARDING: “I’m all for it IF they include all welfare recipients. When you test the heads of BP, Exxon, Goldman-Sachs and all the CEO’s of companies that take tax dollars, then you may have a case for it. Otherwise it falls under the equal protection clause.” Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” “nor shall any State - - -deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” deprive 1. not allow to have: to prevent somebody from having something 2. take away: to take something away from somebody Not allow them to have money from the government unless all are deprived the same way. So you believe tax deductions are welfare? Of course, we’d have to be unbalanced to think that, otherwise we would have to drug all people receiving tax deductions or not drug test pilots and commercial drivers. And as to Goldman Sachs, “Goldman Sachs's borrowings totaled $782 billion in hundreds of transactions over these months. - - - The loans have been fully repaid in accordance with the terms of the facilities.” ( per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#Actions_in_the_2007.E2.80.932008_subprime_mortgage_crisis ) So we are also to believe all loans are also welfare? Interesting. David for rational thinking REGARDING:
“I’m all for it IF they include all welfare recipients. When you test the heads of BP, Exxon, Goldman-Sachs and all the CEO’s of companies that take tax dollars, then you may have a case for it. Otherwise it falls under the equal protection clause.”

Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

“nor shall any State – - -deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

deprive
1. not allow to have: to prevent somebody from having something
2. take away: to take something away from somebody

Not allow them to have money from the government unless all are deprived the same way.

So you believe tax deductions are welfare?

Of course, we’d have to be unbalanced to think that, otherwise we would have to drug all people receiving tax deductions or not drug test pilots and commercial drivers.

And as to Goldman Sachs, “Goldman Sachs’s borrowings totaled $782 billion in hundreds of transactions over these months. – - – The loans have been fully repaid in accordance with the terms of the facilities.”
( per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#Actions_in_the_2007.E2.80.932008_subprime_mortgage_crisis )

So we are also to believe all loans are also welfare?

Interesting.

David for rational thinking

]]> By: David Schwartz http://www.northescambia.com/2012/10/drug-testing-law-heads-to-appeal-court/comment-page-1#comment-154169 David Schwartz Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:58:51 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=116508#comment-154169 Not for nuthin' but they have tested the theory here. They tested 4,000 people and got a hit on 108. That's waaaaaaaaay lower than what they would find in the general population. This was on a surprise test, no warning. If people have a few days advance warning, 90% of them wouldn't fail. The company doing the testing gets paid either way. In any question with political implications, I always start with "follow the money'. It's worth noting that the most crippling drug problem in Florida is prescription drugs. They aren't even mentioned here. This is a dumb, ineffective, meaningless punitive test that accomplishes nothing except to enrich Governor Scott's 'blind' (ahem) trust. If you buy the argument for it, you are relying on your own version of blind trust. Not for nuthin’ but they have tested the theory here. They tested 4,000 people and got a hit on 108. That’s waaaaaaaaay lower than what they would find in the general population. This was on a surprise test, no warning. If people have a few days advance warning, 90% of them wouldn’t fail. The company doing the testing gets paid either way. In any question with political implications, I always start with “follow the money’. It’s worth noting that the most crippling drug problem in Florida is prescription drugs. They aren’t even mentioned here. This is a dumb, ineffective, meaningless punitive test that accomplishes nothing except to enrich Governor Scott’s ‘blind’ (ahem) trust. If you buy the argument for it, you are relying on your own version of blind trust.

]]> By: David Schwartz http://www.northescambia.com/2012/10/drug-testing-law-heads-to-appeal-court/comment-page-1#comment-154163 David Schwartz Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:28:48 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=116508#comment-154163 People are always quick to give away someone else's rights. What business was it that Rick Scott was in that paid the largest fine in the history of fines for? Scott should be making little ones out of big ones. People are always quick to give away someone else’s rights. What business was it that Rick Scott was in that paid the largest fine in the history of fines for? Scott should be making little ones out of big ones.

]]> By: David Schwartz http://www.northescambia.com/2012/10/drug-testing-law-heads-to-appeal-court/comment-page-1#comment-154162 David Schwartz Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:22:03 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=116508#comment-154162 I'm all for it IF they include all welfare recipients. When you test the heads of BP, Exxon, Goldman-Sachs and all the CEO's of companies that take tax dollars, then you may have a case for it. Otherwise it falls under the equal protection clause. If your goal is to root out drug use from people feeding at the public trough, do it right. While you're worrying about someone smoking a joint or buying a bag of potato chips with tax money, Exxon put $9,000 in their pocket, in the time it took to read this sentence. I’m all for it IF they include all welfare recipients. When you test the heads of BP, Exxon, Goldman-Sachs and all the CEO’s of companies that take tax dollars, then you may have a case for it. Otherwise it falls under the equal protection clause. If your goal is to root out drug use from people feeding at the public trough, do it right. While you’re worrying about someone smoking a joint or buying a bag of potato chips with tax money, Exxon put $9,000 in their pocket, in the time it took to read this sentence.

]]> By: GOOD LAW http://www.northescambia.com/2012/10/drug-testing-law-heads-to-appeal-court/comment-page-1#comment-154016 GOOD LAW Sat, 03 Nov 2012 00:42:23 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=116508#comment-154016 would save alot of tax payers money by stopping all the lazy spongeing people would save alot of tax payers money by stopping all the lazy spongeing people

]]> By: Ben Thar http://www.northescambia.com/2012/10/drug-testing-law-heads-to-appeal-court/comment-page-1#comment-153761 Ben Thar Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:12:11 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=116508#comment-153761 "Applicants have no ‘right’ to receive benefits, but they do have a right to apply for them" __________ That's just plain funny, right there. “Applicants have no ‘right’ to receive benefits, but they do have a right to apply for them”
__________

That’s just plain funny, right there.

]]> By: Thumbs Up http://www.northescambia.com/2012/10/drug-testing-law-heads-to-appeal-court/comment-page-1#comment-153707 Thumbs Up Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:00:47 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=116508#comment-153707 @ Henry Coe I imagine it's tedious (tiresome or monotonous) for taxpayers to go to work every day also - but they do it. Most companies and all gov. jobs require drug testing to work in their facility, so drug testing should be required for benefit programs that spend their hard earned money. @ Henry Coe

I imagine it’s tedious (tiresome or monotonous) for taxpayers to go to work every day also – but they do it. Most companies and all gov. jobs require drug testing to work in their facility, so drug testing should be required for benefit programs that spend their hard earned money.

]]> By: David Huie Green http://www.northescambia.com/2012/10/drug-testing-law-heads-to-appeal-court/comment-page-1#comment-153686 David Huie Green Thu, 01 Nov 2012 06:28:55 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=116508#comment-153686 REGARDING: "You should go through the application process for food stamps." Naw, I shouldn't try to sponge off the people unless I actually needed help. In fact, I could probably miss several meals without starving even if broke. David for helping only the needy REGARDING:
“You should go through the application process for food stamps.”

Naw, I shouldn’t try to sponge off the people unless I actually needed help. In fact, I could probably miss several meals without starving even if broke.

David for helping only the needy

]]> By: joe http://www.northescambia.com/2012/10/drug-testing-law-heads-to-appeal-court/comment-page-1#comment-153672 joe Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:25:29 +0000 http://www.northescambia.com/?p=116508#comment-153672 good law. I am tierd of paying taxes so others can lay around and not work and or do drugs and drink all day. perhaps people should take some accountability for themselves. good law. I am tierd of paying taxes so others can lay around and not work and or do drugs and drink all day. perhaps people should take some accountability for themselves.

]]>