Comments on: Scott Takes Worker Drug Testing To Supreme Court

By: cc

cc — Sat, 18 Jan 2014 01:02:34 +0000

Alot of people dont think about this. There are some people out there who are clean of drugs and never used them. But they have a psychological road block which makes them pee shy. This holds alot of jobs back from people who really need them. They are so adamant on urine test for some reason or another. But drawing blood works just as well. Food for thought.

By: Amazed

Amazed — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:44:25 +0000

M in Bratt
It just seems like the unions would want to rid themselves of the bad apples……..

The UNIONS ARE THE BAD APPLES.

Jack
The key is choice….

That is what escapes these anti-drug testers.

By: melodies4us

melodies4us — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 02:47:39 +0000

I am sure that if Gov. Scott is pushing real hard for this, he’s going to profit from it. I just wish he would have been this determined to build the monorail system we all voted for when he was in diapers.

By: Someone

Someone — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:44:47 +0000

Random County and or State drug tests are worthless, had a relative that drove a school bus for 20+ years, shopped doctors like crazy, was receiving hundreds of pills a month from 6 different doc’s. Being a high ranking Union member she got a 2 week notice of her upcoming ‘random’ test and made sure she passed.

Whats the point.

By: Randy

Randy — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:14:52 +0000

Why can the military drug test those on active duty, protecting Americans from all enemies, foreign and domestic, yet not extend these requirements to those benefitting from these protections.

By: mick

mick — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:24:41 +0000

Let scott and all the politicians be the first in line to pee in the bottle(watch out for the adulterants!) and fact is there would be a butt load of state employees popping positive, beating up on the welfare recipients is just another example of the government having their boot heels on the necks of those that are already down…

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:07:40 +0000

Until they have no choice, there is no constitutional issue. If they don’t want to be tested, don’t ask for welfare or apply for a state job. I am not equating the two, just addressing the issue. My employer has several “conditions of employment” that I can agree to abide with (including what I wear at work) or I can go find a different job. The key is choice.
The ACLU findings don’t address the deterent factor which compares to why we sit at a red light when there is no traffic. (Answer: we don’t want to face the consequences of breaking the law.)

By: Robert S.

Robert S. — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:56:41 +0000

Worked many years in county employment and never once thought about drug testing. Figured it was part of the job and was protecting me against those who may be impaired due to drug use. Yes, there were a few people who did not pass the drug test and after extensive and costly “rehab and counseling” were released when they continued using illegal drugs. Seemed right.
If you aren’t using drugs then why fear the testing?

By: deBugger

deBugger — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:46:12 +0000

Facts speak louder than Ricky’s words. He is a lying, opportunistic sleazeball.

Tell us how this isn’t a conflict of interest, and how even the Governor and State Legislators will be required to submit to testing. I don’t believe it, for a minute, for a second, not at all.

“Scott’s policy initiatives – this time, requiring drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients – are designed to benefit Scott’s bottom line.

The Palm Beach Post reported in an exclusive story two weeks ago that while Scott divested his interest in Solantic in January, the controlling shares went to a trust in his wife’s name.”

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/business/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicio/nLq8f/

Let’s not forget how many welfare recipients were “bilking” the system before the courts (rightfully) decided that maybe the 4th Amendment DOES still mean something.

“Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows.

The findings — that only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed — are additional ammunition for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state and won a temporary ban on the drug-testing program in October, said ACLU spokesman Derek Newton.”

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/florida-didnt-save-money-by-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-data-shows/1225721

Saving the taxpayer’s money? Looking out for the best interests of citizens by forcing unconstitutional search/seizures? NOPE.

By: M in Bratt

M in Bratt — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:46:48 +0000

It just seems like the unions would want to rid themselves of the bad apples, but no, they want to cover for them, and keep them on the payroll in spite of the bad things they do. Good for you Rick, you are representing the interests of the taxpayers rather than the big unions