Supreme Court rules against Rick Scott
Forums › General Discussion › Supreme Court rules against Rick Scott-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Well halfway maybe. 😋I completely agree on drug testing congressmen and ALL government employees. I think you actually agree with us Addi :-)
Why is it though we are always talking about the effects of bad choices rather than the cause? Conservatives always after the little guy rather than the big one? We should always always always be talking about the top of the pile, not the bottom. Always.
-
💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
Well sweet heart it's a good thing I didn't state that what I was saying was fact and should be regarded as such. It's my personal opinion. If you try something once and it fails you should never try it again?Pprogress is frowned upon I guess. Let's all take our failures as lessons and never try again. This is cute :)🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
✂️
I love when people talk about "frivolously spending money" but have clearly done No Research. They've tried this in a little state called Florida and guess what? Over ninety percent of welfare recipients PASSED and the testing ended up costing the state more money. It didn't save them a penny and they lost several hundred thousand dollars a year while doing it. Guess what that sounds like? That sounds like frivolously spending taxpayer money.
But let me guess.... That's only bad when poor people do it, yeah?
-
I have found other games that I currently enjoy the gameplay more than TW, but it's the forums that keep me from deleting this game. Thanks everybody who participates in these debates (whichever side you're on).
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
Drug test them all, not stating every single example doesn't mean I don't feel these other groups should have to as well. I was simply commenting on what was relevant. Plus I'd hardly consider it a rant, really more of a thought.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Switch out the word welfare recipient with congressman. It works all throughout your little rant. So, as soon as we start drug testing the assbags that run this country and that hold the strings to the pocketbook THEN we can talk about the least amongst us. You know the ones that have zero effect on the welfare of this country. 👍Idk I think drug testing people on welfare, while it may be unconstitutional, would be extremely beneficial. I'm sorry but I just can't see how you're going to act like you're so dependent on others and yet here you are frivolously spending money. Right call by the Supreme Court, also an unfortunate one.
-
It's pretty damned ironic that these supposed small-government conservatives are now advocating expansion of big government nanny state drug testing. I thought you guys were all about personal responsibility and individual freedom? As long as a person can do their job, or fulfill their compliance requirements in the case of someone receiving assistance, it should be nobody's business what chemicals they imbibe. Focus on the effects of taking drugs instead of the act itself. In the name of public safety, give OTR drivers, pilots and the like reaction time and dexterity tests and compare it to a baseline established when they were hired. Otherwise whatever chemicals get them through the day is nobody's business but their own and certainly not the government's. Stop treating people like children and they just might act like adults.
-
How else should we micromanage the spending habits of people on assistance? People who take tax deductions are essentially receiving taxpayer money, should we micromanage how that money is spent too? Everyone benefits from taxpayer money in some way. How involved should the government be in our private decisions about how we choose to spend our leisure time? What you are advocating sounds way more intrusive than I'm comfortable with. I like my privacy and my freedom. Use all that drug testing money to offer free treatment programs to those who want to get clean instead. Address the cause instead of the effect.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Eh, no different than anyone of you saying libtard. Ou's favorite term.★Λddi★ wrote:
Mickey Duͣnͩnͩ wrote:
Oh nice move, Mickey Dunn. Intelligent and informed response you gave here.💋ƀཞḭʑʑ💋 wrote:
Are you this passionate about everything you believe in? Or just nervous about possibly losing your welfare benefits?Nice anecdata. Serves me right for trying to argue with facts and logic when talking to a tea bagger, or whatever.
As nice and informed as Brizz response?
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
The "Obamaphones" are the safe link cell phone. I assumed that was what he was talking about. There has been a public assistance land line program for decades.☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
Kind of. Started well before then in another form. Eisenhower I believe.Cazzo wrote:
George Bush started that, not Obama.They all have their Obama phones though.
-
Fnord you want to work next to a gentleman who is constantly strung out on some hardcore shit? 18 wheeler drivers can probably drive better when they're on LSD or some shit huh. I believe drug testing is important and non intrusive. I'm all for small government but I see it as one of those "if you have nothing to hide then a simple drug test shouldn't be a problem" type of guys. I got in a car wreck a while back it was a 4 car pile up. All of us were drug tested and turns out the guy that caused the wreck was on some hardcore shit. I'm all for cutting back on shit like that if it means that me and mine are potentially safer.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Drivers don't take LSD. That wouldn't help them. They take speed. As long as they don't run out, they'd probably be fine.Fnord you want to work next to a gentleman who is constantly strung out on some hardcore shit? 18 wheeler drivers can probably drive better when they're on LSD or some shit huh. I believe drug testing is important and non intrusive. I'm all for small government but I see it as one of those "if you have nothing to hide then a simple drug test shouldn't be a problem" type of guys. I got in a car wreck a while back it was a 4 car pile up. All of us were drug tested and turns out the guy that caused the wreck was on some hardcore shit. I'm all for cutting back on shit like that if it means that me and mine are potentially safer.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
If that's the way you see it, then perhaps you wouldn't mind a routine cavity search, since you have nothing to hide. And a biweekly bunk toss, just to make sure you don't have any contraband. Since you don't have anything to hide.I see it as one of those "if you have nothing to hide then a simple drug test shouldn't be a problem" type of guys.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
You were tested for drugs after being in a wreck that someone else caused? Were you detained? Did you voluntarily submit to it? Sounds suspect to me, either that or you got duped. Everyone's got something to hide, even you. Imagine an agent of the government holding your deepest, darkest, most embarrassing secret against you. Perhaps something from your past that could jeopardize your job, or your relationships, or your reputation. Now tell me again how you've got nothing to hide. The 4th amendment is there for a reason. Individual privacy is essential to a free society. Willingly surrender it at your own peril.✂️I got in a car wreck a while back it was a 4 car pile up. All of us were drug tested and turns out the guy that caused the wreck was on some hardcore shit. I'm all for cutting back on shit like that if it means that me and mine are potentially safer.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
It's pretty damned ironic that these supposed small-government conservatives are now advocating expansion of big government nanny state drug testing. I thought you guys were all about personal responsibility and individual freedom? As long as a person can do their job, or fulfill their compliance requirements in the case of someone receiving assistance, it should be nobody's business what chemicals they imbibe. Focus on the effects of taking drugs instead of the act itself. In the name of public safety, give OTR drivers, pilots and the like reaction time and dexterity tests and compare it to a baseline established when they were hired. Otherwise whatever chemicals get them through the day is nobody's business but their own and certainly not the government's. Stop treating people like children and they just might act like adults.
It becomes my business when they use my tax dollars to buy it.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Using that line of thinking, it's your business what the owner of radio shack does with the money you spent on a radio control helicopter. The truth is, when your money leaves your hands, it is no longer your business what anyone does with it.★fnord★ wrote:
It becomes my business when they use my tax dollars to buy it.
-
λΙΙuviøη wrote:
The government taking my money as taxes is very different from me giving my money to a retailer. One is compulsory the other is voluntary.ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Using that line of thinking, it's your business what the owner of radio shack does with the money you spent on a radio control helicopter. The truth is, when your money leaves your hands, it is no longer your business what anyone does with it.★fnord★ wrote:
It becomes my business when they use my tax dollars to buy it.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
I think all states have implied consent laws as part of their drivers licensing provisions. In cases of accidents causing death or serious injury all drivers involved are often tested. The accident investigation to determine the cause of the accident may not be completed for some time. Additionally, not all officers are accident investigators, so they are not qualified to determine which driver caused the accident. How it is handled varies from state to state, but a lot test all drivers involved.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
You were tested for drugs after being in a wreck that someone else caused? Were you detained? Did you voluntarily submit to it? Sounds suspect to me, either that or you got duped. ✂️The 4th amendment is there for a reason. Individual privacy is essential to a free society. Willingly surrender it at your own peril. -
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
It becomes my business when they use my tax dollars to buy it.
That's not really how taxes work. By making transactions with federal reserve notes, we enter into a contract with the federal government whereby certain transactions will be taxed. Taxes are not "your money", they are the property of The People. You get no more say in how that money is spent or what conditions be placed on it than the ATM transaction fees your bank collected from you. We all decide together how best to invest that money, OUR money. Demanding accountability from government is great and should be encouraged, but demanding the right to place moral conditions on how specifically "your tax dollars" be spent kinda misses the whole point of democratically elected representative government.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
I could see a roadside sobriety test or breathalyzer, but I don't see how he would have been in a situation where he would have had a blood test for drugs done without either being tricked into submitting to one or the authorities having reasonable grounds to administer it. In either case he would have been detained. They don't do roadside blood draws.★fnord★ wrote:
I think all states have implied consent laws as part of their drivers licensing provisions. ✂️How it is handled varies from state to state, but a lot test all drivers involved.🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
You were tested for drugs after being in a wreck that someone else caused? Were you detained? Did you voluntarily submit to it? Sounds suspect to me, either that or you got duped. ✂️ -
I know it varies state to state, but here an accident involving death or serious injury is considered probable cause to draw blood. In our neighboring state even property damage caused by the accident is enough to provide PC for a blood draw. Because a car is property, almost any accident is PC to draw blood there.
In my state, serious injury is defined as an injury that is likely to cause death, any loss of consciousness, loss of or broken limbs, any injury could result in surgery.
Yes, a person would be detained while being transported to the hospital for a blood draw, but the officer has PC to do it.
-
Being the victim of an accident involving property damage is probable cause to detain and draw blood? Would you mind posting a link to that statute in the state(s) you mentioned? An officer witnessing behavior that indicates possible drug use is the only probable cause to detain and drug test a person, that's how the law is written in every state I've looked at. That's how the law works. An auto accident is not some automatic opportunity for the police to expand the scope of the investigation beyond simply determining who caused it and if they are to be cited. De facto blood testing of everyone at the scene is clearly unlawful search and seizure without probable cause. If I blow a tire on the highway, my property is damaged. Can an officer pull up and detain me, blood test me and impound my car for no other reason than the fact that my property is damaged, even though I'm just soberly changing my tire? That's how silly this sounds.
-
Minnesota’s implied consent law assumes that a person who drives a vehicle anywhere in the state has consented to a chemical test of blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining if the person is impaired. A peace officer may direct that a test be administered when he or she has probable cause that a person has committed DWI and:
• Has been arrested for DWI;
• Has been involved in a motor vehicle accident or collision resulting in property damage, personal injury, or death;
• Has refused to take the DWI screening test (PBT); or
• Has taken the screening test and it shows an alcohol concentration of .08 or higher.11
A chemical test may also be required when an officer has probable cause that a person was driving, operating, or in control of a motor vehicle where alcohol is present.
-
I don't know how to copy the link, but that's copied from the mn primer on implied consent.
-
Blowing a tire is not a MV crash. Therefore, your example doesn't work. If an officer is a trained phlebotomist, they may do the blood draw in TN. There is also a mandatory draw for serious injury crashes written into the law. Rarely does it happen, though.
-
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
Yup, until cell phones came along. That was my point though. Typical think tank propoganda. If the term is said enough, they think playing telephone makes it fact.★Λddi★ wrote:
The "Obamaphones" are the safe link cell phone. I assumed that was what he was talking about. There has been a public assistance land line program for decades.☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
Kind of. Started well before then in another form. Eisenhower I believe.Cazzo wrote:
George Bush started that, not Obama.They all have their Obama phones though.
-
I never said anything about de facto blood testing of everyone. Only the drivers.
-
In the case of a death or serious injury. An investigation into the cause of the accident, without determining if one or more of the drivers were under the influence would be an incomplete investigation.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Ding ding ding. That's the point of any regulation when you get to the heart of it..."to keep me and mine safe." This is exactly why it's hilarious to watch you guys speak out of both ends of your mouth.Fnord you want to work next to a gentleman who is constantly strung out on some hardcore shit? 18 wheeler drivers can probably drive better when they're on LSD or some shit huh. I believe drug testing is important and non intrusive. I'm all for small government but I see it as one of those "if you have nothing to hide then a simple drug test shouldn't be a problem" type of guys. I got in a car wreck a while back it was a 4 car pile up. All of us were drug tested and turns out the guy that caused the wreck was on some hardcore shit. I'm all for cutting back on shit like that if it means that me and mine are potentially safer.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
✂️A peace officer may direct that a test be administered when he or she has probable cause that a person has committed DWI and:
• Has been arrested for DWI;
• Has been involved in a motor vehicle accident or collision resulting in property damage, personal injury, or death;
✂️That's exactly what I've been saying. The officer has to have probable cause above all else. Implied consent does not remove the probable cause requirement. You seem to be arguing that it does, yet your link states otherwise.
BJ: For the sake of argument, someone sideswipes me and drives off, leaving me with a flat tire on the side of the road. There's your MV crash. Am I now subject to search and seizure even though I am exhibiting no signs of intoxication?
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Yes, an accident involving death or personal injury is probable cause.✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
✂️A peace officer may direct that a test be administered when he or she has probable cause that a person has committed DWI and:
• Has been arrested for DWI;
• Has been involved in a motor vehicle accident or collision resulting in property damage, personal injury, or death;
✂️That's exactly what I've been saying. The officer has to have probable cause above all else. Implied consent does not remove the probable cause requirement. You seem to be arguing that it does, yet your link states otherwise.
BJ: For the sake of argument, someone sideswipes me and drives off, leaving me with a flat tire on the side of the road. There's your MV crash. Am I now subject to search and seizure even though I am exhibiting no signs of intoxication?
-
So if the driver of a vehicle is involved in an accident involving injury or death, the officer has probable cause to the test the driver.
I never said otherwise.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC