|
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
Fla. welfare applicants less likely to use drugs
By BILL KACZOR , 09.28.11, 08:23 AM EDT TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Preliminary figures on a new Florida law requiring drug tests for welfare applicants show that they are less likely than other people to use drugs, not more. One famous Floridian suggests that it's the people who came up with the law who should be submitting specimens. Columnist and best-selling author Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug testing for all 160 members of the Florida Legislature in what he called "a patriotic whiz-fest." Several of the law's supporters say they're on board. "There is a certain public interest in going after hypocrisy," Hiaasen said Tuesday, two days after he made his proposal in a Miami Herald column. "Folks that are applying for DCF (Department of Children and Families) money normally wouldn't be standing in that line, and on top of that humiliation they now get to pee in a cup so they can get grocery money for their kids," Hiaasen told The Associated Press in an interview at his Vero Beach home. Gov. Rick Scott and other supporters of the law - the only one of its kind currently on the books in the U.S. - say the tests will save the state cash by weeding out people who would use welfare money on drugs. Critics say that just a few months after it went into effect, the law has already refuted the idea that people receiving public assistance are more likely to use drugs. Preliminary figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. Another 2 percent declined to take the test, Department of Children and Families officials say. -- I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
|
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On 9/29/2011 11:34 AM, X ` Man wrote:
I guarantee you that if the state were using a modern drug test and proper procedures for running it, "beating" the test would be nearly impossible. What an extraordinarily dumb statement. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
|
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On 9/29/11 8:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:34:41 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/29/11 11:20 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:32:01 -0400, X ` wrote: Fla. welfare applicants less likely to use drugs By BILL KACZOR , 09.28.11, 08:23 AM EDT TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Preliminary figures on a new Florida law requiring drug tests for welfare applicants show that they are less likely than other people to use drugs, not more. One famous Floridian suggests that it's the people who came up with the law who should be submitting specimens. Columnist and best-selling author Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug testing for all 160 members of the Florida Legislature in what he called "a patriotic whiz-fest." Several of the law's supporters say they're on board. "There is a certain public interest in going after hypocrisy," Hiaasen said Tuesday, two days after he made his proposal in a Miami Herald column. "Folks that are applying for DCF (Department of Children and Families) money normally wouldn't be standing in that line, and on top of that humiliation they now get to pee in a cup so they can get grocery money for their kids," Hiaasen told The Associated Press in an interview at his Vero Beach home. Gov. Rick Scott and other supporters of the law - the only one of its kind currently on the books in the U.S. - say the tests will save the state cash by weeding out people who would use welfare money on drugs. Critics say that just a few months after it went into effect, the law has already refuted the idea that people receiving public assistance are more likely to use drugs. Preliminary figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. Another 2 percent declined to take the test, Department of Children and Families officials say. All it really does is prove these people know how to beat a drug test. On the other hand that is an important skill because you have to take a drug test for just about any job you might want to have ... including any job that involves government money. Are government workers more likely to be drug users? They all have to take drug tests. I guarantee you that if the state were using a modern drug test and proper procedures for running it, "beating" the test would be nearly impossible. Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of date. This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test. Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest. Marijuana in your test results is enough to get you tossed off a construction job, and mj lingers a long time, longer than you might think...plus, the tests typically are given on a random schedule. -- I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On Sep 29, 7:17*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:34:41 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 9/29/11 11:20 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:32:01 -0400, X ` wrote: Fla. welfare applicants less likely to use drugs By BILL KACZOR , 09.28.11, 08:23 AM EDT TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Preliminary figures on a new Florida law requiring drug tests for welfare applicants show that they are less likely than other people to use drugs, not more. One famous Floridian suggests that it's the people who came up with the law who should be submitting specimens. Columnist and best-selling author Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug testing for all 160 members of the Florida Legislature in what he called "a patriotic whiz-fest." Several of the law's supporters say they're on board. "There is a certain public interest in going after hypocrisy," Hiaasen said Tuesday, two days after he made his proposal in a Miami Herald column. "Folks that are applying for DCF (Department of Children and Families) money normally wouldn't be standing in that line, and on top of that humiliation they now get to pee in a cup so they can get grocery money for their kids," Hiaasen told The Associated Press in an interview at his Vero Beach home. Gov. Rick Scott and other supporters of the law - the only one of its kind currently on the books in the U.S. - say the tests will save the state cash by weeding out people who would use welfare money on drugs.. Critics say that just a few months after it went into effect, the law has already refuted the idea that people receiving public assistance are more likely to use drugs. Preliminary figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. Another 2 percent declined to take the test, Department of Children and Families officials say. All it really does is prove these people know how to beat a drug test. On the other hand that is an important skill because you have to take a drug test for just about any job you might want to have ... including any job that involves government money. Are government workers more likely to be drug users? They all have to take drug tests. I guarantee you that if the state were using a modern drug test and proper procedures for running it, "beating" the test would be nearly impossible. Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of date. This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test. Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest. If you want to see the drug history, do a hair sample and look at the growth time. It tells a lot. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On 9/29/2011 8:47 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sep 29, 7:17 pm, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:34:41 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/29/11 11:20 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:32:01 -0400, X ` wrote: Fla. welfare applicants less likely to use drugs By BILL KACZOR , 09.28.11, 08:23 AM EDT TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Preliminary figures on a new Florida law requiring drug tests for welfare applicants show that they are less likely than other people to use drugs, not more. One famous Floridian suggests that it's the people who came up with the law who should be submitting specimens. Columnist and best-selling author Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug testing for all 160 members of the Florida Legislature in what he called "a patriotic whiz-fest." Several of the law's supporters say they're on board. "There is a certain public interest in going after hypocrisy," Hiaasen said Tuesday, two days after he made his proposal in a Miami Herald column. "Folks that are applying for DCF (Department of Children and Families) money normally wouldn't be standing in that line, and on top of that humiliation they now get to pee in a cup so they can get grocery money for their kids," Hiaasen told The Associated Press in an interview at his Vero Beach home. Gov. Rick Scott and other supporters of the law - the only one of its kind currently on the books in the U.S. - say the tests will save the state cash by weeding out people who would use welfare money on drugs. Critics say that just a few months after it went into effect, the law has already refuted the idea that people receiving public assistance are more likely to use drugs. Preliminary figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. Another 2 percent declined to take the test, Department of Children and Families officials say. All it really does is prove these people know how to beat a drug test. On the other hand that is an important skill because you have to take a drug test for just about any job you might want to have ... including any job that involves government money. Are government workers more likely to be drug users? They all have to take drug tests. I guarantee you that if the state were using a modern drug test and proper procedures for running it, "beating" the test would be nearly impossible. Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of date. This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test. Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest. If you want to see the drug history, do a hair sample and look at the growth time. It tells a lot. It's really not the ones who have the control to quit for a couple weeks before a test that we are worried about in my opinion. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On 9/29/2011 8:45 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 9/29/11 8:17 PM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:34:41 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/29/11 11:20 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:32:01 -0400, X ` wrote: Fla. welfare applicants less likely to use drugs By BILL KACZOR , 09.28.11, 08:23 AM EDT TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Preliminary figures on a new Florida law requiring drug tests for welfare applicants show that they are less likely than other people to use drugs, not more. One famous Floridian suggests that it's the people who came up with the law who should be submitting specimens. Columnist and best-selling author Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug testing for all 160 members of the Florida Legislature in what he called "a patriotic whiz-fest." Several of the law's supporters say they're on board. "There is a certain public interest in going after hypocrisy," Hiaasen said Tuesday, two days after he made his proposal in a Miami Herald column. "Folks that are applying for DCF (Department of Children and Families) money normally wouldn't be standing in that line, and on top of that humiliation they now get to pee in a cup so they can get grocery money for their kids," Hiaasen told The Associated Press in an interview at his Vero Beach home. Gov. Rick Scott and other supporters of the law - the only one of its kind currently on the books in the U.S. - say the tests will save the state cash by weeding out people who would use welfare money on drugs. Critics say that just a few months after it went into effect, the law has already refuted the idea that people receiving public assistance are more likely to use drugs. Preliminary figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. Another 2 percent declined to take the test, Department of Children and Families officials say. All it really does is prove these people know how to beat a drug test. On the other hand that is an important skill because you have to take a drug test for just about any job you might want to have ... including any job that involves government money. Are government workers more likely to be drug users? They all have to take drug tests. I guarantee you that if the state were using a modern drug test and proper procedures for running it, "beating" the test would be nearly impossible. Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of date. This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test. Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest. Marijuana in your test results is enough to get you tossed off a construction job, and mj lingers a long time, longer than you might think...plus, the tests typically are given on a random schedule. Looks like there are two Pseudo doctors in the Krause family. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On Sep 29, 8:01*pm, JustWait wrote:
On 9/29/2011 8:47 PM, Tim wrote: On Sep 29, 7:17 pm, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:34:41 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/29/11 11:20 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:32:01 -0400, X ` wrote: Fla. welfare applicants less likely to use drugs By BILL KACZOR , 09.28.11, 08:23 AM EDT TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Preliminary figures on a new Florida law requiring drug tests for welfare applicants show that they are less likely than other people to use drugs, not more. One famous Floridian suggests that it's the people who came up with the law who should be submitting specimens. Columnist and best-selling author Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug testing for all 160 members of the Florida Legislature in what he called "a patriotic whiz-fest." Several of the law's supporters say they're on board. "There is a certain public interest in going after hypocrisy," Hiaasen said Tuesday, two days after he made his proposal in a Miami Herald column. "Folks that are applying for DCF (Department of Children and Families) money normally wouldn't be standing in that line, and on top of that humiliation they now get to pee in a cup so they can get grocery money for their kids," Hiaasen told The Associated Press in an interview at his Vero Beach home. Gov. Rick Scott and other supporters of the law - the only one of its kind currently on the books in the U.S. - say the tests will save the state cash by weeding out people who would use welfare money on drugs. Critics say that just a few months after it went into effect, the law has already refuted the idea that people receiving public assistance are more likely to use drugs. Preliminary figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. Another 2 percent declined to take the test, Department of Children and Families officials say. All it really does is prove these people know how to beat a drug test. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
|
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
|
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
|
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On 9/30/2011 6:31 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 9/30/11 1:16 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:47:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Sep 29, 7:17 pm, wrote: . If you want to see the drug history, do a hair sample and look at the growth time. It tells a lot. That may be why a lot of construction workers shave their head. You seem to have developed an anti-working guy attitude recently. You say a "lot" of construction workers shave their heads. Have you done a study? What percentage shave their heads? You seem to think that cut and pasting or representing third party hearsay reporting of fourth party opinions is OK as long as you are doing it and it supports your point of view. WAFA PS: This appears to be Plumes M O as well. Is she one of your sock puppets? |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
In article ,
says... On 9/30/11 1:16 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:47:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Sep 29, 7:17 pm, wrote: . If you want to see the drug history, do a hair sample and look at the growth time. It tells a lot. That may be why a lot of construction workers shave their head. You seem to have developed an anti-working guy attitude recently. You say a "lot" of construction workers shave their heads. Have you done a study? What percentage shave their heads? This from the cowardly **** that makes ASSumptions about people here on a daily basis. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
In article ,
says... On 9/29/11 8:17 PM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:34:41 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/29/11 11:20 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:32:01 -0400, X ` wrote: Fla. welfare applicants less likely to use drugs By BILL KACZOR , 09.28.11, 08:23 AM EDT TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Preliminary figures on a new Florida law requiring drug tests for welfare applicants show that they are less likely than other people to use drugs, not more. One famous Floridian suggests that it's the people who came up with the law who should be submitting specimens. Columnist and best-selling author Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug testing for all 160 members of the Florida Legislature in what he called "a patriotic whiz-fest." Several of the law's supporters say they're on board. "There is a certain public interest in going after hypocrisy," Hiaasen said Tuesday, two days after he made his proposal in a Miami Herald column. "Folks that are applying for DCF (Department of Children and Families) money normally wouldn't be standing in that line, and on top of that humiliation they now get to pee in a cup so they can get grocery money for their kids," Hiaasen told The Associated Press in an interview at his Vero Beach home. Gov. Rick Scott and other supporters of the law - the only one of its kind currently on the books in the U.S. - say the tests will save the state cash by weeding out people who would use welfare money on drugs. Critics say that just a few months after it went into effect, the law has already refuted the idea that people receiving public assistance are more likely to use drugs. Preliminary figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. Another 2 percent declined to take the test, Department of Children and Families officials say. All it really does is prove these people know how to beat a drug test. On the other hand that is an important skill because you have to take a drug test for just about any job you might want to have ... including any job that involves government money. Are government workers more likely to be drug users? They all have to take drug tests. I guarantee you that if the state were using a modern drug test and proper procedures for running it, "beating" the test would be nearly impossible. Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of date. This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test. Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest. Marijuana in your test results is enough to get you tossed off a construction job, and mj lingers a long time, longer than you might think...plus, the tests typically are given on a random schedule. But you said beating a modern drug test is "nearly impossible". You are wrong, coward. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
In article m,
says... On 9/29/2011 8:45 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 9/29/11 8:17 PM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:34:41 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/29/11 11:20 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:32:01 -0400, X ` wrote: Fla. welfare applicants less likely to use drugs By BILL KACZOR , 09.28.11, 08:23 AM EDT TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Preliminary figures on a new Florida law requiring drug tests for welfare applicants show that they are less likely than other people to use drugs, not more. One famous Floridian suggests that it's the people who came up with the law who should be submitting specimens. Columnist and best-selling author Carl Hiaasen offered to pay for drug testing for all 160 members of the Florida Legislature in what he called "a patriotic whiz-fest." Several of the law's supporters say they're on board. "There is a certain public interest in going after hypocrisy," Hiaasen said Tuesday, two days after he made his proposal in a Miami Herald column. "Folks that are applying for DCF (Department of Children and Families) money normally wouldn't be standing in that line, and on top of that humiliation they now get to pee in a cup so they can get grocery money for their kids," Hiaasen told The Associated Press in an interview at his Vero Beach home. Gov. Rick Scott and other supporters of the law - the only one of its kind currently on the books in the U.S. - say the tests will save the state cash by weeding out people who would use welfare money on drugs. Critics say that just a few months after it went into effect, the law has already refuted the idea that people receiving public assistance are more likely to use drugs. Preliminary figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. Another 2 percent declined to take the test, Department of Children and Families officials say. All it really does is prove these people know how to beat a drug test. On the other hand that is an important skill because you have to take a drug test for just about any job you might want to have ... including any job that involves government money. Are government workers more likely to be drug users? They all have to take drug tests. I guarantee you that if the state were using a modern drug test and proper procedures for running it, "beating" the test would be nearly impossible. Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of date. This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test. Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest. Marijuana in your test results is enough to get you tossed off a construction job, and mj lingers a long time, longer than you might think...plus, the tests typically are given on a random schedule. Looks like there are two Pseudo doctors in the Krause family. Do you think Dr. Fourchin is giving him this bad information? |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
|
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On 9/30/11 9:26 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/30/2011 1:15 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:45:09 -0400, X ` wrote: Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of date. This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test. Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest. Marijuana in your test results is enough to get you tossed off a construction job, and mj lingers a long time, longer than you might think...plus, the tests typically are given on a random schedule. True but if you smoke crack on Friday afternoon you will probably pass the test on Monday. OTOH if your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin you are fine, no matter what even if you are stoned out of your mind. That is a real flaw in the drug testing scam. Most places don't even test for alcohol unless it is an accident investigation. If this is just a random drug screen, you can be ****faced drunk and pass. BTW I am surprised you didn't mention the original test law said you had to be tested in Scott's own lab. That didn't last long. I could smoke a joint today, and pass a test tomorrow... A point of random drug testing is that it is...random. -- I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
|
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
In article ,
says... On 9/30/11 11:53 AM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:31:41 -0400, X ` wrote: You say a "lot" of construction workers shave their heads. Have you done a study? What percentage shave their heads? ... and maybe you forgot I was an electrical inspector for 8 years I attend about half of my local union's monthly meetings. We have a lot of members. There's a lot of male baldness among the older guys, but I'd guesstimate that less than five per cent of the non-black actives shave their heads. About a third of the black guys shave their heads. Most of the black guys look cool with shaved heads. Most of the white guys who shave their heads look like white supremacists. I also visit at least three to four commercial construction jobsites each month and see very few white dudes with shaved heads. Yeah, right, you've never been on a construction site in your life. Hell, remember when you tried to tell us that a contractor on a commercial job made the spiral staircase and you claimed it was done on- site?!!!! |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On 9/30/11 11:45 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:30:17 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/30/11 1:15 AM, wrote: Most places don't even test for alcohol unless it is an accident investigation. If this is just a random drug screen, you can be ****faced drunk and pass. If you are "stoned out of your mind" or "****faced drunk," you likely are not going to be allowed to go to or continue your job the day of the testing. If you repeatedly show up for work that way, you're going to be fired. One would think that was true but we had a minority hire at IBM who was a smack addict and everyone just assumed he was stupid. It took almost 3 years to get rid of him and they ended up buying him out. When I asked him how he was getting away with it, he said he was stoned at his interview and they never saw any difference over the years. There are plenty of people who drink at work. US Civil service people spring to mind. They are pretty much fire proof too. I knew a guy who was selling drugs right at his desk at an agency down on Western Avenue. Nobody ever questioned how a GS-5 was driving a new Benz. He was in the mail room so I assume the tax payer was his shipping department. Wow...you really have an attitude about construction workers and civil servants. Your pool of experience, though, seems to be before drug testing got serious, or on "light" construction jobs. -- I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On 9/30/2011 12:08 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 9/30/11 11:53 AM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:31:41 -0400, X ` wrote: You say a "lot" of construction workers shave their heads. Have you done a study? What percentage shave their heads? ... and maybe you forgot I was an electrical inspector for 8 years I attend about half of my local union's monthly meetings. We have a lot of members. There's a lot of male baldness among the older guys, but I'd guesstimate that less than five per cent of the non-black actives shave their heads. About a third of the black guys shave their heads. Most of the black guys look cool with shaved heads. Most of the white guys who shave their heads look like white supremacists. I also visit at least three to four commercial construction jobsites each month and see very few white dudes with shaved heads. Dripping with racism. Way to go Krousie boy. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
|
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
|
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
X ` Man wrote:
On 9/30/11 11:45 AM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:30:17 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/30/11 1:15 AM, wrote: Most places don't even test for alcohol unless it is an accident investigation. If this is just a random drug screen, you can be ****faced drunk and pass. If you are "stoned out of your mind" or "****faced drunk," you likely are not going to be allowed to go to or continue your job the day of the testing. If you repeatedly show up for work that way, you're going to be fired. One would think that was true but we had a minority hire at IBM who was a smack addict and everyone just assumed he was stupid. It took almost 3 years to get rid of him and they ended up buying him out. When I asked him how he was getting away with it, he said he was stoned at his interview and they never saw any difference over the years. There are plenty of people who drink at work. US Civil service people spring to mind. They are pretty much fire proof too. I knew a guy who was selling drugs right at his desk at an agency down on Western Avenue. Nobody ever questioned how a GS-5 was driving a new Benz. He was in the mail room so I assume the tax payer was his shipping department. Wow...you really have an attitude about construction workers and civil servants. Your pool of experience, though, seems to be before drug testing got serious, or on "light" construction jobs. He seems to avoid the truth. Harry is the biggest A-Hole I've seen here so far. -HB |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
|
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On 9/30/2011 9:54 PM, Honey Badger wrote:
X ` Man wrote: On 9/30/11 1:15 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:45:09 -0400, X ` wrote: Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of date. This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test. Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest. Marijuana in your test results is enough to get you tossed off a construction job, and mj lingers a long time, longer than you might think...plus, the tests typically are given on a random schedule. True but if you smoke crack on Friday afternoon you will probably pass the test on Monday. OTOH if your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin you are fine, no matter what even if you are stoned out of your mind. That is a real flaw in the drug testing scam. Most places don't even test for alcohol unless it is an accident investigation. If this is just a random drug screen, you can be ****faced drunk and pass. BTW I am surprised you didn't mention the original test law said you had to be tested in Scott's own lab. That didn't last long. If you are "stoned out of your mind" or "****faced drunk," you likely are not going to be allowed to go to or continue your job the day of the testing. If you repeatedly show up for work that way, you're going to be fired. No zero tolerance in the union jobs? That's silly! -HB I actually worked with the labor force in the union, I wasn't a union propagandist like our friend here and I can tell you, the crack pipes were glowing in the parking lot all night long... At least 50% of the warehouse workers were either drunk or stoned, each and every night... |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On 9/30/2011 10:00 PM, Honey Badger wrote:
X ` Man wrote: On 9/30/11 11:45 AM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:30:17 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/30/11 1:15 AM, wrote: Most places don't even test for alcohol unless it is an accident investigation. If this is just a random drug screen, you can be ****faced drunk and pass. If you are "stoned out of your mind" or "****faced drunk," you likely are not going to be allowed to go to or continue your job the day of the testing. If you repeatedly show up for work that way, you're going to be fired. One would think that was true but we had a minority hire at IBM who was a smack addict and everyone just assumed he was stupid. It took almost 3 years to get rid of him and they ended up buying him out. When I asked him how he was getting away with it, he said he was stoned at his interview and they never saw any difference over the years. There are plenty of people who drink at work. US Civil service people spring to mind. They are pretty much fire proof too. I knew a guy who was selling drugs right at his desk at an agency down on Western Avenue. Nobody ever questioned how a GS-5 was driving a new Benz. He was in the mail room so I assume the tax payer was his shipping department. Wow...you really have an attitude about construction workers and civil servants. Your pool of experience, though, seems to be before drug testing got serious, or on "light" construction jobs. He seems to avoid the truth. Harry is the biggest A-Hole I've seen here so far. -HB Remember, he is a paid propagandist for the union, what do you expect him to say? |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On 9/30/2011 11:58 PM, Tim wrote:
Speaking of drugs in the work force.... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...Name=topNew s Is that a right to work shop, or a closed union daycare??? |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On Oct 1, 1:41*am, JustWait wrote:
On 9/30/2011 11:58 PM, Tim wrote: Speaking of drugs in the work force.... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...boeing-abuse-i... Is that a right to work shop, or a closed union daycare??? "Right to work"?? Too bad you wouldn't exercise that "right"! |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
In article ,
says... X ` Man wrote: On 9/30/11 11:45 AM, wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:30:17 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/30/11 1:15 AM, wrote: Most places don't even test for alcohol unless it is an accident investigation. If this is just a random drug screen, you can be ****faced drunk and pass. If you are "stoned out of your mind" or "****faced drunk," you likely are not going to be allowed to go to or continue your job the day of the testing. If you repeatedly show up for work that way, you're going to be fired. One would think that was true but we had a minority hire at IBM who was a smack addict and everyone just assumed he was stupid. It took almost 3 years to get rid of him and they ended up buying him out. When I asked him how he was getting away with it, he said he was stoned at his interview and they never saw any difference over the years. There are plenty of people who drink at work. US Civil service people spring to mind. They are pretty much fire proof too. I knew a guy who was selling drugs right at his desk at an agency down on Western Avenue. Nobody ever questioned how a GS-5 was driving a new Benz. He was in the mail room so I assume the tax payer was his shipping department. Wow...you really have an attitude about construction workers and civil servants. Your pool of experience, though, seems to be before drug testing got serious, or on "light" construction jobs. He seems to avoid the truth. Harry is the biggest A-Hole I've seen here so far. -HB He's just a coward. If he ever was at a real construction site and had the same attitude that he does here, he'd have a hammer in his skull. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
In article 86963334-f261-497c-a69f-61aa60bbb0c7
@n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 1, 1:41*am, JustWait wrote: On 9/30/2011 11:58 PM, Tim wrote: Speaking of drugs in the work force.... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...boeing-abuse-i... Is that a right to work shop, or a closed union daycare??? "Right to work"?? Too bad you wouldn't exercise that "right"! Neither you or Harry work. Well, I guess by looking at your house, you collect garbage. Other than getting beer for your drunken son.. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On Oct 1, 10:16*am, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 86963334-f261-497c-a69f-61aa60bbb0c7 @n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 1, 1:41 am, JustWait wrote: On 9/30/2011 11:58 PM, Tim wrote: Speaking of drugs in the work force.... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...boeing-abuse-i... Is that a right to work shop, or a closed union daycare??? "Right to work"?? Too bad you wouldn't exercise that "right"! Neither you or Harry work. Well, I guess by looking at your house, you collect garbage. Other than getting beer for your drunken son.. Besides, my wife and I both work at home and more recently outside the home too. Thanks Obama for taking 15 years of investment in ourselves and making it basically worthless... |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
In article 52f238c4-a467-43b9-a088-71a765cb1593
@k34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 1, 10:16*am, iBoaterer wrote: In article 86963334-f261-497c-a69f-61aa60bbb0c7 @n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 1, 1:41 am, JustWait wrote: On 9/30/2011 11:58 PM, Tim wrote: Speaking of drugs in the work force.... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...boeing-abuse-i... Is that a right to work shop, or a closed union daycare??? "Right to work"?? Too bad you wouldn't exercise that "right"! Neither you or Harry work. Well, I guess by looking at your house, you collect garbage. Other than getting beer for your drunken son.. Besides, my wife and I both work at home and more recently outside the home too. Thanks Obama for taking 15 years of investment in ourselves and making it basically worthless... Yeah, it's all Obama's fault huh? |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
On 10/1/2011 11:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article52f238c4-a467-43b9-a088-71a765cb1593 @k34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 1, 10:16 am, wrote: In article86963334-f261-497c-a69f-61aa60bbb0c7 @n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 1, 1:41 am, wrote: On 9/30/2011 11:58 PM, Tim wrote: Speaking of drugs in the work force.... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...boeing-abuse-i... Is that a right to work shop, or a closed union daycare??? "Right to work"?? Too bad you wouldn't exercise that "right"! Neither you or Harry work. Well, I guess by looking at your house, you collect garbage. Other than getting beer for your drunken son.. Besides, my wife and I both work at home and more recently outside the home too. Thanks Obama for taking 15 years of investment in ourselves and making it basically worthless... Yeah, it's all Obama's fault huh? Well, actually yes.. Obama, Kerry, Dodd, and Frank... That's the order of campaign money collected by amount before the four of them sold my real estate investment to redistribution... Obama got more money than any other congress critter in the last ten years, and he was only there for two, you do the math... |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
In article ,
says... On 10/1/2011 11:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article52f238c4-a467-43b9-a088-71a765cb1593 @k34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 1, 10:16 am, wrote: In article86963334-f261-497c-a69f-61aa60bbb0c7 @n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 1, 1:41 am, wrote: On 9/30/2011 11:58 PM, Tim wrote: Speaking of drugs in the work force.... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...boeing-abuse-i... Is that a right to work shop, or a closed union daycare??? "Right to work"?? Too bad you wouldn't exercise that "right"! Neither you or Harry work. Well, I guess by looking at your house, you collect garbage. Other than getting beer for your drunken son.. Besides, my wife and I both work at home and more recently outside the home too. Thanks Obama for taking 15 years of investment in ourselves and making it basically worthless... Yeah, it's all Obama's fault huh? Well, actually yes.. Obama, Kerry, Dodd, and Frank... That's the order of campaign money collected by amount before the four of them sold my real estate investment to redistribution... Obama got more money than any other congress critter in the last ten years, and he was only there for two, you do the math... How can ANYONE sell anything that someone else owns? I still have MY real estate investment. No one came here with a gun forcing me to not pay for it or leave it. And Obama's not in the congress, he's the president. |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
JustWait wrote:
On 9/30/2011 9:54 PM, Honey Badger wrote: X ` Man wrote: On 9/30/11 1:15 AM, wrote: On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:45:09 -0400, X ` wrote: Your information regarding the validity of modern tests is out of date. This is the $30 reagent test, not the $150 gas chromatograph test. Anyone can beat any test by abstaining a while anyway, each drug is different. The real ugly ones burn out the fastest. Marijuana in your test results is enough to get you tossed off a construction job, and mj lingers a long time, longer than you might think...plus, the tests typically are given on a random schedule. True but if you smoke crack on Friday afternoon you will probably pass the test on Monday. OTOH if your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin you are fine, no matter what even if you are stoned out of your mind. That is a real flaw in the drug testing scam. Most places don't even test for alcohol unless it is an accident investigation. If this is just a random drug screen, you can be ****faced drunk and pass. BTW I am surprised you didn't mention the original test law said you had to be tested in Scott's own lab. That didn't last long. If you are "stoned out of your mind" or "****faced drunk," you likely are not going to be allowed to go to or continue your job the day of the testing. If you repeatedly show up for work that way, you're going to be fired. No zero tolerance in the union jobs? That's silly! -HB I actually worked with the labor force in the union, I wasn't a union propagandist like our friend here and I can tell you, the crack pipes were glowing in the parking lot all night long... At least 50% of the warehouse workers were either drunk or stoned, each and every night... I'm not surprised. -HB |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
North Star wrote:
On Oct 1, 1:41 am, wrote: On 9/30/2011 11:58 PM, Tim wrote: Speaking of drugs in the work force.... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...boeing-abuse-i... Is that a right to work shop, or a closed union daycare??? "Right to work"?? Too bad you wouldn't exercise that "right"! Google that, silly, it the real deal! Next time you won't be so stupid! -HB |
Right-wingers wrong on drug testing, too...
In article ,
says... North Star wrote: On Oct 1, 1:41 am, wrote: On 9/30/2011 11:58 PM, Tim wrote: Speaking of drugs in the work force.... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...boeing-abuse-i... Is that a right to work shop, or a closed union daycare??? "Right to work"?? Too bad you wouldn't exercise that "right"! Google that, silly, it the real deal! Next time you won't be so stupid! -HB Yes he will!! Suckling Don is a real dolt! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com