Let’s drug test legislators instead

It amazes me that legislators are worried about dirt poor single mothers smoking a little weed.

A South Dakota bill to require drug testing of welfare recipients has been killed in committee this morning.

House Bill 1120 sponsored by Rep. Mark Kirkeby, R-Rapid City, would require testing of those recipients that state employees believe have drugs in their system.

What is the irony of this legislation? It would probably cost more to implement a drug testing program then the amount of money that is being given to welfare drug users. It’s kinda like the capital punishment debate – It’s actually cheaper to put someone away for life then to kill them because of the appeals process.

But I digress.

What bothers me more is the hypocrisy of our lawmakers. Ever notice how many elected officials get caught fucking whores, doing drugs, beating their spouses, molesting kids and drinking and driving? I think a better idea would be to force every new legislator to take an IQ test, be drug tested and have a mental health evaluation.

Of course that wouldn’t leave many people in Pierre.



27 comments ↓

#1 ip on 02.01.11 at 9:25 am

They’re just warming up. When the shit hits the fan, liberals are fair game in a red state. When Republicans say “change” expect more jails and fewer schools.

Egypt? Think Standing Rock.

#2 Tweets that mention Let’s drug test legislators instead — South DaCola -- Topsy.com on 02.01.11 at 10:12 am

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CAHeidelberger, caucuslounge. caucuslounge said: South DaCola: Drug-test lawmakers instead. http://ow.ly/3O8A0 #sdleg […]

#3 NPO on 02.01.11 at 12:55 pm

Smoking a little weed is not the issue, it’s being able to afford the weed. If you can spend your money on that shit, you don’t need public assistance because last time I picked up my welfare check they weren’t handing out weed vouchers.

Have you ever been to the TANF office? I have when it was needed. Some of the people there had the top of the line cell phones and drove some damn nice cars. You complain about how people tip, maybe they can’t afford much more than their meal. I know, then they shouldn’t go out to eat, right? I complain about people that take our tax dollars and blow their money on frivolous shit. Same thing, then they shouldn’t need public assistance. On more than one occasion I’ve seen an EBT user complain over having to pay $1.30 for something in their cart that wasn’t covered by us. It’s ridiculous and the reason I don’t go to walmart.

I agree the money spent on drug testing and enforcing would cost more than what’s given out but something needs to be done about the abusers of the system who are wasting your tax dollars. I also agree on the IQ test for elected officials, that’s money well spent.

#4 TDB on 02.01.11 at 1:18 pm

Speaking of drug testing –

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/01/sd-lawmakers-propose-mandating-gun-ownership-make-point-health-law/

Any sponsor of this needs to be medicated and institutionalized.

#5 Snooki Palin on 02.01.11 at 2:54 pm

Are you really that surprised? I mean there were enough crazy, home schooled, radical christians elected to actually cut education budgets by 10%. People are dumb enough to believe that public education is the devil and that it is not necessary at all.

#6 Snooki Palin on 02.01.11 at 2:55 pm

Yeah, I saw that about the gun owner ship. WikControl ’11

#7 Jim on 02.01.11 at 5:03 pm

Well the gun thing is to make a point that forcing everyone to purchase something is not right. Public education, well the bar is lowered constantly in an effort to make sure nobody is hurt, the long term problem is that kids are being dumbed down instead of actually learning something. Provided the home school teacher has the smarts I see no issues with it. Oh yeah, would you really want to teach a bunch of unruly twerps you couldn’t put in line?

#8 l3wis on 02.01.11 at 7:35 pm

I’m still baffled by the insanity. This is the kinda shit that is posted on my site, not introduced as law and legislation.

#9 Scott on 02.01.11 at 8:00 pm

Where were the protests when car insurance was mandated?

#10 Joan on 02.01.11 at 8:16 pm

Scott, I agree about the car insurance. Lets face it if we had single payer health care people wouldn’t have to be forced to buy it. I guess if people don’t want to buy health insurance, they should have to sign a waiver saying if they are severly injured in an accident or become horribly ill they won’t ask for county, state, or federal help to pay their bills. As far as people on welfare, driving nice cars and having expensive cell phones, how does anybody know that they aren’t borrowing some friend or relatives car and phone. Also they could just have had hard times hit. Nobody knows the exact circumstances of someone else. I have thought for some time that all politicians should take random drug tests from the time they announce their candicy. Some of the things that come out of their mouths make them sound either high on something or like they are developmentally disabled.

#11 l3wis on 02.01.11 at 11:01 pm

“Some of the things that come out of their mouths make them sound either high on something or like they are developmentally disabled.”

You ain’t a kidding.

#12 jeff on 02.02.11 at 6:19 am

AZ has been testing tanf recipients since 2009. They’ve had ONE positive result.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jan/31/house-passes-drug-testing-welfare-recipients/

#13 Pierre reader on 02.02.11 at 7:41 am

WOW–what an offensive remark “make them sound developmentaly disabled”–what a derogatory statement—-people are people–they are people first. Labels are for jars not for people. And you need to realize a disability is only a body part that works differently. That comment was low and mean.

#14 Dave R on 02.02.11 at 11:54 am

Comparing the gov’t requiring insurance on a vehicle that uses gov’t owned roads to mandated personal medical insurance is a pretty dim argument.

#15 l3wis on 02.02.11 at 7:28 pm

PR – I think they were being sarcastic. I know it is hard to believe, but we use sarcasm on this site once in awhile.

#16 jeff on 02.02.11 at 8:52 pm

“Some people have mental retardation (intellectual disabilities). While mental retardation is not a bad word, when used to describe someone or something you think is bad or stupid it becomes another thoughtless hurtful word. People with intellectual disabilities are not bad. Their condition is not bad. The prejudice and discrimination to people with intellectual disabilities is BAD…and WRONG!”

http://therword.org/

#17 Pierre reader on 02.03.11 at 8:28 am

l3wis–but using sarcisim at another’s expense in inexcusable–and Jeff any time the word “retardation” is used it is bad–cognitive disability is the correct term. Look up People First Language.

#18 jeff on 02.03.11 at 8:30 am

@ Pierre reader

http://therword.org/

#19 Costner on 02.03.11 at 8:30 am

Did you know the terms “idiot”, “moron”, and “imbecile” were once legitimate medical terms used to describe people with various levels of mental capacity? However as our language evolved and people started using them to describe each other (as an insult or in jest), the medical community evolved.

You didn’t hear an outcry from those who were dealing with the people who were categorized under those terms… they just dealt with it.

These days the term “retard” or “retarded” have evolved into yet another term used to insult someone or to describe something as idiotic. The only difference is this time the PC crowd is getting bent out of shape and claiming it is hurtful.

I’ve got news for them… I’ve known a lot of mentally challenged or mentally disabled or whatever you want to call them – and not a one of them could care if you called someone else retarded. So if anyone is being hurt, it is the uptight PC types who run around claiming instead of calling someone short we should call them vertically challenged and instead of calling someone fat we should call them heavy.

Screw it. If I see something so stupid it makes me shake my head in disbelief… I’m probably going to say it is retarded or idiotic or ignorant or whatever, and I don’t care if someone is offended.

Likewise if I see something that I think is silly or stupid I might even use the term “gay” to describe it. If people have nothing better to do in their lives than try to control how others speak or what terms they use, then that would seem to be their problem rather than mine.

Sorry if that sounds cold, but I will never accept the fact that the term “gay” or the term “retard” is even remotely close to being as offensive as the “n” word. I suppose to some degree it all boils down to context, but otherwise words are just words, and unless those words are “I’ve ordered our troops into combat” I don’t really think anyone is being hurt by them.

#20 Costner on 02.03.11 at 8:38 am

PR: “cognitive disability is the correct term”

Oh give me an effing break. How the hell are people supposed to keep up when the standard keeps changing? Less than 20 years ago “mentally retarded” or “retarded” was just fine. Later it was “intellectually challenged” or “mentally handicapped” and then when “handicapped was ‘offensive’ it became “mentally challenged” or “mentally disabled”.

Them some idiot (yea I said it) decided the term disabled was offensive too, so they decided it should be something like “mental difference” or “cognitive difference” and now you’re telling us it should be “cognitive disability” even though others cry foul at using the term “disability” or “disabled” because they claim these people are able to live full and complete lives thus they are not disabled or handicapped.

Give it a rest. If someone has Downs Syndrome I’ll likely call them “mentally disabled” or something similar, but if someone tells me I’m using the wrong term or that I’m being offensive… I’ll call that person a retard. Because they are.

#21 jeff on 02.03.11 at 1:51 pm

i could share stories where people thought they were innocently calling something / someone retarded and parents of a downs syndrome child were hurt. I agree the pc stuff can and does go overboard. It’s simply about being sensitive. There’s no need to cause people pain by being unnecessarily offensive.
The people first language has merit as well.

#22 l3wis on 02.03.11 at 9:07 pm

Cunt. Retard. Fag. Nigger.

There. I said it.

#23 Costner on 02.03.11 at 10:03 pm

Sounds like you are repeating lines from the classic Eddie Murphy from the Raw years, any of the late George Carlin routines, or a modern Chris Rock skit.

#24 l3wis on 02.04.11 at 5:23 am

“It’s my house (blog) and if you don’t like it, get the fuck out!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE4ZTw0jXmc

#25 Randall on 02.05.11 at 8:21 pm

We can’t let the poor folk get high.
Or have abortions when they get raped.
Or smoke in public places.
Or have access to medical insurance.

They’re poor for chrissakes!

If they wanted any of those things they should have been born rich.

#26 Scott on 02.06.11 at 1:02 pm

Is there really a political correctness argument going on here? I never thought I’d see that on an Ehrisman site. Lolz

#27 l3wis on 02.06.11 at 6:19 pm

Funny. I offended someone at work today. A fellow worker was joking about the names an NFL player named his 3 kids, I won’t go into the (made up) names . . . but I said “Sounds like a good Irish family?”