Letters: Discrimination in job drug-testing June 4, 2012

Am I the victim of discrimination? In the fight to defeat the bill that would have required welfare recipients to be drug-tested, the opponents of the bill said that drug-testing would discriminate against the poor and minorities.

Using that argument as a standard, were I and the many, many others who are required to be drug-tested to retain the jobs we hold that allowed us to pay the taxes that provide the funds that are paid out to these very welfare recipients being discriminated against?

Like most people I know, I have no problem with helping those who truly need help but I don’t like to see any of my tax dollars winding up in drug dealers’ pockets. Who were these opponents of the bill pandering to? What are they afraid of? Were they looking out for the good of tax-paying citizens of Louisiana or were they using that position to buy votes? I have my opinion. What’s yours?

David Guedry

retired maintenance superintendent

Prairieville

Comments

1) Comment by DMJ - 06/06/2012

Right...

2) Comment by Libby13 - 05/06/2012

I agree with DMJ. This site has some very interesting statistics and information: http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

3) Comment by DMJ - 05/06/2012

By the way....How'd you yahoos come to think that I would approve of drug testing only for those with a job?

4) Comment by DMJ - 05/06/2012

Folgers, I don't think arbitrary drug testing should be legal in any case. I don't approve of it for the employed nor the unemployed nor anyone who doesn't want to, this being a free country. Call me crazy, but being made to pee in a cup while someone watches sounds like something people have to do in N. Korea or someplace. Like I said, it's a violation of one's right to privacy not to mention a blatantly unlawful search and seizure. Besides, as I've mentioned many times before...alcohol and hard drugs are out of your system in a few days (one day for alcohol) while weed, which is by all measures less harmful than alcohol, hard drugs or prescription meds, stays in your system for up to 30 days. It's counterproductive as well as ineffective. It's just spiteful and not sound public policy.

5) Comment by Whatnow - 05/06/2012

@foldgers, I like to know that one, too. Crickets....

6) Comment by Your Brain on Steroids - 05/06/2012

The idiocy of liberals never ceases to amaze me. They are the most double standard, hypocritical, deceitful people on the planet.

7) Comment by Dawson - 05/06/2012

It is NOT a violation of your 4th amendment right. Drug testing would only be an invasion of privacy and therefore violation of the 4th amendment if you do not have the ability to opt out. Private workers or individuals on government assistance DO NOT have to comply with the drug testing requirements they can simply opt out of the test and forfeit either the job or the public assistance they may be receiving. Those that cry discrimination at every corner are intellectually dishonest, especially in this debate.

8) Comment by warreni - 05/06/2012

For my part, I think this is not a terrible idea. While DMJ is correct and the courts would probably agree with him--random drug testing is an violation of your Fourth Amendment rights whenever it is done, in my opinion--it's also sound public policy. The implication that recipients of public assistance are more likely than others to be drug users is unfortunate but at least in some cases it does reflect a reality. My neighbor in fact receives a Social Security disability pension (she is legally retarded) and is also a crack addict. If her check were dependent on being clean I would have a much quieter neighborhood.

9) Comment by InPVille - 05/06/2012

The department of Louisiana State Government I worked for performed drug testing on those newly hired. http://www.testcountry.com/StateLaws/Louisiana.htm -[**] La. Rev. Stat. §49:1001 et seq., §23:1601(1), §46:460.4 Covered Employers: Public and private employers not subject to a federally mandated testing program. Applicant Testing: Applicant testing not restricted. [**] "* There exists an Executive Order in Louisiana enumerating a State Employee Drug Testing Policy. Public employers must publish a written policy for pre-employment and employment drug testing compliant to the Order. Allowed tests include reasonable suspicion, post accident, random testing as part of post rehabilitation monitoring, pre-employment, and random as well as pre-promotion to safety sensitive and security sensitive positions." . . . " * School bus drivers are required to undergo controlled substance testing in the State of Louisiana."

10) Comment by foldgers - 05/06/2012

DMJ, so, you are saying ANYONE who is randomly drug tested is having their right to privacy violated? Or do you mean just anyone who is NOT employed? Because the argument here is that we, who work, are all drug tested and are subjected to random drug tests to WORK. So, why is that NOT discrimination or violating privacy rights? Is it up to the responsible workers who provide the money for this system to be drug free and hard working? While a LOT, not all, of welfare users do not need what they receive? You still can not answer why it is ONLY violating rights when it is used on those who receive money for NOT working. Please explain how working people should be drug tested but not the people who can't or choose not to work. EXPLAIN THAT for once, please.

11) Comment by gofigger - 05/06/2012

If we know of an injustice, but remain quiet, are we just as guilty?

12) Comment by nimby? - 05/06/2012

apparently the black legislative caucus did also in their insinuation this affects one group more than others , same group that voted in mass to deny the citizens of SEBR the opportunity to decide for themselves on an independent school district ....

13) Comment by gvm - 05/06/2012

@Nimby: you did.

14) Comment by nimby? - 04/06/2012

prove my point ; all one need do is read the advocate on a daily basis , observe the who , what , where , why . consider crimes reported by other local media , same ol' . as I said way back in Louisiana there are more whites below the poverty level , on welfare , than there are blacks , so this should not be a racial issue , who made it one ?

15) Comment by gvm - 04/06/2012

Then how can you try to refute my point by pointing to the public outcry regarding Brett Gerald? Not asking you to count posts, but you ought to be able to defend your point.

16) Comment by nimby? - 04/06/2012

not "post counting" . do note , on a daily basis , the number of violent crimes as reported in this venue . not really in line with the topic of discussion ....

17) Comment by gvm - 04/06/2012

@Nimby: as well there should be considering the extraordinarily tragic loss of life that he caused. Having said that, last time I checked there were only 16 comments on that thread - and at least a third of them were posted by one individual. By comparison, your post was #13 on this thread. I think you'd agree that this issue pales in comparison to the gravity of the Brett Gerald story. So, you see you've just, perhaps inadvertently, proved my point.

18) Comment by nimby? - 04/06/2012

I believe there is a public outcry for the head of Brett Gerald ....

19) Comment by gravityassist - 04/06/2012

The South's preoccupation with all the "vast amount" of nickles and dimes being stolen by all the fraudulent "poor folks" just slays me.// Far more of your money is being LEGALLY stolen from you by the wealthy plutocrats and corporatists (the back slapping, smiling guys in those $6000 silk suits) you keep voting into high office in this country - ridiculous credit card interest rates, private educations, corporate welfare - oil, big-Ag subsidies (have you seen their quarterly profits lately?), the military-industrial complex, the medical-industrial-complex, et al//. Capitalism today seems to be mainly the "creative art" of targeting a pool of government money, then pandering, distorting, propagandizing - lying when all else fails - your way into acquiring the political power to run a hose right into the Treasury Department - and suck out all the "profit" you want!//Yes, I'm being a little hyperbolic...but not much...lol.

20) Comment by gvm - 04/06/2012

One thing I've noticed consistently in this forum is this: whenever something negative is reported it is consistently pegged to the minority community. Conversely, whenever something positive arises those in the "majority" seek to claim it is their own. I don't know of one singular group that is in possession of some intrinsic value, or set of values, that are exclusive to it and set it apart from another group. Many of the articles depicting crimes posted in The Advocate, when the perpetrator is black or hispanic, are literally inundated with responses. However, when the perpetrator is white - the silence emanating from the most acerbic posters is deafening. If you think I exaggerate, see for yourself. There have been several cases in the recent past that illustrate this point. For example, the case of the older red-haired (I think he wore a clown's wig) gentleman robbing banks scarcely received any notice. The same is generally true for the garden variety of meth heads who seem to manage to get themselves arrested with alarming regularity. So true for politicians, et al. I'm a firm believer in the old adage that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're willing to trash an individual in one group about a particular act, then you ought to be equally as willing to trash a member of your own group for the same act. Anything less is, in my opinion, smacks of duplicity.

21) Comment by nimby? - 04/06/2012

Racism exists within the "black community" , it affects the "yellow" community , the "brown" community , the "red" community as well the "white" community . according to the 2010 census 12.8 percent of the population is receiving nearly 38 percent of social benefits paid . estimates suggest nearly 30 percent are fraud . as one minority in observance of another I have have seen preferential treatment bestowed in lieu of this groups numbers and ability/loyalty to vote in-mass for one party . I know of what I speak . in many of my own people I see the same ; there is a sense of defeatism , basically giving up . rather than make an effort towards a better life accept your designed fate , what's supposed to be , "easier to live in poverty" . why even try . for this I am very critical of my own . wish more in the "black community" would feel this way ....

22) Comment by DMJ - 04/06/2012

Racism isn't real anymore?! Hurrayy!!! We did it!!! Man, I feel so much better...

23) Comment by [e-mail] - 04/06/2012

Yep, poor, poor downtrodden poor and minorities; they are constantly used by anybody who has no other way to bolster an argument. Emotion works with some people, especially the PC crowd who won't even dare to argue once that card is played. They run like roaches when you turn the lights on.

24) Comment by nimby? - 04/06/2012

RALLEN , insinuations will be made that this will affect one group more than others , so agrees the black legislative caucus . being a "red-man" from the rez I'm quite familiar with discrimination ...

25) Comment by DMJ - 04/06/2012

Who are they pandering to? Maybe those who think random, arbitrary drug testing is a violation of an individual's right to privacy....which it is.

26) Comment by Whatnow - 04/06/2012

I can't believe this bill didn't pass. But, it's always easy to spend someone else's money and give it away without really policing recipients. It's just another drop in the bucket and all we have to do is raise the debt ceiling and print some more money or borrow more.

27) Comment by tradewinns - 04/06/2012

i have the perfect solution to our welfare problem. starting this year all welfare programs (that's any free money from any government) is cut by 20%. (before it begins: SS and medicare were paid into by those who are suppose to receive them all their working lives) the receivers will be able to survive while they find a paying job doing something. at the end of the 6th year the programs are abolished. the remainders will have to rely on families, friends are charities for their sustenance. millions locally and billions nationally (i read the cost of welfare nationally is now $1 trillion dollars yearly) will be freed up for maintanance of our infrastucture, providing oportunities of employment for those who want to better themselves.

28) Comment by RALLEN - 04/06/2012

Nimby - there are many forms of discrimination, some legally defined and many that are not. The original author did not use any racial term. What are you so sensitive about?

29) Comment by jdk944 - 04/06/2012

Nimby - using the term "racist" is now the catch all phrase for those who can't or won't discuss the issues of today, whatever they may be, like mature adults. Only reflects "small minds"!!

30) Comment by nimby? - 04/06/2012

since there are more whites than blacks on welfare this should not be a racial issue , who made it one ?