Sponsor of drug testing Georgia law for welfare recipients arrested for DUI

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

OMG! A politician who was a hypocrite, I've never heard of such a thing.

Still doesn't change my mind about drug testing welfare recipients.

Being that he's not receiving free money from the taxpayers, I fail to see the hypocrisy there. He should, however, resign immediately from the state legislature seeing as how he chooses not to obey the very laws he is supposed to be legislating.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Georgia Republican Who Wanted Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients Gets DUI | Addicting Info

Rep. Kip Smith, the Georgian Republican sponsor of Georgia House Bill 464, which would “require random drug testing” for citizens on public assistance, found himself drunker than Lindsey Lohan (only ugly and with no talent) and apparently was arrested friday morning on a DUI.

So Rep. Smith, the public has to wonder, since 99% of the time people drive drunk, they get away with it - how many times were you out driving drunk while taking the people's money as salary?

All Representatives must be tested once a month.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm not condoning drunk driving...

I know when I'm ok to drive and when I'm not.... I would never get behind a wheel if I felt I would fail a basic field sobriety test.... Just because someone may have a BAC of .08 of higher doesn't mean they're "impaired."

True. Impairment is really a matter of perception. Let's not forget the legal limit used to be 1.5 and over the years they kept making it lower and lower and some still feel the current rate of .08 is not low enough.

 

[Mr.Nick]

That is a limit not too many drunks are aware of.

I hope you're not condoning drunk driving here.

While there is an ounce of truth in what you say regarding buying booze with your own money earned, nonetheless, this guy is an elected, public official drawing a tax-payer salary and is automatically held to a higher standard.

This DUI sure doesn't help his case to drug test welfare recipients.

I'm not condoning drunk driving...

I know when I'm ok to drive and when I'm not.... I would never get behind a wheel if I felt I would fail a basic field sobriety test.... Just because someone may have a BAC of .08 of higher doesn't mean they're "impaired."

Yes, this guy should be held to a higher standard, however that doesn't make him a hypocrite because he got popped for a DUI.

The guy has a job and earns money - money he used to buy the booze.

I'm not defending the guy - I'm just saying that there is a difference between drug testing those who live off taxpayers and a guy who works and who buys his own booze or drugs with his earned money.

I don't even get behind the wheel when I've been taken my legally prescribed pain pills.

If you are impaired, you do not know it. You may be legally drunk and "think" you'd pass a sobriety test.

When my friend and I went out for dinner and knew we were gonna buy drinks, we had our husband drop us off and pick us up. We each had ONE drink.

Oh I know when I'm impaired, and when I am I don't drive.

A couple of beers isn't going to impair me..

I'm not a risk taker either...

Besides, I almost never drive when I have been drinking and the only time I do is when I go to the store a mile down the road - even then I would never do it if I felt I had too much to drink, and that is when I'm visiting my parents at their house.

I don't even have to drive at my house because everything I could possibly need is within walking distance..

I suppose my point is that I know my limit and I know whats safe.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I'm not condoning drunk driving...

I know when I'm ok to drive and when I'm not.... I would never get behind a wheel if I felt I would fail a basic field sobriety test.... Just because someone may have a BAC of .08 of higher doesn't mean they're "impaired."

True. Impairment is really a matter of perception. Let's not forget the legal limit used to be 1.5 and over the years they kept making it lower and lower and some still feel the current rate of .08 is not low enough.

I have a BAC tester and I'm perfectly fine at .10.

If I felt I was a danger to myself or others I wouldn't drive. Not only that but I don't want a DUI. If I cant control a vehicle I may as well be asking for one.

I'm not condoning drinking and driving -- I'm just saying its not dangerous if you know your limit.

Under any circumstances no one should drive if they don't feel they can safely.

 

[Againsheila]

Drug tests aren't that expensive.

They have instant ones - they're like 5 bucks.

That's the cost of the test. The test also has to be administered. If you're going to trust drug users to administer their own tests, you may as well not give them one, genius! You can even buy clean piss in some gas stations these days, for crying out loud, and its readily available in head shops or online. The only way to administer a drug test and be sure the urine is from the test subject is to observe the piss come out of the test subject and into the sample vial, and that my friend will cost more than $5 a pop.

As someone who has paid taxes all his adult life, god forbid should I ever need public assistance, I would find no greater insult than to be required to allow a government employee to observe me pissing in a jar.

I never said they should administer their own tests..

They should be required to go down to the welfare office once a month and piss in a cup with someone standing in the room to confirm that individual actually did urinate in the cup.

wow whats 30,000 x 5

$150,000 dollars in drug tests a month.

Meanwhile these welfare ***** receive roughly $12,000 a year minimum in welfare each. I suppose it would take 15 welfare drug addict benefits to cover the drug tests.

The notion you have to hire more workers to administer drug tests is ridiculous - their welfare case worker can do that...

Don't know where you get your figures from, but years ago I saw a study that added up all the aid to those on welfare and on average, they got more than $35,000 a year in various welfare benefits.

Wonder what that statistic is today?

 

[Againsheila]

I'm not condoning drunk driving...

I know when I'm ok to drive and when I'm not.... I would never get behind a wheel if I felt I would fail a basic field sobriety test.... Just because someone may have a BAC of .08 of higher doesn't mean they're "impaired."

True. Impairment is really a matter of perception. Let's not forget the legal limit used to be 1.5 and over the years they kept making it lower and lower and some still feel the current rate of .08 is not low enough.

I have a BAC tester and I'm perfectly fine at .10.

If I felt I was a danger to myself or others I wouldn't drive. Not only that but I don't want a DUI. If I cant control a vehicle I may as well be asking for one.

I'm not condoning drinking and driving -- I'm just saying its not dangerous if you know your limit.

Under any circumstances no one should drive if they don't feel they can safely.

.08 is the legal limit. If you get pulled over for any reason and test out at .10, you are getting a dui.

 

[Mr.Nick]

That's the cost of the test. The test also has to be administered. If you're going to trust drug users to administer their own tests, you may as well not give them one, genius! You can even buy clean piss in some gas stations these days, for crying out loud, and its readily available in head shops or online. The only way to administer a drug test and be sure the urine is from the test subject is to observe the piss come out of the test subject and into the sample vial, and that my friend will cost more than $5 a pop.

As someone who has paid taxes all his adult life, god forbid should I ever need public assistance, I would find no greater insult than to be required to allow a government employee to observe me pissing in a jar.

I never said they should administer their own tests..

They should be required to go down to the welfare office once a month and piss in a cup with someone standing in the room to confirm that individual actually did urinate in the cup.

wow whats 30,000 x 5

$150,000 dollars in drug tests a month.

Meanwhile these welfare ***** receive roughly $12,000 a year minimum in welfare each. I suppose it would take 15 welfare drug addict benefits to cover the drug tests.

The notion you have to hire more workers to administer drug tests is ridiculous - their welfare case worker can do that...

Don't know where you get your figures from, but years ago I saw a study that added up all the aid to those on welfare and on average, they got more than $35,000 a year in various welfare benefits.

Wonder what that statistic is today?

Certainly.....

In Illinois you get paid per dependent - so if a mother has 15 kids she will receive way more than 35k a year...

I believe here in Illinois every kid is worth something like 500 a month.

That's 75k a year if you have 15 kids.

Like I said in a previous post - many woman on welfare have kids for that extra 500.

Of course these woman don't give a shit about their kids and only have them for the money..... That just keeps the downward spiral spinning.

 

[Mr.Nick]

True. Impairment is really a matter of perception. Let's not forget the legal limit used to be 1.5 and over the years they kept making it lower and lower and some still feel the current rate of .08 is not low enough.

I have a BAC tester and I'm perfectly fine at .10.

If I felt I was a danger to myself or others I wouldn't drive. Not only that but I don't want a DUI. If I cant control a vehicle I may as well be asking for one.

I'm not condoning drinking and driving -- I'm just saying its not dangerous if you know your limit.

Under any circumstances no one should drive if they don't feel they can safely.

.08 is the legal limit. If you get pulled over for any reason and test out at .10, you are getting a dui.

Obviously, however a cop would need to believe I was drunk in order for him to administer a BAC test.

I would never drive if I thought I would appear to be drunk because that means you are drunk.

.08 to me is probably different than what it is to you.

We all have different tolerances for substances.

You may get plastered off a beer or two, however I'd be perfectly fine despite having the same BAC.

 

[paulitician]

Still a good idea. More States need to adopt these reasonable & fair requirements. Either stay on the drugs or get your welfare. But you can no longer do both. And i know some will say 'But what about the children?' Well,if they cannot get off the drugs,they'll have to lose their children. They're not doing the children any good. And we as a Society owe the children some protection. So i think it's perfectly fair to impose these requirements on Welfare Recipients. They'll just have to choose between their drugs and their Welfare. This guy's DUI has nothing to do with the Welfare Requirements issue. He'll just have to go through the legal process and accept his punishment. It is what it is.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm not condoning drunk driving...

I know when I'm ok to drive and when I'm not.... I would never get behind a wheel if I felt I would fail a basic field sobriety test.... Just because someone may have a BAC of .08 of higher doesn't mean they're "impaired."

True. Impairment is really a matter of perception. Let's not forget the legal limit used to be 1.5 and over the years they kept making it lower and lower and some still feel the current rate of .08 is not low enough.

I have a BAC tester and I'm perfectly fine at .10.

If I felt I was a danger to myself or others I wouldn't drive. Not only that but I don't want a DUI. If I cant control a vehicle I may as well be asking for one.

I'm not condoning drinking and driving -- I'm just saying its not dangerous if you know your limit.

Under any circumstances no one should drive if they don't feel they can safely.

Drinking and driving ISN'T dangerous if you know your limit? Apparently you don't, because you feel that you're fine to drive at .10 rather than obeying the law at .08, as well as kinda encouraging people to think like you do.

Doesn't look good dude.

 

[ABikerSailor]

But he's not on welfare....

He buys his booze with his own money...

Everyone on welfare should be drug tested...

Its OK to drive drunk as long as you aren't on welfare?

WTF?

What do you think is a greater threat to society - someone buying $10 worth of pot while collecting food stamps, or someone buying $20 worth of booze, getting hammer, and driving drunk out of their minds? Which would you rather run into on the road?

hmmm, high on pot, or drunk, think I'd rather not run into either of them, thank you.

Not for nothing Sniper Kitty, but I used to work at a biker bar called Boondocks, and in the back parking lot, people would go back there and smoke cannabis. Some of them would smoke only, preferring to just drink coke, and the people that smoked only were probably the best behaved in the whole place.

Nope, if I had to pick between the 2, I'd rather run into someone who was high only rather than drunk only.

Pot smokers are pretty friendly when they're stoned. Drunks tend to get mean.

 

[paulitician]

Its OK to drive drunk as long as you aren't on welfare?

WTF?

What do you think is a greater threat to society - someone buying $10 worth of pot while collecting food stamps, or someone buying $20 worth of booze, getting hammer, and driving drunk out of their minds? Which would you rather run into on the road?

hmmm, high on pot, or drunk, think I'd rather not run into either of them, thank you.

Not for nothing Sniper Kitty, but I used to work at a biker bar called Boondocks, and in the back parking lot, people would go back there and smoke cannabis. Some of them would smoke only, preferring to just drink coke, and the people that smoked only were probably the best behaved in the whole place.

Nope, if I had to pick between the 2, I'd rather run into someone who was high only rather than drunk only.

Pot smokers are pretty friendly when they're stoned. Drunks tend to get mean.

This is true. But drug testing requirements for Welfare Recipients are not soley focused on Marijuana use. Personally,i'm fine with de-criminalizing Marijuana.

 

[Againsheila]

I have a BAC tester and I'm perfectly fine at .10.

If I felt I was a danger to myself or others I wouldn't drive. Not only that but I don't want a DUI. If I cant control a vehicle I may as well be asking for one.

I'm not condoning drinking and driving -- I'm just saying its not dangerous if you know your limit.

Under any circumstances no one should drive if they don't feel they can safely.

.08 is the legal limit. If you get pulled over for any reason and test out at .10, you are getting a dui.

Obviously, however a cop would need to believe I was drunk in order for him to administer a BAC test.

I would never drive if I thought I would appear to be drunk because that means you are drunk.

.08 to me is probably different than what it is to you.

We all have different tolerances for substances.

You may get plastered off a beer or two, however I'd be perfectly fine despite having the same BAC.

Let's just say, I like to err on the side of caution.

 

[Mr.Nick]

But he's not on welfare....

He buys his booze with his own money...

Everyone on welfare should be drug tested...

What he said.

how libertarian of you two...Well at least nick because he claims he is one.

If you want to live off the taxpayers then you should be required to meet a standard.

I'm not a ******* anarchist...

Using your logic if I opposed 10-year-olds getting drivers licenses I wouldn't be a "real libertarian."

I'm not lawless....

If welfare ***** want to use drugs then they can get a job and pay for their own dope instead of me...

Then I wouldn't give a shit...

I could care less if the productive want to get high. I do have a problem with those who ARE NOT PRODUCTIVE getting high on the taxpayers coin.

 

[Againsheila]

OMG! A politician who was a hypocrite, I've never heard of such a thing.

Still doesn't change my mind about drug testing welfare recipients.

Being that he's not receiving free money from the taxpayers, I fail to see the hypocrisy there. He should, however, resign immediately from the state legislature seeing as how he chooses not to obey the very laws he is supposed to be legislating.

If all politicians did that, we wouldn't have any.

 

[Againsheila]

hmmm, high on pot, or drunk, think I'd rather not run into either of them, thank you.

Not for nothing Sniper Kitty, but I used to work at a biker bar called Boondocks, and in the back parking lot, people would go back there and smoke cannabis. Some of them would smoke only, preferring to just drink coke, and the people that smoked only were probably the best behaved in the whole place.

Nope, if I had to pick between the 2, I'd rather run into someone who was high only rather than drunk only.

Pot smokers are pretty friendly when they're stoned. Drunks tend to get mean.

This is true. But drug testing requirements for Welfare Recipients are not soley focused on Marijuana use. Personally,i'm fine with de-criminalizing Marijuana.

Me too.

 

[Mr.Nick]

.08 is the legal limit. If you get pulled over for any reason and test out at .10, you are getting a dui.

Obviously, however a cop would need to believe I was drunk in order for him to administer a BAC test.

I would never drive if I thought I would appear to be drunk because that means you are drunk.

.08 to me is probably different than what it is to you.

We all have different tolerances for substances.

You may get plastered off a beer or two, however I'd be perfectly fine despite having the same BAC.

Let's just say, I like to err on the side of caution.

I am cautious - that's why I don't drive when I feel I cant operate a vehicle (or any object) safely.

The dangerous ones are those who get tanked then don't care and drive...

If those assholes want to go off an kill themselves I could care less, however those fools kill others...

Besides those idiots texting are just as dangerous - especially young inexperienced drivers who text and drive.

I wont even talk on my phone while I'm driving - I pay attention to the road.

 

[sfcalifornia]

If it was up to me I would abolish the welfare program (or at least limit welfare) and I would legalize drugs in general..

However under our currant system, where people are allowed to live on welfare for life any illegal substance should get you booted off the program.

Taxpayers shouldn't have to work hard so a bunch of lazy ***** can sit on their asses all day and get high - on any substance.

Which welfare programs can one live off of for life?

With the exception of TANF, all of them.

Didn't the federal government impose a 5-year lifetime limit with the Personal Responsibility Act back in '96?

 

[Avatar4321]

He's not on welfare. Not really seeing why you take joy in the stupid mistakes of others. Just shows your pettiness.