Kentucky must have read my mind!

[sandmangeck]

http://www.wbko.com/home/headlines/H...113823879.html

[jp58]

In before the close...

J/k.

Hopefully discussion can remain civil and not politically based this time around. I wouldn't be surprised if this was ruled unconstitutional, or if it just doesn't pass.

[sandmangeck]

They have tried before, and it's failed. Michigan passed one awhile ago, and they found it unconstitutional.

[jrthebassguy]

I hope I'm not being too controversial when I say this: I'm not against the idea in theory, but I fear the costs of doing that would be yet another thing we cannot afford.

[GregC]

Originally Posted by jrthebassguy

I fear the costs of doing that would be yet another thing we cannot afford.

This is one of the things I was saying in the last thread. That, and the testing is much more likely to catch pot smokers than users of harder, more addictive drugs. I think it's an example of trying to address an issue in a punitive manner without giving enough consideration to the practical aspects.

[sandmangeck]

I also think, if they randomly test, they can catch other abusers.

[GregC]

Originally Posted by sandmangeck

I also think, if they randomly test, they can catch other abusers.

Enough to make it worth the cost? I don't see it.

[cassanova]

I am against this for several reasons. I posted those reasons in the other thread that is now closed.

I also hope this bill gets struck down on constitutionality basis. I find it to be discriminatory because it's a public service that is discriminantly picking and choosing which members of the public that it will help. That my friends is not cool. The only factor that should come into play when needing financial assistance is your income.

[anyonefortennis]

[jp58]

Originally Posted by GregC

This is one of the things I was saying in the last thread. That, and the testing is much more likely to catch pot smokers than users of harder, more addictive drugs. I think it's an example of trying to address an issue in a punitive manner without giving enough consideration to the practical aspects.

Originally Posted by cassanova

I am against this for several reasons. I posted those reasons in the other thread that is now closed.

I also hope this bill gets struck down on constitutionality basis. I find it to be discriminatory because it's a public service that is discriminantly picking and choosing which members of the public that it will help. That my friends is not cool. The only factor that should come into play when needing financial assistance is your income.

I agree with both of you, still.

You are using a negative stereotype to blame something that isn't the main issue. If yopu have an issue with the system, reform it, but don't violate people's rights to do so.