[–] rockemsockemroblox 2 points 58 points (+60|-2) ago 

Drug test all federal employees as well. Fuck these goddamn freeloaders.

[–] speedisavirus 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

Federal employees are already drug tested at hire and randomly tested

[–] Slayfire122 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

What about those Congress critters? Also, higher ranking individuals have their name put in the draw pot less often.

[–] TrueAmerican 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

No they need independent 3rd party lab to administer the tests.. coke heads in congress and other high areas of govt just bribe their way through life

[–] Werewolf35b 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Low level ones might be. Judges for example, are not.

[–] pby1000 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Beat me to it. You are absolutely correct.

[–] Jdub75 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

What do you do for a living that makes you qualified to make such an accusation?

[–] kinyu 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Roughly two million federal employees, at about $40 per test ... Yeah, please don't waste tax dollars on this.

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

How much would you save by firing them though? And with the hiring freeze they're not coming back.

[–] ScientiaPotentia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It costs thousands a year EACH not to drug test them because of all the problems drugs cause and all the problems testing solves. Many employees have behavioral issues because of drugs. A manager can simply order a drug test on the day of an incident if he/she suspects drug use. The employee upon testing positive immediately loses any possibility to sue for damages or contest the firing. A wrongful dismissal case can waste millions in man hours, lawyer bills, discovery, etc. It is one tool of many to mitigate problems.

[–] Hall_of_Cost 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Even if we just made it easier for them to be fired, I think that's an achievable first step. Costs a lot less than drug kits, although with DJT we could probably get an ace deal, and we could lose a lot of baggage.

[–] Jdub75 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

More like $300 Source: I often pay bills for drug tests

[–] lorlipone 7 points 32 points (+39|-7) ago 

Wasn't this tried with welfare, and it was a horrific waste of money that caught nobody?

Whenever these ideas get floated, I can't help but wonder who's got drug testing equipment companies in their stock portfolio.

[–] fusir 4 points 9 points (+13|-4) ago  (edited ago)

No. It was not a horrific waste of money. We had a link battle over it an the side saying that it saved money won.


Bottom line is it created a savings of 18.5% The tests cost almost nothing compared to a year's worth in grocieries. It would have saved Florida $9.5 a year if they had stuck with it.

[–] AmazingFlightLizard 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I would agree, except that Florida’s governor’s wife was a big, important person in the company that was supplying the drug test kits.

Once you start crossing into the self-serving corruption end of things, I think it taints the whole process. A good idea turns into something resembling The Happy Merchant’s style of doing things and instantly turns me off of it.

[–] NotALawyer 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

define saving

[–] GoBackToReddit 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Check out Rick Scott (Fl). If I remember right, he had stock in a drug testing lab that he "dumped" (Presumably to his wife or something.. not in his name on paper) right before passing this same garbage. I think Az also tried out testing and it also failed. As I recall, every time it's been tried, it's failed to work out monetarily, often in some kind of "scandal".

[–] WickedVocalist 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

The Zombie Apocalypse is coming to a town near you. Let's do the pilot of this in Sacramento and watch all the hungry addicts contemplate how to cannibalize the democrats pushing Trump to do that.

Yes and let's drug test all the Feds, like they already strip your ass naked and test you yet these fucking turds want to watch a bunch of starved druggies terrorize everyone.

[–] PlsNoStepOnSnek 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Maybe because the leaches stop using drugs so they piss clean? That's not necessary a waste.

[–] crazy_eyes 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

When is he going to order it for all federal employees, congress included

[–] WickedVocalist 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Because they know how to dry up their meth or coke habit for 3 days and test clean.

Meanwhile all the potheads are trying to get the LDS smokefree fuckers outta here.

[–] fl3x 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Randomized testing: they come in one day, are escorted into the bathroom, handed a sample cup, and told to piss.

Of course it's a corrupt shit-hole so there's a chance they'll be warned in advance, but if an outside department handles it and is given the authority... fuckin' do it. Go to their house in the morning and knock on the door in an unmarked car. Only tell them what they're required to do by law when they answer the door.

[–] Auschwitz 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Oy vey, that would be ANTI-SEMITIC!

[–] WickedVocalist 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Bitch shut the fuck up about the Feds. Are you under investigation?

[–] crazy_eyes 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

No I just want the congress to be exposed

[–] Reverse-Flash 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

They can't, it's unconstitutional.

[–] KittenCat 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Why is it unconstitutional to drug test federal employees, but in the private sector mandatory drug testing is commonplace? I've been tested as a condition of employment for almost every job I've had, plus they do random testing. Hell, I worked at one place (for a short amount of time) where they even tested you for nicotine, and would fire you if you even tested positive for that. And that shit's legal last time I checked. I pitched a fit about that one. So if the rest of us have to do it, federal employees shouldn't magically be exempt just because they work for the government. As an aside, I'm against workplace drug testing. If someone shows up to work blitzed, then sure. Especially in healthcare or something where you need to be on your game or you could seriously fuck up someone else. But as long as people come to work sober and competent, then it's not the boss's business what's happening off the clock if it's not affecting their business. And hell, so many people go to work fucked up on narcotics now that they have a prescription for, and that's ok, but someone can't smoke a joint at home after work. The whole thing's fucked up. Sorry for the tangent.

But I am ok with welfare niggers getting tested. If they can afford to buy drugs, then they can afford to buy food, and my tax dollars shouldn't be spent on them (though they shouldn't be spent on them in the first place).

[–] crazy_eyes 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Funny how its not unconstitutional to test the recipients

[–] Tallest_Skil 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

“That’s funny…” you reply when you hear that, “Show me where in the constitution it says that welfare can exist in the first place.”

[–] newoldwave 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

How's that?

[–] WickedVocalist 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago  (edited ago)

There's a lot of meth heads and crack heads in my area and more than a few hungry heroin addicts.

I don't want them digging in my trash for food; they're already fucking scary.

[–] newoldwave 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Put some rat poison in with your trash

[–] swastikawaii 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Underrated solution.

Why don't just give them poisoned rations in lieu of food stamps? Then we only have to feed them once.

[–] Gigan 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Sounds like an area to move out of regardless.

[–] Mogumbo [S] 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago  (edited ago)

U a lil bish

[–] [deleted] 2 points 11 points (+13|-2) ago 


[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That option's already available: Food stamps aren't mandatory.

[–] welcome_to_voat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

But taxes to pay for the welfare are.

[–] selpai 5 points 6 points (+11|-5) ago 

Here's the problem though. These drugs shouldn't be illegal to begin with, use shouldn't be criminalized. If they're found to have been consuming these drugs, then what? Mandatory incarceration? Are we going to pay for all of these people to go to rehab clinics? What? Just let the drug addicts starve? Simply deny the benefits? Is this just an expansion of the drug war?

[–] Broc_Lia 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I don't see why taxpayers should be asked to cover someone's drug habit.

[–] NotALawyer 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Considering CIA was funding their operations for coccaine sales, and drugs are being classified as illness in some countries of the world, i dont see why not. There are massive macroeconomical benefits due to hidden costs of not treating those people, upwards of 20k a year of treated, and over 280k if untreated, because they always will "find" money to fuel the addiction. Considering 95% of those substances cost pennies to make, its certainly not a bad deal..

[–] maxoverdrive 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Because they're a bunch of worthless fucking degenerate filth???

Here's another idea: we give them all drugs laced with poison, and kill all of these filthy fucking human cockroaches off in a single generation - got a problem with that? Please explain how that isn't good for the rest of us....

[–] JastheMace 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Right after all the Congress Critters get tested.

[–] Kal 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I saw a person buy 20 redbulls at $3.50 per 16 oz can with an ebt card today. Limiting what can be bought would go much further in saving tax money imo.

[–] NotALawyer 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Redbulls have high resale value. He was buying them to sell off

load more comments ▼ (23 remaining)