Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Would you go #1 (Pee Pee) For Money?

A bill proposed by Louisiana State Rep. John LaBruzzo, (R-Metairie), seems to have been shot down again by a House committee.  The bill would require welfare recipients to submit to drug tests in order to keep they check comin'.

I titled this post "Pee Pee For Money," but I'm not sure how they actually do drug tests.  I mean, it could be a swab in the mouth, or a "stick on Mr. Pointer Finger" for a little blood.  I've never actually had to take one, so I do not know.  But, we'll just go with "Pee Pee."

As I understand the working world these days, if you want to go to WORK for the Railroad, or WORK for a Bank, or WORK for a plumber, or WORK for the Post Office, or WORK for a Daycare Center, or WORK for a Traveling Circus...it's likely that you will be required to go pee pee in a cup before being hired.  So, there's your trouble...that little WORK deal.   It seems that the only folks not likely required to tinkle for their daily bread are those that don't do one dang thing to get it...other than sign up.

Regardless, the bill wasn't actually killed.  It was referred to another Committee, where it will likely die.  What I find interesting about this bill are the arguments against it.  One argument is that it will "cost too much" to implement.  Really?  The cost of implementing the bill is $523,000 annually.  So, let's just do some unscientific, unmathematical figgerin' on this.  Just how many welfare recipients do you reckon would be booted off the rolls if the Pee Pee Rule was put in place?

Not to paint with too broad a brush here, but...a bunch of 'em!  Maybe not enough to pay for the half a million+ per year the program would cost...but the savings would definitely cut into the cost.

But, let's just say that EVERY illegal drug user cleaned up their act in order to keep the check coming, which is LaBruzzo's stated hope for his legislation.  How much local and State revenue would be saved by law enforcement agencies if the drug trade slowed down...even just a little?  How much better could local resources be channeled if several thousand, or tens of thousands got clean?  I don't have time to do the Math (plus, I never was very good at Math, so it would probably be wrong), but I'll bet we'd come pretty close to a "shove" on the cost.  For some reason, private companies find the "cost" of drug testing to be a profitable investment.  Hmmmm....

Also,  The Baton Rouge Morning Advocate is reporting that Rep.Walker Hines, (Dumbass-New Orleans), objected to the bill, saying:

The bill unfairly targets low-income people and likely would be shot down in courts as unconstitutional.

In other words...

funny animated gif

Now, we all know that ANYBODY WHOEVER Rep.(Dumbass-New Orleans) is going to play the race card. It is in their DNA. It is what they know. It is who they are.

But, Representative Walker Hines (Dumbass-New Orleans) throws the "Unconstitutional Card."


Unconstitutional?  Really?

Have y'all ever heard of "Section 8 Housing?"  That's a "Federal Program" that uses tax dollars to subsidize housing for folks that don't make much money.  When The Mrs. and I were talking about this bill in the LA Legislature this morning, she told me that people that participate in Section 8 have to submit to a drug test.  I thought, "really?"  Well, yeah, REALLY!  According to an article entitled, "How to apply for Section 8 housing in CHICAGO (and we all know they do everything by the Constitution in Chicago),"  When you apply, they will perform a credit check, criminal background check, drug test, and an employment and economic evaluation.

So, it looks to me like Rep. Walker Hines (Dumbass-New Orleans) don't have a cup to pee in on this one. But, of course...

funny animated gif


  1. For the 20 years I was in the Navy, we had to periodically take a "whiz quiz" for drug screening.

    Several of the jobs I have taken since retiring have required the same test as a condition for employment. So yes, I will pee for money.

    I think it's should be mandatory.

  2. I refuse to take Section 8 tenants because I hate dealing with the gubmint but I sure wish I could get all my tenants to pee in a cup before renting to them.

  3. How much local and State revenue would be saved by law enforcement agencies if the drug trade slowed down...

    Ummm. Why don't we just legalize the shit, tax it, and abolish the DEA and its state and local equivalents? BIG savings, including putting the drug cartels out o' bid'niz and cutting the penal system by about a third.

    Just sayin'. In a small-L libertarian kinda way.

    Apropos of testing... I did it in the military, too. And it pissed me off EVERY time, both literally and figuratively.

  4. BR, whiz quiz...nyuk!

    Pat, we don't do Section 8 either...for the same reason.

    Buck, you won't get any argument out of me. But, things being as they are, it's not likely. So, the optimum is to get people off...drugs, or the rolls.


Don't cuss nobody out, okay?