Readers slammed us for slamming Rep. Rickey Hardy’s embrace of what we’re officially dubbing ‘the piss poor proposal.’
We gave state Rep. Rickey Hardy, D-Lafayette, a drubbing last week in Pooyie! — labeling him that week’s Couillon with a capital C — for supporting a proposed bill to require recipients of state welfare to undergo drug tests. The bill by Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, failed in last year’s session and, we hope, will meet the same fate this year.
We still believe Rickey Hardy is a straight shooter and gives an honest damn about doing right by his constituents. But we believe his support for this slab of putrid red meat is misguided. LaBruzzo’s bill, behind which Hardy unfortunately — again, in our view — has thrown not only his support but now his co-sponsorship, smacks of “welfare queens” and Willie Horton: ad hominem skullduggery designed to play to the prejudices and fears of white people for the cynical purpose of gaining electoral advantage. LaBruzzo represents a part of eastern Jefferson Parish that once sent former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke to the state House of Representatives; a bill requiring welfare recipients to pee in a cup is manna for those knuckle-draggers. How such legislation will play in Hardy’s District 44 — a poor and working-class, majority black district — remains to be seen.
Our response in last week’s Pooyie was visceral. We were PO’d that a state rep whom we have supported and whom we personally like would wed himself to such legislation. Our readers, on the other hand — at least those moved enough to post comments on our website — cheered the bill and let us know in no uncertain terms how adequately full of crap The Independent Weekly is. So, let’s go at this from another angle: economics and reality.
The reality is, there’s no credible evidence that welfare recipients have a higher rate of drug use/abuse than the general public.
Michigan instituted a pilot program of mandatory drug testing in three state welfare offices a decade ago. Of the 250 women tested, 21 tested positive for illegal substances and all but three tested positive for marijuana only. Michigan soon abandoned the program.
Consider the cost of “catching” these pot heads using the Michigan numbers. A drug test costs about $42. Michigan’s pilot program cost $10,500 to test 250 people, so the cost of catching the 21 scofflaws was $500 apiece. This is why many corporations have abandoned or never embraced drug testing — the cost per positive result is staggering.
With Louisiana facing a $1.6 billion budget shortfall, is this cost worth it? And what do we do with those who test positive? Cut them — and, more important, their children — off the public dole?
Pay thousands of dollars for treatment to address what is most likely an “addiction” to pot?
Louisiana actually passed a law in 1997 requiring drug testing for welfare, but a task force appointed to implement the law found that limited testing based on a questionnaire used to identify likely drug users would be more cost-effective. And then, well, what ever happened to that?
If we want to address a drug more likely to be ravaging the poor, look to alcohol. But, that’s legal and has some deep-pocketed interests behind it. Not so the stoner lobby.
And why just welfare recipients? Embedded in this is the tacit belief that the poor possess less moral character than the rest of us, that they are more susceptible to the allure of illegal drugs or lean on dope to escape their economic reality. Not buying that.
And why not test everyone who receives government funds? Because welfare recipients, unlike public servants, are lazy? That’s the implication.
Even with his meager state salary, LaBruzzo is pulling down more than the “welfare queens” he’s targeting with this bill.
How about Joey Durel? He gets public dollars and, come to think of it, cracks a lot of jokes and seems generally pleased with himself.
LaBruzzo’s bill smacks of ‘welfare queens’ and Willie Horton: ad hominem skullduggery designed to play to the prejudices and fears of white people.
... written by RCajunrunner , March 30, 2011 - 04:25 am
I really don't lean one way or the other on LaBruzzo's bill. I can see some fiscal problems with it.
However, trying to compare Durel to someone receiving welfare really isn't equal. As much as I may disagree with some of the things Mayor Durel does, he is employed by the city-parish. Therefore, working for the paycheck he receives (we can discuss the drug testing of elected officials another day, that definitely could have merit). Someone on welfare is receiving money or goods for something that they are not working to earn. They are receiving "free" money.
I don't know John LaBruzzo, so I'm not going to pretend to know his motives. But I believe most people who support this type of legislation don't necessarily believe welfare recepients are less of a moral character, but rather, support it from the standpoint of if you are going to ask the taxpayers to support you with "free" money you are not working to earn, then you should not be purchasing drugs to feed a habit.
Walter, are LCG employees drug tested at random? I'm pretty sure when I worked for Parks & Recreation in college, there was random drug testing. Even non-profits do it, as there was random drug testing when I worked for the Boys & Girls Club of Acadiana.
... written by kjnkid1957 , March 30, 2011 - 06:41 am
Don't bother Fox news watchers with facts. It blows up the little fairy tale they like living in.
... written by Yes , March 30, 2011 - 08:08 am
I have no problem with testing everyone who takes Government money Durel or Obama. Yes even welfare and food stamp users.
... written by Resident , March 30, 2011 - 08:19 am
I'm of the opinion that welfare recipients or anyone struggling to pay bills shouldn't be spending money on drugs, alcohol, gambling, or other indulgences. But I think drug testing welfare recipients is ridiculous. Ending payments based on personal consumption of a substance seems a bit fascist.
Random drug testing itself is ridiculous. People should be able to do what they want on their own time. Certainly if someone has an accident on the job, drug testing is warranted to see if the person was under the influence at the time. The stupidity of drug laws should have no bearing on job status. So a severe alcoholic who can't function during the day without a drink is OK, but someone who takes a toke when they get home is punished? Same for welfare recipients. What if they just get high with their brother? This proposed law would assume that they're wasting their welfare money on drugs? Just ridiculous.
And the spending issue is a valid point. Some of the same people who shout about government spending don't have a problem with this kind of spending, no doubt.
... written by RCajunrunner , March 30, 2011 - 08:41 am
Funny how the Left is so obsessed with Fox News. I can't speak for all on my side of the spectrum, but I typically don't even watch TV in the evening except for sports or Everybody Loves Raymond re-runs.
... written by A Friend of Bill W. , March 30, 2011 - 08:53 am
As a paid employee of Baker Hughes, I am subject to randon drug tests. Why, because they pay me and they don't want me taking their money and spending it on drugs and alcohol(yes the random test include the 'legal' drug alcohol as well)and having a problem on my job. Why would anyone, IF they are clean, NOT want to take the test? Civil rights? How about my civil rights having to deal with these 'poor, unfortunates' on drugs in my everyday life while driving, crossing the street, or riding a public bus? The problem with you 'bleeding heart' liberals is that you perpetuate the problems of the poor rather than trying to solve them. People like Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Ried, Al Sharpton are really to blame. Those problems of the poor, they want to pay them a paltry welfare sum and the problems, they just want to sweep them under the rug, close their eyes, look the other way. IT AIN'T WORKING!!!! For example. the U.S has poured tillions upon tillions of dollars into the public education system and it is worse off today than ever. The generations upon generations of people(people of color and whites) being born into entitlement programs, growing up in them, and dying in them is astounding. It is slavery, only without the whips and chains.
... written by Neutral party , March 30, 2011 - 09:00 am
The only thing Hardy considered when aligning him self with this bill was the press he knew it would garner.David Duke and Ricky Hardy found common ground who woulda thought that.
... written by Bumper , March 30, 2011 - 09:19 am
1. Doing a urine drug screen in Louisiana does not cost $41 a piece, include an hourly tech, the plastic bottle and the test, and it should run half that amount. 2. So they caught approx 9% doing drugs, and while marijuana a minor drug (in comparison to meth, etc.) it is still illegal. 3. So how many people in LA are on welfare? How much to they receive a month? Why should the taxpayers subsidize the drug habit? Bonus question: How many state legislators are there compared to the number on welfare. Note: I don't really care about how you spend your money if your work for it, but to sit home and get high on the taxpayers dollars... 4. Employers have not abandoned drug testing many still do it because the law requires it or to CYA in the event of an accident, etc.
... written by Rinkelstein , March 30, 2011 - 09:34 am
So let me get this straight, instead of calling us racists, you are calling us economically stupid?
You lost a lot of supporters on this one.
... written by And now, , March 30, 2011 - 10:01 am
The Ind staff huffs, puffs, makes a face, calls names, and then uses its media power of influence in an attempt to bend the public to its will (opinion). That is pretty sad. Why are members of the meanest, toughest gang in town, the Lafayette Police Dept., only subject to drug testing when there is "reasonable suspicion?" With that in mind, have Labruzzo's bill amended to test welfare recipients only when there is "reasonable suspicion" of illegal drug use. That would lower the bitching about the cost, and satisfy bullies like The Ind staff.
... written by yesidoknow , March 30, 2011 - 11:13 am
Rep. Hardy doesn't like the idea of getting taxpayer money and spending it on drug purchases instead of family needs. In his district, it isn't just a little marijuana we're talking about, its crack, meth, and all other variety of street drugs.
... written by txwhodat , March 30, 2011 - 12:13 pm
Been drug testing for over 20 years. Can tell you highest positive percentage comes from CPS cases (unfit moms and dads) Most of those are getting some form of assitance (housing, food stamps, etc.) Maybe if they were not on drugs they would be better parents. How bout that observation? If you took away the drugs you'd lower the cost associated with placing kids in foster care, they would probably do better in school, etc. Anyway, you can test anyone for as litte as $2.25 a person. Costs are not that significant.
... written by txwhodat , March 30, 2011 - 12:23 pm
the bill, like drug testing in schools, is aimed a giving the folks a reason for NOT doing drugs. Unfortunately, there is no down side to using drugs. You don't get kicked out of your apt., they don't take away your food stamps, etc. On the other hand if you got them to quit, they might consider working cause they could pass the pre-employment
... written by James Melancon , March 30, 2011 - 12:45 pm
Testing Welfare recipients sounds like a good idea except for the cost. How about adding the requirement to the drivers license? It could identify two birds with one test.
... written by ragin_cajun , March 30, 2011 - 12:46 pm
" Cut them — and, more important, their children — off the public dole?"
I believe that the bill was amended last year when this was tried to exclude those seeking family benefits. Last year's version only applied to adult applicants, according to NOLA.com.
I have a story idea for you, Walter. Since the Clinton era, I think most people not on the dole have NO idea how public assistance really works in America these days. We ALL, including you as evidenced by your remarks here, have opinions on welfare that are based on what we THINK welfare WAS in the 80's and 90's.
Why don't you/the IND do a well researched article on what "welfare" is today, how much recipients get, how long they get it, how to qualify, and what its REAL effect is on the state budget. Do they still have WIC? Aid to Dependent Families? Who qualifies for Medicaid? How many govt. employees administer the programs? Compare "dollars taxed" to "dollars actually delivered" to poor people. What do RECIPIENTS think about the efficacy of the program?
I bet we'd all be shocked by what you find....
... written by Dekent , March 30, 2011 - 12:48 pm
"Michigan instituted a pilot program of mandatory drug testing in three state welfare offices a decade ago. Of the 250 women tested, 21 tested positive for illegal substances and all but three tested positive for marijuana only. Michigan soon abandoned the program."
Wait so you mean 247 tested positive for illegal substances?! That is completely outrageous! If that's the case we should most definitely be screening and removing benefits!
Side note, I'm also for legalization actually, but that does not change the facts.
... written by Taxpayer , March 30, 2011 - 01:30 pm
$42.00 for a test is cheap compared to the cost of supporting a welfare recipient's drug habit. They are supposed to be "work ready" and if they test positive for ANY drug no employer will hire them.
The Gov't should do the same and kick them off the dole since they are not work ready.
I am randomly tested at work and have enough sense not to do drugs - otherwise I would be on welfare where I could use taxpayer money to do all the drugs I could afford.
I think there is some irony this paradox to say the least
... written by Social worker , March 30, 2011 - 01:48 pm
Too many times children from "at risk" homes(welfare) arrive at school and tell stories of their parents smoking weed. Often they are tired because they were unable to get a good night's sleep. We are advocating taking these children out of the household at an earlier age so they will be ready for kindergarten. How about giving the schools a hand by stopping the late night partying? Yes, test them. Make them accountable, even if it is only 5% It is the norm for employees to take a drug test, so why not those on welfare? I applaud Ricky for trying to make a difference in his community. As for mr. Durel, I think he would and should take a drug test.
... written by well? , March 30, 2011 - 03:10 pm
I would believe drug use would go down if the threat of 'getting caught' lingered over welfare-receiving drug users, so yes eventually it would cost more than just giving everyone free money, pot-heads or not. Sorry that helping welfare children in *at risk* homes doesn't bring an initial profit but hopefully these children would have a better chance of not becoming welfare-receiving potheads when they grow up.
... written by A retired Public Servant , March 30, 2011 - 03:36 pm
Public servants, at least state public servants in Louisiana are subject to random drug testing. In the years I spent with the state I saw many public assistance recipients who appeared to be under the influence of some type of mood altering drug. However, many more are not. That does not negate the need to identify the ones that are on drugs. Perhaps they could be rehabilitated, perhaps not but they need to be identified.
... written by Southsider , March 30, 2011 - 03:38 pm
As a paid employee of Baker Hughes, I am subject to randon drug tests. Why, because they pay me and they don't want me taking their money and spending it on drugs and alcohol
I think they test you because of insurance purposes, not because they don't want you spending your paycheck on drugs and alcohol. Most, if not all insurance companies won't pay for a fatality if your under the influence, either while on the job or not.
... written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , March 30, 2011 - 03:56 pm
JOUDU'NT, and whatever drugs he is on has caused this unaccountable side effect yet to be defined which is causing him to nose up to the GreenAmbulanceMan, and shuffle the cards to hand him undercover the LPCG CONTRACTS.....who gives a big ass concern who uses weed, the tax payers concern is the Welfare peeps who are on the cuff with everything, from food stamps which they buy their morgan david wine, to the kool's and Salem cigs they burn, hell test them, and should they be found to be using any narcotic cut them off bonedry. Now for those with a job, everyone of those peeps who are employed should be allowed to burn a doobie whenever they can afford to pay the price with their own money, not mine..also the crazy checks, why is it that the greater percentage of the couillion receipents are colored, " dispute that fact," Liberal WHITE LILY, with your Libertine modus. This world is going the candyass way, with everyone looking for a freebee, ripe for the picking, Uncle Sam is going to get the cream of the crop, with everyone bent over asking to be done....No, not asking, "begging ! DIS PUTAN, THAT.
... written by Layne St.Julien , March 30, 2011 - 05:08 pm
Drug testing by your employer is almost always a safety precaution and is concerned with liability issues. Your employer 1) wants to keep the workplace safe and 2) doesn't want to have to shell out bucks if you get hurt on the job. This is in no way related to the concept of telling everyone who receives direct financial assistance from the government that they are suspected of illegal activity and must submit to drug-testing.
... written by taxed to death , March 30, 2011 - 06:06 pm
Having worked in Child Welfare for 25 + years and having screened hundreds of indigent individuals involved with our agency secondary to suspected child maltreatment, my experience has been that most positive drug screens were related to illegal use of prescription medication, crystal meth., and crack cocaine, not marijuana or alcohol. As I often told many of these individuals as they provided excuses as to “why” they should not be tested, “Not one thing bad has ever resulted from a negative drug screen”!
I am impressed with Rep. Hardy’s support of LaBruzzo’s bill, I sincerely hope that they can overcome the fiscal hurdle and push this bill through.
... written by John F , March 30, 2011 - 06:37 pm
The editors are correct, regardless of whether they're being visceral or reasoned.
Are we going to drug test social security recipients, too?
... written by fergie , March 30, 2011 - 07:13 pm
i think anyone on the public dollar starting at the top. before welfare recips. this is not a race issue its a drug issue.your attitude about race is whats wrong with america everytime u dont like somthin u yell racism.
... written by fergie , March 30, 2011 - 07:22 pm
people in the private sector are drug tested. at random times or there employers can at random times.i would would love to see everyone on the public dollar get tested. it would be a big eyeopener.i wish u hadnt lowered this to a race issue because its aboutdrugs but all white people are racisc in your mind please get up out of the gutter
... written by Rinkelstein , March 30, 2011 - 08:22 pm
Layne, the thing that they have in common would be that they would be required to piss in a cup to receive their assistance, like the majority of Louisiana employees piss in a cup to EARN their pay.
... written by Gatorlawman , March 30, 2011 - 08:32 pm
If you test one, then test them all including Tom Benson with the Saints welfare. Get the point! I would rather spend state funds on roads and bridges then drug test for anyone.
... written by ETEE , March 30, 2011 - 09:42 pm
I don't know where the author got their information on Louisiana Employers, but any company working Offshore is required to test every employee at time of hire, random testing during employment, and testing at the time of any accident to the employee or involving the employee. In addition, anyone holding a U.S. Government Document in Marine Transportation (Crew and Supply boat personnel,Semi-Sub Rig Crew etc). Virtually all Maritime Insurers require this as a minimum both Offshore and at the Docks (Stevedore,Oil Docks, etc)These rules include all drugs including alcohol. Why should there be "Zero Tolerance" for the worker and a free ride for the Slacker???
... written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , March 31, 2011 - 12:05 am
Before, I "AYE, our esteemed birdseed Mayor subjecting his person to a drug screen, considering the cost of drug tests. I want a medical opinion on the questionable, debatable, opinion, "Is ah slow learnt-couillion pill ah narcotic ? What, hows that again ? "Not, if its prescribed ? Oh.
... written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , March 31, 2011 - 12:34 am
John F. you must have a GED in stupidity. Social Security is money returned to a *payer who de-pos-ited a portion of his earnings for a set number of years, wages de-pos-ited, can you dig it ? Social Security ! Herein: known as a retirement account, ( Without Interest, I must add ) our government the *payee continually raises a red flag which scares the hell out of the social security payer, but not to worry, these couillions could not exst without every dollar they squeeze from the, " Lets not call, ourselves Social Security Receipients, " Receipients ": "are the the lazy weed toking welfare peeps like the babymamas who drop the maximum number of toddlers to qualify for the maximum number of dollars of government dole, which is to say the government rewards the babymamas for producing another generation of welfare program " RECEIPIENTS, to gain more votes.... That Jack F. is one un-dis-putant fact. But,for the grace of God there toke I.
... written by realitychecks , April 01, 2011 - 12:36 pm
Pierce: Good attempt to salvage! However, it's a tough crowd! Some of us got all that same sociology teaching and simply never bought into it. We had to write those same answers down on exams; had them memorized by heart! You might be very surprised to know how many of Mr. Hardy's mixed race and mixed income level district would agree... Nothing to do with "designed to play to the prejudices and fears of white people."
... written by Gaius Cilnius Maecenas , April 02, 2011 - 05:28 pm
Walter has written a lucid defense of his appraisal of the lunacy of drug testing. No one should be drug tested; it is an invasion of one's inner body.
The nasty responses by so many of the above blog postings confirm how savage, ignorant and malicious the great majority of our people are here in Lafayette.
Think how de-humanizing it is to pee in a container, and turn your efflux over to a minion, who in turn, using chain-of-custody nonsensical procedures, supposedly have a qualified laboratory test it! More than a few lacunae here.
This present day stupidity of practicing this peculiar event (drug testing) does feed the police state mentality and enrich the legal/therapist community. Talk about a foolish use of cash to recycle within a community [every dollar moves seven times within a community before it is lost to that community]! LaBruzzo & Hardy should be horse-whipped and run out of the congressional chambers of Louisiana for inciting violence [fear, anger & pain] in our most vulnerable citizenry! They smell of the street!
... written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , April 03, 2011 - 12:26 am
Gaius, I'd wager a hundred to a Meche's Donut that You are a career welfare recipient, your babymama has (7), seven babies and you're a nut that did'nt fall far from the tree.
... written by Gaius Cilnius Maecenas , April 03, 2011 - 10:19 am
Northsidian Shotgun, Wrong on all three accounts! As Walter asserted succinctly and pertinently, "...the tacit belief that the poor possess less moral character than the rest of us..." has been validated by your foolish words.
You would make an excellent poster-child (even though you are an old, ignorant, hateful man) for the 'knuckle-walkers' who have not yet quite acquired the up-right posture of a mature human---socially, emotionally & morally well-developed!
... written by James Melancon , April 03, 2011 - 11:41 am
written by John F "Are we going to drug test social security recipients, too?" -----------------------
In theory, recipients have paid into the system for their benefits, so there is a difference.
... written by SBD , April 03, 2011 - 11:47 am
by Gaius Cilnius Maecenas "No one should be drug tested; it is an invasion of one's inner body." -----------------------------
No one? Really? To tell the truth, I like the idea that the FAA requires testing of pilots. Have you been on a flight with a pilot after he smoke a few joints? It would be quite a trip.
... written by Gaius Cilnius Maecenas , April 03, 2011 - 03:06 pm
SBD, Would a pilot who possesses a complex skill-set be stupid enough to do his job in a state of mental impairment?
It is this sort of sloppy thinking [proposing an almost infinite array of foolish possibilities that are not grounded in practical reality] that gives rise to barbarism.
Your argument can be dismissed on the logic of alcohol impairment. How many pilots have been let go due to alcohol impairment? Alcohol, of course, is legal; however, it violates the professional code of ethics for [air/land or water] pilots to be technically drunk when they fly a plane.
As I asserted, Drug Testing is an invasion of one's body!
... written by txwhodat , April 04, 2011 - 08:25 am
Invasion of one's body? do you mean privacy? I've never drug tested anyone without their consent or a court order. Could you pass?
... written by Gaius Cilnius Maecenas , April 04, 2011 - 01:53 pm
TXWHODAT: I would absolutely pass! I do not wish anything to interfere with my mental processes. "Consent" or "Court Order" ? Both are modes of coercion, one implicit ["consent"], the other explicit ["court order"]. How weak is your mind? 'Invasion of one's body' is a larger conception than 'privacy.' These concepts are not equivalent. "Drug testing" should be more properly compared to "sexual rape." It is the same degree of barbarism!
Don't forget the Roman principle in law: Summum ius, summa iniuria [Cicero, De Officis, I. 10. 33]. It means that too rigorous enforcement of laws can in certain circumstances obstruct and annul the objective for which the laws exist. The drug-police state has only increased drug usage, not decreased it!
... written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , April 05, 2011 - 12:37 am
Maecenas, Stupid is as stupid says, and you pilgrim are about as stupid as the druggie, that filled out a pre-employment form and tested positive for marijuana and cocaine. I supervise over 100 drug free employees at my work place and they are the most productive and highest wage earners in the industry, and this is not because they are drug free, but this is because they truly understand and appreciate that their fellow employee's care enough about their person and their fellow employee's persons to "ALLOW THEIR EMPLOYER TO: Drug screen their person prior to gaining employment and subject their persons to random drug screens as their number is selected, you see goofentaten, one slip up could lead to another BP fiasco, and loss of lives. I'm sure you did not lose a fanily member in the BP castrophe of eleven dead, else you would not be center stage acting out " The Great Proponent, of mind addling drug use" by pretending to own a literate professorship of mans laws, Oh by the way, MAECENAS, you are living proof that, " the privilege of absurdity, to which no living creature is subject but man only " is an iron-clad fact. and " the absurd has meaning only in so far as it is not agreed to ", In other simpler terms, " It takes two fools to have an argument, and you fool, are all alone." Existentialist Homme, Ciao Oh, I just remembered, sorry darn, its an age thing, " THE YOUNG ASPIRE TO TEACH THE AGED, WHAT THE AGED HAVE NOW FORGOTTEN "... EXISTENTIALIST HOMME, In other words " Chump, I have been all around the world, as my employment required me to do so, and I have found that the American youth, mentally mature slower than European and Asian youth, and that most American youth have a tendency to pretend the role of know it all, when truly they know " Jackshit.
... written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , April 05, 2011 - 01:13 am
" The drug-police state has only increased drug useage, not decreased it ! What a crock of shit, the truth is, the American tokers, have not the balls to do anything else but escape the realities of life by being stoned.
... written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , April 05, 2011 - 01:25 am
Oh Maecenas, I have another bet for you, I bet a G note to a Meche's Donut, that you are a digressionary redneck, still to pass your bar exam.
... written by txwhodat , April 05, 2011 - 01:41 pm
Maecenas the Moronic, invasion of the body? One of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I agree with N Shotgun. If you knew anyone with a job, you could then someone in their family how they feel about drug testing at the jobsite. How 'bout drug testing for ship captains, plane pilots, truck drivers, pipeline workers, highway workers, rail road engineers, school bus drivers? Still invasive of their body? Still doubt you could pass a UDS. - better yet, there probably was a time when you couldn't pass which explains your nutty thought process.
... written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , April 05, 2011 - 10:29 pm
TXWHODAT, the slimy little bugger has crawled into his shell, he is of one mind and thinks the strip is LaLa land, or he's corexit on the hoof and finally settled to the bottom, he's a spoofer who orates print type.
... written by ach amh agh , May 12, 2011 - 11:30 am
this bill is fantastic! about time.
... written by Concerned person , May 12, 2011 - 12:39 pm
How in the world did Fox news, the best news organization in the world get dragged into this discussion. Damn liberals never miss a chance to bad mouth the real news network, FOX NEWS. Keep up the good work! I think what is happening is that we are so accustomed to electing do nothing politicians, aka brandon shelvin, william theriot, jared bellard, et al,oh i almost forgot, chris williams, that we're shellshocked when an elected official really acts in a positive way for the public good. If there is disagreement , why not do a pilot program to determine the need for such a law. Personnally , I thinkl its a great idea, and those who disagree are living in la la land.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.
Advertisement
Read the Flipping Paper!
Click Here for the Entire Print Version of IND Monthly
Read the Dining Guide
Click Here for the Entire Print Version of IND Eats Dining Guide
In rendering his ruling, District Judge John Trahan all but called the real estate developer a liar for inconsistencies in his accounts of what prompted him to punch a school teacher unconscious.
Frank’s Casing Crew, now doing business as Frank’s International, will make its final appearance on ABiz’s list of the Top 50 Privately Held Companies in Acadiana this year, and once again it will likely be at the top with more than $1 billion in annual revenues. The 75-year-old company specializing in tubular fabrication and installation services to the oil and gas industry plans to offer shares of its stock to the public for the first time.
The defeat, or rather highjacking of House Bill 420 in the final days of this year's Legislative Session, say Reps. Vincent Pierre and Terry Landry, is the result of the propaganda spread by one unidentified local media outlet and an unnamed former state Representative, but nothing to do with the original legislation's lack of checks, balances or details.
City-Parish Council Chairman Brandon Shelvin heaped steady doses of condescending ire on a Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana executive while failing to reveal his financial ties to a BC/BS rival.
Abbeville native David Primeaux was a popular professor until his death late last year, and while he was successful at camouflaging a dark past, he couldn’t outlive it.
Tehmi Chassion’s failure to recuse himself in the school board’s selection of a group health benefits provider raises ‘serious questions’ on whether he violated state ethics law.
He’s a singer. A songwriter. A piano man. A family man. He’s even got his own Wikipedia entry. He’s David Egan. And he knows ancient secrets about the monolithic stones of Stonehenge that he’s not willing to share.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
However, trying to compare Durel to someone receiving welfare really isn't equal. As much as I may disagree with some of the things Mayor Durel does, he is employed by the city-parish. Therefore, working for the paycheck he receives (we can discuss the drug testing of elected officials another day, that definitely could have merit). Someone on welfare is receiving money or goods for something that they are not working to earn. They are receiving "free" money.
I don't know John LaBruzzo, so I'm not going to pretend to know his motives. But I believe most people who support this type of legislation don't necessarily believe welfare recepients are less of a moral character, but rather, support it from the standpoint of if you are going to ask the taxpayers to support you with "free" money you are not working to earn, then you should not be purchasing drugs to feed a habit.
Walter, are LCG employees drug tested at random? I'm pretty sure when I worked for Parks & Recreation in college, there was random drug testing. Even non-profits do it, as there was random drug testing when I worked for the Boys & Girls Club of Acadiana.