Home | About | Donate

Congresswoman Calls for Drug-Testing the One Percent, Not the Poor


And make the results public.


This is a little known or talked about subject that is at the crux of our society's problems.
Are we a nation of laws or are we a nation of corruption?
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
The very people, whose lives are so difficult, are denied even the solace of the self medication of their choice to ameliorate an existence that the one percent could never, in their wildest imaginations, endure.
Like Chet Baker's music?
All he asked out of life was to get a buzz on and play his trumpet.
He was persecuted to injury, incarceration and death for his troubles.
He left behind a body of work that will uplift and heal thousands for decades to come.
What was his crime?
Being an Artist living in a country with a Corrupt, Sadistic Government.


I have often thought that the world is upside down. Academics. development economists, researchers, experts, and what ever they call themselves, are studying poor people: how they live, what they do and what not, trying to find out why they are poor and how to alleviate their poverty. It is a huge puzzle to me. Already long time back it has been found out that people are poor because a small group of greedy people exploit most of the common resources, leaving too little for the rest to have a life quality. In the process this elite also destroy nature and wage wars, increasing the misery of the poor.

If we should put the world right, we should NOT study the poor. We should research the rich: why do they need all that wealth, how much is enough for them, how do they feel when faced with the fact that their greed has destroyed other people's the livelihoods and nature, etc. I would really like researchers to examine the "heads" of the rich, rather than the poor.

Drug testing the rich ones who get tax deductions and subsidies from the government is a good beginning in turning the focus towards where the problem of poverty and inequality really lies. Thanks, Gwen Moore.


I would support this as a time limited "experiment" (but not policy) because in general we know that rich people and poor people abuse chemicals at about the same rate but the rich do have more resources for ameliorating the impacts of doing so.

The fact is that I always view a drug test from the nursing perspective. In health care, you do a lab test because you believe that it will help rule in or out problems and will suggest a course of treatment.

Drug testing is for the most part punitive--all too often punitive.

Interested readers on the idea that people of all classes use chemicals at about the same rate should read Michelle Alexander's book, The New Jim Crow. She explicates that quite well.

I also think that we should look at chemical abuse as having elements of being a marker for hopelessness. Addiction and abuse is not solely driven by hopelessness but I believe it really drives a lot of abuse that feeds addiction.

What makes people hopeless? we should ask that question, too.


Thanks :relaxed:
That was very nice of you to say.


I agree that CD could've/should've investigated and reported on the distinction you point out and how that makes any legislation she could propose a non-starter. Had they done so, that would have been closer to objective and informative journalism. But I also appreciate that Rep. Moore is calling out the hypocrisy and blatant discrimination of proposals such as Ryan's. If there is a "need" to test benefits recipients (even if for the higher moral intent of offering treatment), why does it not follow that we should test the legislators and judges on our payrolls who write our laws and mete out the consequences of not obeying them?

For what it's worth, I always peruse the comments, such as yours, following CD articles to get the rest of the story. That's not always a useful pursuit on other websites.


I clearly understood from the article that the argument was to drug test all recipients of government largess, including the "welfare" recipients in the upper 1% income bracket. It sure makes sense to me.


Wow. Now that's an appealing thought.


Corporations that shirk their tax obligations, through bought and paid for legislation that allows them to do so, and yet take every advantage, financial and otherwise, of what our country provides, is where our tax money is going.

Not to mention 53 cents of every tax dollar, of the government's discretionary budget, going to the Military.

In this country, poor people are the distraction scapegoats.

They are criminalized while the True Criminals manipulate the gullible and misinformed into believing their frame.


That is the very point that she IS making.

She's just pointing out who ELSE is getting our money.

And most OF it.