progressive_thinker

Follow

Comment history

Police cite driver suspected in downtown accident with cyclists

That's why we need to deny driving privileges to persons who do not understand the rules of the road, Read your driving handbook. Bicycles have a right to be there.

April 5, 2013 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Drug testing bill goes to governor

It gets pretty expensive pretty fast. If you "do it yourself" with onsite kits, under MMCAP contract, 5 panel kits [NIDA 5] go for about 3-5 dollars depending on configuration. That is only a small part of the total cost of ownership The price of the test is the cost that people selling drug testing kits [the real culprits behind all of this nonsense] will quote you. After that you have to figure in the cost for employees to collect samples, and if necessary, GC/MS confirmation [$30-40 per sample, but only for positive EMIT samples]. Oh, by the way, strict chain of custody/security of evidence rules apply to drug test samples. Unfortunately, the on site kits are subject to errors, on the EMIT test, primarily caused by misinterpretation of results. [Think about the impact of an employee assigned to drug testing being less than objective.]

It gets more expensive if you do the process through an independent contract lab. [This is the best way to avoid false positives.]

The bottom line is that we likely have a group of drug test vendors that are pushing for this legislation. They are telling the legislators how "quick, inexpensive, and accurate" their products are. They are nothing but a bunch of snake oil salesmen.

April 4, 2013 at 10:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Drug testing bill goes to governor

I am presuming that they will not take action based solely on the results of an EMIT screening test [which is what most of the on site products and initial lab tests are.] I would presume that they will confirm results by GC/MS confirmation, which are pretty much error free.

April 4, 2013 at 9:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Police arrest dozens of people for DUI, alcohol-related offenses during weekend

KSA [Kansas law] 8-1543: Pedestrians under influence of alcohol or drugs; misdemeanor. A pedestrian who is under the influence of alcohol or any drug to a degree which renders such pedestrian a hazard shall not walk or be upon a highway except on a sidewalk. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

There is a similar municipal ordinance that is part of the Lawrence Municipal code.

There is likely more to the situation than someone just being intoxicated and walking home. If the arrested persons would have been on a sidewalk, they would not have committed a violation of this law.

April 1, 2013 at 2:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback wants to keep higher state sales tax; Democrats say that proves his income tax policy isn't working

Corporations depend on public infrastructure; an educated and healthy workforce; a legal system that enforces contracts and the obligations of other entities; and a cadre of other publicly financed services. Without these, the corporation would not survive.

With no corporate tax, it is predictable that corporate owners will further classify their own income as "corporate" to maximize tax avoidance.

Taxation of corporations is nothing more than requiring that they for pay their share of public financed services which they consume.

March 30, 2013 at 8:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Expertise lost

Sebelius' efforts were primarily around upper level management positions and with some newly created positions. Some that were changed to unclassified were even in the classified service pursuant to a very specific state law [example, prison wardens and deputy wardens]; others were changed from classified to unclassified so that the incumbent could be paid a market wage [I think that this was the case with some engineers with DOT].

Tanzer is right, there were no "mass" firings, however, there were several persons that were summarily let go. http://cjonline.com/blog-post/tim-car...

March 14, 2013 at 10:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Capitol Report: School finance; Democratic gubernatorial candidate; why Francisco voted for drug testing

Yes, TLO is a strange case. In the early 80's, some schools did have student smoking lounges.

"The 4th amendment doesn't say protection against unreasonable searches and seizures for criminal matters, but not for civil ones." I agree with this statement. The question at hand has to do with the word "unreasonable."

As it stands, to my understanding, what is unreasonable in a criminal matter is different from what is unreasonable in noncriminal matters.

March 5, 2013 at 10:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Capitol Report: School finance; Democratic gubernatorial candidate; why Francisco voted for drug testing

Yes, and it is. There are other examples of searches where the "reasonable suspicion" standard applies, again in non-criminal matters. Search of the belongings of a student is permitted with reasonable suspicion. [See New Jersey v. T. L. O.]

March 5, 2013 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Capitol Report: School finance; Democratic gubernatorial candidate; why Francisco voted for drug testing

In the case of criminal proceedings, you are correct. In the case of administrative action [such as denial of a benefit] probable cause is not the standard. For example, O'Connor v. Ortega allows the search of government employees with reasonable suspicion, as long as no criminal prosecution is contemplated.

March 4, 2013 at 7:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Capitol Report: School finance; Democratic gubernatorial candidate; why Francisco voted for drug testing

Some [not all] who object to the proposed Kansas law to drug test welfare recipients is that they do not understand that the Kansas law currently under debate does not call for all who apply and/or receive benefits to be drug tested. The proposed Kansas law is much more narrow, and only applies where there is "reasonable suspicion" of drug abuse. "Reasonable suspicion" testing is targeted to those cases where there are specific and articulable facts and evidence, followed with rational inferences from those facts, that suggest that substance abuse is present. In other words, before a recipient or applicant is required to take a drug test, government officials will have to document a really good reason that justifies said testing for that specific case. This pretty much overcomes any argument of an "unreasonable search."

The Florida law which is failing in the courts required testing of all applicants and recipients. Because there was no showing that all persons receiving assistance from the state were at any particular risk of substance abuse, there was no particular justification for the blanket search [drug test] policy.

March 4, 2013 at 4:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )