Drug tests: Good or bad?

reply to post by lewman


They should. Then they might think twice about proposeing that ANYONE take a drug test.

MOTF!

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


I dont get wher doing someting on your personal time has anything to do with your work ethic.

MOTF!

People receiving unemployment checks shouldn't be drug tested, unless CEO's get tested before receiving their whopping fat unearned bonuses !!! Funny how regulations seem to affect the lower economic levels more than the top levels.

reply to post by MessOnTheFED!


the only thing about not giving welfare to people on hard addictive drugs is that they will go and commit some crimes to get their fix.
free heroine would be an idea and was used in the uk up until sometime in the 70's, the strange thing is that there was only around 500 registered to get free heroine back then and now there is hundreds of thousands of heroine addicts in the uk.

reply to post by conspiracytheoristIAM


Here in the civil engineering world, where I work, we have a saying, "Sh!t rolls downhill".

A damned shame....

MOTF!

BAD. Until the day where every single person on a public payroll has to urinate in a cup before every shift and submit a blood test at least once a month for all illicit drugs...including all elected officials.

Drug test for employment insurance? NO!

Drug test for welfare? YES!

The difference...one is your money being repayed to you...you have already earned that money. The other is my money meant to help those in need, not to further someone's addictions.

Not sure what it is called in the US, in Canada it is EI (Employment Insurance).

reply to post by lewman


Im guessing the government makes more money policing addicts then helping them.

MOTF!

Originally posted by zerbot565 commercial drug test are not reliable

I agree on this one with one small caveat perhaps some batches are more sensitive as far as the time involved (they all say 30 days but most won’t catch it in that trace amounts.) than others when it comes to the 'wand" or "dip stick" type tests; the simple urine tests we had for Army recruiting were about 90% accurate when it came to catching the kids trying to enlist. I'd say we'd catch 9 out of 10 before they went to the processing center for the physical, which also conducted a complete urine and blood test. Most kids just admitted to smoking or being in the proximity (second hand) of someone smoking marijuana after busted on our tests within the last 30 days.


Only a few times did one end up passing the one we give in the office and failing the one the medical personnel conducted; sometimes we'd also have mixed results hot on one day clear the next...we tracked these by lot numbers and usually returned them for replacement.

Even rarer was the 1:100 who vehemently denied having ever using drugs and insisted our tests were faulty; the one I remember was the kid of some Colonel or other in the Washington DC area. He swore his kid never did drugs and appealed to the Recruiting Commanding General to get the "official" test....

Bad choice on his part; he not only failed for marijuana but coc aine as well, I bet his dad wasn't happy about betting the integrity of his son over the tests again.

Originally posted by zerbot565 id propose labour camps for people on the unemployment list , must be tons of tasks out there that needs to be done

Yeah, I agree some snow shovels are a cheap alternative to plowing the city streets - all report to block X at 0500 on any snow day and get your card stamped for unemployment. No one should be given unemployment for friggin 99 weeks IMO; this is silly.

Further, while one does pay a portion of his/her unemployment insurance and like any insurance there are conditions; I would not say it is an infringement of the “right” to one’s unemployment to screen the people to see that they are meeting the eligibility requirements for most jobs nowdays.
Almost anywhere one wants to work will require a drug test in today’s world so the government checking to see if you are sitting home getting high while you should be out looking for work doesn’t seem that draconian to me.

Then again I am of the school of thought that believes that when one must turn to depend upon the government like a parent he/she should expect to necessarily cede some of his freedoms to the same. Like being an adult kid living at home for free…one should expect some conditions and respect the wishes of the person providing such support.

Originally posted by peck420
Drug test for employment insurance? NO!

Drug test for welfare? YES!

The difference...one is your money being repayed to you...you have already earned that money. The other is my money meant to help those in need, not to further someone's addictions.

Not sure what it is called in the US, in Canada it is EI (Employment Insurance).

Was just going to reply but decided to quote instead. Someone give this damn guy an applause!

MOTF!

Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
People receiving unemployment checks shouldn't be drug tested, unless CEO's get tested before receiving their whopping fat unearned bonuses !!! Funny how regulations seem to affect the lower economic levels more than the top levels.

Buzzz try agian - CEO's are heads of private corperations and it is up to the owners of the company to make and enforce the policy.

Recieving unemployment is a form of government assistance and the when you ask for it you should espect to meet their conditions to draw it. Not that hard to understand; you want something obey the rules - if not no check. I'm cool with that.

reply to post by Golf66


That would be an awesome idea also. A "community help" stamp card for welfare programs. No so much the unemployment as i see it. Once you EARN something it's YOURS.

MOTF!

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

If my tax dollars are going to buy someone's, who wont even TRY to get a job to begin with, daily fix. Then yeah drug test the crap out of them,

Well, my desire for everyone's freedom from unconstitutional government intrusion is much more valuable to me than surrendering that freedom so that I can control the behavior of others. It does depress me that so many would voluntary surrender that freedom for such trite reasons.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


If you give a family "x" ammount of dollars to buy food and they buy drugs instead. Would you be mad?

If you EARNED the right to unemployment by working "x" ammount of years and the company says, "pee in this cup, then we'll give you what you have EARNED" would you be equally as mad?

MOTF!

Drug tests for unemployment? BAD

Drug tests for Welfare (and other forms of gov't aid)? BAD

Drug tests to get a job? Unless there is an objectively demonstrable safety issue involved, and maybe even then BAD.

Unless there is objective evidence to indicate illegal behavior, such as drug use, then any drug testing is a clear violation of the Fourth Ammendment.

The proper way to handle this is to have regulations, policies, etc that state in essence that employees shall not show up for work in a voluntarily induced state of degraded performance.

The reason behind a voluntary state of degraded performance doesn't matter much... stayed out all night partying and are tired? Voluntary degraded performance.

Company made you work all night and you are tired. NON-Voluntary degraded performance.

Then the situation can be managed just like anything else... showing up late for work, for example. If the specific behavior is or creates a problem, the employee is discharged. Depending on the specific situation, possibly charged with criminal activity... being a commercial pilot or driver that shows up in a voluntary state of performance degradation should be grounds for a criminal charge.

The whole concept of drug testing is that someone else claims the ability and the right to make judgments about someone's effectiveness under some arbitrary set of guidelines. And those 'guidelines' are obvious nonsense.

As I've heard it explained, taking for example some heavy prescription pain killer w/o a Dr.'s prescription will cause someone to fail the drug test. But having a prescription makes it all OK... as if the drug doesn't affect the user the same way without regard to somebody scrawling an illegible signature on a piece of paper.

General drug testing, as it is implemented today... bad bad BAD.

My opinion.

I am for drug testing for people on welfare. ta dollars used to buy booze and drugs is an outrage

reply to post by MessOnTheFED!



To be fair, you'd also have to test for alcohol, nicotine, senseless yard sale purchases and cruises to The Bahamas. ;|

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

If you give a family "x" ammount of dollars to buy food and they buy drugs instead. Would you be mad?

No. I actually don't care. However, I would be mad if I become unemployed and must prove my innocence to the state because a handful of people decided they didn't like what another handful of people were doing and demanded the government do something about it. Do you value controlling the bad behavior of others more than your own and your fellow American's freedom?

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
If you give a family "x" ammount of dollars to buy food and they buy drugs instead. Would you be mad?

I've put substantial thought into this. Please bear with a story:

A guy comes up to you on the sidewalk and says he is a homeless Veteran can you help him out for a meal.

So you give the guy money to buy lunch with.

Now at this instant, you have given the money away. You no longer have it. If the guy was telling the absolute truth and uses that money to buy food, or if he is a total liar and uses it to buy dope or beer, the effect on you is the exact same. You still no longer have the money.

If the guy is a liar and a thief, he is the one that has to live with that deception, not you.

So yeah, if I give somebody money, it is no longer my concern what they do with it. Short of using it to fund an active attack on my person or family, and even then it doesn't matter where the money to fund that attack came from.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


LOL maybe i just hate liars.

MOTF!

drug tests would only increase unemployment and thats why
work/apprentice camps/shops are needed
and needs to be implemented to the unemployment system ,

compensation for lack of work, isnt that what the whole thing is about ?

you in a sence as someone who applies for unemployment promote your self as a "task doer" , worker , labourer
without a task , job or work giver,

Employment is a contract between two parties, one being the employer and the other being the employee. An employee may be defined as: "A person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed." Black's Law Dictionary page 471 (5th ed. 1979)

worker noun employee, hand, labourer, workman, craftsman, artisan, tradesman, wage earner, proletarian, working man or working woman

labourer US, laborer [ˈleɪbərə] n (Business / Professions) a person engaged in physical work, esp of an unskilled kind

there must be millions of trivial meaningless things out there that need to be "fixed" or done ,be it painting buildings, layin tarmat ,mowing lawns or even walking groucerices for elderly or disabled,

theres no need for drug tests , if they cant do a simple job then they dont deserve the compensation