i was thinking the other day, if i need to pass a drug test for a job, wouldn't some one have to drug test for unemployment, welfare, food stamps, or any other government funded program... why would i need to be drug free to have a job, while some crack head can collect unemployment and welfare for being a crack head??? i know some of these programs are intended to help people with drug addictions, but don't they just enable drug users to stay using... and if i can't smoke weed on my days off, why can people on unemployment shoot heroin and have no repercussions this world seems so backwards some times
I agree 100%, they should make it bi-monthly or something... my girlfriend works at a property management company dealing with section 8, and other low income housing and people complain about spending only $100 for renting a 3 bedroom apartment yet drink and smoke all day and have internet and cable TV. They get a lot of drug related calls to the complex, BS.
Yes. However, it shouldn't be scheduled; it should be done randomly to prevent people from "preparing" for it. And getting a job within a couple of months of receiving welfare should be mandatory as well.
Haha, I was going to say we had this discussion already as well. But since most jobs are in the private sector, it is the private sector that is requiring most drug tests. They have every right to do that, not that it has been shown to actually improve workplace performance from what I understand. Edit: I'm formulating and researching some more arguments for this, but for now, teh eVi1 ACLU will do:
just dig up the whole thread - i think it was you and jewballs that made the good arguement In the case of pizza delivery guys, it actually decreased performance
Only if they (the private sector employers wish to keep workmans comp on employees which is required by state law) want to conduct business with employees hired. but i see the argument in favor: if we have to, why don't they? That is valid in my estimation. after all, the public assistance is paid for by taxes on the people who have to test as a condition of employment. Why be so fair to the leaches and not to the people who foot the bill? civil liberties can be spouted until the cows come home. but until everyone's civil liberties are taken into concideration and equal importance put into the equation, they don't mean squat. civil liberties become just another one of a thousand forms of job security for lawyers.
- Are people on welfare receiving money in exchange for their services? - Doesn't drug use affect an individual's health? - Is it wrong for the government to deny assistance to people who engage in unhealthy behaviors? - Is it wrong for the government to prevent its money from facilitating the procurement of drugs? - Is the point of welfare to temporarily help people until they can get back on their feet or to constantly support them? The way I see it, if people earn their money, they can do whatever the fuck they want. I see welfare as a contract between society and the welfare recipient. Society is helping that person in good faith to get back on his feet. How would you feel if a homeless person asked you for money to buy food and then spent it on alcohol?
drug screening, YES. how about alcohol addiction? its not illegal, but is substance abuse and should be monitored or screened with drugs/pharmaceuticals. the system works well for those that try and get back on their feet, but theres ALOT out there that are just abusing the system as well as the "disability" system. noone here seems to talk about that much. i can name off people right now that are abusing the disability system, and others that are obviously fucked that cant get it.
It's not like an employer or welfare worker doesn't know who has a problem. It's blatantly obvious in most cases.
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr just spent 5 mins writing rant / reply and get logged out and then won't do anything apart from show 'done' and blank page. moderators or administrator, wtf?
I'm down with that. As for the disability thing... when I worked as a collector (), sometimes we had to call people who were receiving checks for themselves and for their children. I'd like to know what disabilities all those kids had. I'm all for helping unfortunate people, but we should reward only those who deserve it. </rant>
So I've got a question for those wanting drug testing for people receiving 'government assistance'. That means drug testing the farmer getting federal crop subsidies, right? How about the student who gets federal grants for college? Or the home owner receiving a mortgage modification through a government program? What about tax credits parents get for kids? How about the CEO who's company gets a tax reduction/exemption? If they need/want that kind of help from the government (ie: tax dollars), they too need to be drug tested or fuck em, right? Or does this drug testing need only apply to 'poor people'?
No because college is for experimenting Not a good example. (theoretically) neither of those examples are "getting" tax dollars, they are just getting a reduction in what they have to pay. they are still having to pay into the system
But by not paying the 'normal' amount they are effectively 'taking' tax dollars away. The effect is the same. And wiskas, we all "benefit" from federal tax dollars, weather we 'receive' them or not. So much of what EVERYONE does/buys is subsidized. You think that gallon of gas really costs only $2.90 or whatever?
Like i said: "everybody". So long as being clean and sober is a requirement of being employed and paying taxes is not voluntary: "everybody" that recieves any and all tax dollars needs to be just as sober and clean as the poor fool who had to pay the tax dollar in the first place.
But being clean and sober isn't a requirement for having a job. Millions of people in American use drugs recreationally with little or no negative effects, and pay taxes just like everyone else. I literally know doctors and lawyers who are marijuana users, they seem to be doing just fine. But everyone who pays taxes isn't clean and sober. So that means just like some people who are not receiving 'welfare' are using drugs, some people who are receiving 'welfare' are also using drugs. Or are you saying if I use drugs, I don't have to pay taxes?? Pass the smack!
I don't agree with subsidies. Nobody talks about the lack of competition in the agricultural industry (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/index.htm). But I digress. The farmer is producing something that society demands. Ignoring the fact that our educational system is fucked up, student loans can be considered an investment. Students will eventually join the workforce and contribute something to society. If a student drops out, he's no longer eligible to receive government assistance. IMO, a tax break is a shift in the opportunity cost in favor of citizens. The government gives up that money and lets people allocate it as they see fit in the economy. I definitely understand that point of view by true conservatives. Now, whether it works IRL... that's a different story. Then there's the poverty trap. When a person can "profit" more from receiving government assistance than from working at a low-paying job... what do you think they're going to do?
