Itinerant Air-Cooled

2 states have started to do this, Fl and KY and I know TN and MS have politicians who want to enact this.

I think drug testing in general is far too widely used. (I think that testing should only be done in safety critical jobs, pilots and bus drivers for instance.) And that testing folks on welfare is only going to drive up crime.
I have no ball in this game as I neither collect welfare or work for someone who drug tests.

What do you folks think about this issue?

Until they drug test for alcohol, testing for ALL other drugs is hypocritical. There is no drug that causes as much damage to society as alcohol. Not even crystal meth, as horrific as that substance is. Alcohol is poisonous and highly addictive physically. If people can responsibly and moderately enjoy alcohol (and obviously many can) then they can also responsibly and moderately enjoy marijuana, cocaine, heroin, Oxycontin, you name it.

If those drugs cant be used responsibly, then neither can alcohol. In which case they shoyld test for alcohol anytime they test for illegal drugs. And anyone who drinks should be denied assistance as well.

I realize that the main queation is, sgould someone's use of drugs preclude their receiving help. I think that the biggeat qualifier for assistance should be NEED. And if someone has a drug problem it indicates a greater need than otherwise, not a diminished need.

I've never been fond of the presumption of guilt, and why is the welfare population singled out? Lining the pockets of drug testing companies at the expense of the poor. Who pays for the test? Another hurdle for help.

No Sir, I don't like it.


neal

Velokid1 wrote:Until they drug test for alcohol, testing for ALL other drugs is hypocritical. There is no drug that causes as much damage to society as alcohol. Not even crystal meth, as horrific as that substance is. Alcohol is poisonous and highly addictive physically. If people can responsibly and moderately enjoy alcohol (and obviously many can) then they can also responsibly and moderately enjoy marijuana, cocaine, heroin, Oxycontin, you name it.

If those drugs cant be used responsibly, then neither can alcohol. In which case they shoyld test for alcohol anytime they test for illegal drugs. And anyone who drinks should be denied assistance as well.

Velo,

I'd go even further and ask why drugs are being singled out... are drugs the only negative factor in people's lives? How about other things we think of as unproductive? Should we disallow them from going to paid sporting events? Disallow video games? The problem with setting standards is always the slippery slope; once one group gets to impose their views/values, the other group starts asking, "Why this view? Why is this value preferred over others?"

I'm no fan of drugs, illegal or legal [*nods in Ruckman's direction ] but that seems more about exploiting taxpayer anger than helping the poor. And it's helping the poor that I assume is the goal of all low-income programs.

Best,

Mike

Florida and Wisconsin, what a surprise.....not.
Less government, eh?


neal

Velokid1 wrote:Until they drug test for alcohol, testing for ALL other drugs is hypocritical. There is no drug that causes as much damage to society as alcohol. Not even crystal meth, as horrific as that substance is. Alcohol is poisonous and highly addictive physically. If people can responsibly and moderately enjoy alcohol (and obviously many can) then they can also responsibly and moderately enjoy marijuana, cocaine, heroin, Oxycontin, you name it.

We had a discussion about this on here some time ago, and I agree with Velo here, alcohol is a larger killer of homes, relationships, jobs and a lot more. So, scan for drugs, and do a BAC also. And while we are at it, is that a pack of cigarettes in your pocket? What did you do for your country this past month to earn this? You are driving a CARBURETED car? Oh my.

i was randomly tested for both drugs and alcohol for 20 years, either one or both at a time. cdl class a driver, started driving when it was simply a class 1 license. cops and fire fighters are exempt from the federal mandate, in my state fire fighters don't even have to have a license that covers the weight or tanker or air brake endorsements. teamsters took it all the way to the supreme court. supreme court ruled; public safety outweighed the right to privacy for the few. don't remember the date but it would have been the mid to late 80's.

The first think I would mention, and it should be no surprise, is they shouldn't be forcing anyone to contribute to such a program, charity needs to be voluntary. So that is the first wrong, that it is a government thing that gets it's money from the barrel of a gun.
If it was voluntary, you could give your money to the group that has whatever guidelines you like.
That being said.
I agree with much stated already, like the following

Velokid1 wrote:Until they drug test for alcohol, testing for ALL other drugs is hypocritical. There is no drug that causes as much damage to society as alcohol. Not even crystal meth, as horrific as that substance is. Alcohol is poisonous and highly addictive physically. If people can responsibly and moderately enjoy alcohol (and obviously many can) then they can also responsibly and moderately enjoy marijuana, cocaine, heroin, Oxycontin, you name it.

ruckman101 wrote:I've never been fond of the presumption of guilt, and why is the welfare population singled out? Lining the pockets of drug testing companies at the expense of the poor. Who pays for the test? Another hurdle for help.
neal

Lanval wrote: I'd go even further and ask why drugs are being singled out... are drugs the only negative factor in people's lives? How about other things we think of as unproductive? Should we disallow them from going to paid sporting events? Disallow video games? The problem with setting standards is always the slippery slope; once one group gets to impose their views/values, the other group starts asking, "Why this view? Why is this value preferred over others?"

I'm no fan of drugs, illegal or legal [*nods in Ruckman's direction ] but that seems more about exploiting taxpayer anger than helping the poor. And it's helping the poor that I assume is the goal of all low-income programs.

Mike

I personally think it is a good idea. And, yes, I had to be drug tested ( and yes, they did check for alcohol) before I got hired. If you (btw – this is a collective ‘you’ not a personal ‘you’) are asking to partake of this country’s safety net that I as a hard working tax payer help fund, I would be a little torqued off knowing people are spending my hard earned $$ on drugs. I’m definitely not a fan of the government intruding into my privacy, however, If I’m asking them to give me food stamps to put food on the table or money to pay the rent/mortgage then I should be willing to give up some of that privacy.

If you want to play by your own rules, then by all means go do something that doesn’t require drug testing – work in an industry that doesn’t require it, be your own boss/open your own business.

If you want to play, then you’ve got to pay….in this case you pay by losing some of your privacy. Feel free to correct me on this, but I think the only condition is that you get tested… I don’t think it stipulates that you can’t get financial assistance if you test positive.

If they are in fact testing with no concern at all for the test results, wouldnt that be quite the ridiculous waste of taxpayer money?

Purely a populist move. political reasoning is that it will appeal to the base.

I don’t think it stipulates that you can’t get financial assistance if you test positive.

WRONG, the goal is to kick those who test positive off the dole. I guess they want them to go back to crime to support themselves.

TrollFromDownBelow wrote:I personally think it is a good idea. And, yes, I had to be drug tested ( and yes, they did check for alcohol) before I got hired. If you (btw – this is a collective ‘you’ not a personal ‘you’) are asking to partake of this country’s safety net that I as a hard working tax payer help fund, I would be a little torqued off knowing people are spending my hard earned $$ on drugs. I’m definitely not a fan of the government intruding into my privacy, however, If I’m asking them to give me food stamps to put food on the table or money to pay the rent/mortgage then I should be willing to give up some of that privacy.

If you want to play by your own rules, then by all means go do something that doesn’t require drug testing – work in an industry that doesn’t require it, be your own boss/open your own business.

If you want to play, then you’ve got to pay….in this case you pay by losing some of your privacy. Feel free to correct me on this, but I think the only condition is that you get tested… I don’t think it stipulates that you can’t get financial assistance if you test positive.

If you test positive, they deny you an opportunity to apply again for six months the first positive, longer for a second, so yes, you can be denied the assistance you are eligible for with a positive test result. However, because of the great concern for the children involved, someone can name a relative or friend to collect the assistance for the family.

I've been tested once, as a prereq for employment on a printing press, where you can lose life and limb. You also got overtime pay after eight hours in a single day.


neal

A wrong, on top of a wrong, then another wrong, then, let's add yet another wrong to make up and correct the wrongs, cause if you keep adding wrongs, you just may not be able to see the wrong amongst the wrongs, so therefore it is good. Black is white, peace is war.

ruckman101 wrote:If you test positive, they deny you an opportunity to apply again for six months the first positive, longer for a second, so yes, you can be denied the assistance you are eligible for with a positive test result. However, because of the great concern for the children involved, someone can name a relative or friend to collect the assistance for the family.
neal

Interesting - I wasn't aware ... I would think the kind, humane thing (and the best for society as a whole) to do would be to to require rehab (yes, supplied by the state), etc if they wanted financial assistance.

Cheers,
Mike