No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

cecilia

cecilia

Active Member
Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
7,710
Reaction score
2,587
“Many states are considering following Florida’s example, and the new data from the state shows they shouldn’t,” said Derek Newton, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state last year to stop the testing and recently obtained the documents. “Not only is it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, but it doesn’t save money, as was proposed.”
.................
Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.
 
I'm shocked, just shocked.

Of course, it has resulted in a redistribution of wealth. Instead of the state giving all that money to poor people it was able to give even MORE money to friends of the governor - 118,140 from the government teat probably turns into a mere $60 grand in the lab owners pocket. Not a bad little gift though he was probably hoping for more. Doubtless a chunk of that is due to go back to the Governor's campaign fund.
 
How does that compare with the people that decided not to apply for welfare because they had no intention of stopping their drug use and knew that they would fail the test anyway?

Sometimes the simplest question can mess up a whole theory.
 
Fade said:
How does that compare with the people that decided not to apply for welfare because they had no intention of stopping their drug use and knew that they would fail the test anyway?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the government could conduct a study to find out :)

However, many of the people who use welfare and drugs aren't well enough informed to know changes to the law until they show up at the welfare office and find out.

But really, the simplest questions don't mess up a whole theory - it's the answers to those questions that mess up the theory if the answers don't fit. Since we don't have an answer to your question and I suspect that you don't have the answer (based on actual measured data) either so the claim any claim that the theory has been messed up is unfounded.
 
I fail to understand the viewpoint of resisting drug testing for people who get paid -- in most cases -- to sit around and do nothing.

Almost every person I know in America, from construction workers to engineers, from Public Servants to lawyers are subject to random drug testing where the consequences of a positive test usually mean the loss of your job, or at the very best, suspension without pay.

Someone please feel free to explain to me what is so goddamned awful about the idea of NOT handing over free money from the public tax intake to drug addicts?

Wayne
 
Well first of all, your assuming they're addicts. Whyzzat? Are you assuming the republican with the cocaine is an addict or is he just using it recreationally? If you drink some wine with your steak are you an alcoholic? Or are just the poor people capable of being addicts? It seems you think poor people can't use drugs recreationally.

At any rate, even if they are addicts, cutting them off will likely cause them to find other ways to find funds illegally. If you really care about addicts I'd suggest a better solution would be to put them in some kind of treatment and provide what ever support is needed. It sounds costly but the alternative is worse: paying for all their expenses in the state prison.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
Glaucus said:
Well first of all, your assuming they're addicts. Whyzzat?
Click to expand...

It absolutely does not matter whether they are "addicts" or not. Every single person subject to a random drug test for a job is subject to a very clear, very simple "pass / fail". Pass? Keep your job. Fail? You either lose your job or you are subject to suspension pending you "getting help" for your drug or alcohol use. Period.

Are you assuming the republican with the cocaine is an addict or is he just using it recreationally? If you drink some wine with your steak are you an alcoholic?
Click to expand...

1) The issue has exactly {bleep} all to do with being a Republican or Democrat. Random drug tests are pass / fail, and VERY fair if you want to keep your job. End of story.

2) The intended use of the drug or alcohol is completely and totally 100% irrelevant. If you want free money, you can't do drugs. If you want to keep your job, you can't do drugs. See where I'm going with this?

3) Drug use which stays in your system for weeks is quite a bit different than alcohol which -- in moderate use -- dissipates from your system within a few hours. Again, if you show up to work stoned, you get fired. If you show up for work drunk, you get fired. If you have a 6-beer lunch, chances are, you won't make it to the end of the day...

Or are just the poor people capable of being addicts? It seems you think poor people can't use drugs recreationally.
Click to expand...

4) It has nothing to do with being poor versus rich. Show up for a job with drugs in your system and get tested, you're fired regardless of whether you're a poor person, or a rich person.

5) Why would you ever believe it's ok for ANYONE to use drugs "recreationally"? In case you aren't aware, or it doesn't apply to your local, MOST DRUG USE IS ****ILLEGAL**** regardless of intent... I'm not saying that some (such as marijuana shouldn't be legalized (it should) but the fact is that in most places, the use of even marijuana is ILLEGAL. Even in places where it's legal, you still have to document your medical requirement for it.

At any rate, even if they are addicts, cutting them off will likely cause them to find other ways to find funds illegally. If you really care about addicts I'd suggest a better solution would be to put them in some kind of treatment and provide what ever support is needed. It sounds costly but the alternative is worse: paying for all their expenses in the state prison.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. If someone shows up wanting welfare or "free money" as it were and fails a drug test, offer them either the help they need to get off of drugs, or don't enable their habit by providing free money via welfare.

The trouble is, most real drug addicts (regardless of politics or wealth) won't accept help (and don't even want it). They just want the free ride that the United Socialist States of America has told them that they have the right to expect.

Here's my thing.

Welfare (all forms) should be about helping those who need it, not paying them to sit around and do nothing.

If you have someone unemployed, offer them either skills training then something like an apprenticeship (the way it used to be done) and help them get back on their feet. I would have ZERO problems supporting something like this, as it would hopefully result in a better productive member of society.

If you have a single parent struggling to feed their kids, provide government-funded child care and job placement so that they might be able to better provide for their kids.

If you have a homeless person, shelter them, clean them up, then revert to the "unemployed" scenario above.

If you have a mentally ill person (not just a lazy ne'er-do-well), then for {bleep}'s sake, get them the help and assistance they need to manage it and to become a productive member of society.

If you have a drug addict, revert to the mentally ill scenario.

In short, social programs SHOULD be about producing productive members of society. Period. Allowing drug addicts (regardless of wealth or politics) to drain the public purse while contributing ZERO to society is absolutely the WRONG thing to do...

I'm not saying any of this is cheap, but we as a country have to get back to worrying about the state of the country and not paying people to sit around and freeload is it currently is set up. Those who can't play by the same rules as EVERYONE else (re: drug testing) should not be given a free pass to suck on the public money tit....
 
Personally I think EVERYONE who is a public servant (ie a politician) should absolutely NOT be allowed to take drugs of any kind while they are working for the public. And I mean not even at home. Not ever.
 
I'm actually quite surprised!!

Wayne said:
It absolutely does not matter whether they are "addicts" or not. Every single person subject to a random drug test for a job is subject to a very clear, very simple "pass / fail". Pass? Keep your job. Fail? You either lose your job or you are subject to suspension pending you "getting help" for your drug or alcohol use. Period.
Click to expand...

So it doesn't matter whether they are addicts or not but if they fail their test they need to "get help"?
1) The issue has exactly {bleep} all to do with being a Republican or Democrat. Random drug tests are pass / fail, and VERY fair ...
Click to expand...
and dependent on the competence and honesty of the lab, the metabolism of the individual and confounding factors from prescription medicines and diet.

Again, if you show up to work stoned, you get fired. If you show up for work drunk, you get fired.
Click to expand...

If you have a 6-beer lunch, chances are, you won't make it to the end of the day...
Click to expand...
Unless you are a sales rep, a broker, a banker, a member of the board of directors, the owner's son, etc. The result of a drug test can be ignored if it's for someone you don't want fired, and those people can even be excused of taking the test. A failed test is just a cudgel to use against people you already wanted to fire but didn't have grounds to.

4) It has nothing to do with being poor versus rich. Show up for a job with drugs in your system and get tested, you're fired regardless of whether you're a poor person, or a rich person.
Click to expand...
But the rich won't be tested. Do the Senators and Congressmen insist that they be tested? After all, they are the ones in control of trillions of public dollars. Of course they don't test themselves and they don't insist that their wealthy friends get tested either.
5) Why would you ever believe it's ok for ANYONE to use drugs "recreationally"? In case you aren't aware, or it doesn't apply to your local, MOST DRUG USE IS ****ILLEGAL**** regardless of intent... I'm not saying that some (such as marijuana shouldn't be legalized (it should) but the fact is that in most places, the use of even marijuana is ILLEGAL. Even in places where it's legal, you still have to document your medical requirement for it.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that just because something is illegal it's not OK? It was illegal to be Jewish and own a business in Nazi Germany, does that mean it wasn't OK? It may be illegal to not grow a beard if you are a man and not wear a burqa in public if you are a woman, but what has that got to do with whether it's OK? Oxycontin is legal and so is vallium but are they OK? Why wouldn't it be OK to take a drug for recreation on your own time in a situation where you are not harming anyone else? Alcohol is highly incapacitating and dangerous but we allow its use except when that use endangers other. You can't drive drunk, and you can't fly a plane drunk and there are other cases where you have a responsibility but impaired function that would be reasonable. But there are plenty of other things that can impact your performance just as much. Should they be illegal? Driving while hungover is at least as bad as driving drunk, but the blood alcohol test would not tell you that. Operating heavy machinery or some similar responsibility when you have a cold or the flu is dangerous too. Is it illegal? Should it be? The reason certain things are illegal and other things are not is because a small number of the people, the ruling classes, have interests very different from the rest of the people. The ruling classes have no qualms about making the recreation of the lower classes illegal and then enjoying the same recreations themselves but never prosecuting themselves.

But here's what you said in the post before:
Almost every person I know in America, from construction workers to engineers, from Public Servants to lawyers are subject to random drug testing where the consequences of a positive test usually mean the loss of your job, or at the very best, suspension without pay.
Click to expand...

The real question you fail to ask yourself is not, why shouldn't the poor be drug tested like the rest of us, but why the hell should almost everyone you know be subjected to random drug tests. It's revolting and oppressive and is something so derogatory and arbitrary it could only ever be tolerated in "the land of the free".

It's no different in the thinking behind the popular call to reduce the wages of public sector unions. Instead of admitting that the problem is that private sector wages are too low the masses insist that the union members be dragged down to their level - and yet the owners who cruise at stratospheric pay scales who "earn" their income without ever producing a bead of sweat because their money works for them are sacrosanct and untouchable.

Why do you and everyone you know allow yourself to be treated live children, or worse. Why do you let yourself be owned and treated so disrespectfully? Why, instead of railing against it do you instead take solace in the fact that at least now the people at the bottom of the heap have to put up with the same thing too?
 
Fluffy, let's just cut through the bullshit...

This is not about rich, poor, democrat, republican, Jewish, burkas, or any of the other nonsensical bullshit. We all know there are exceptions to the rule of enforcement, but not at a Federal or State level. Private companies can do whatever they {bleep} they want to do.

I'm not going to discuss this issue with you on it on the basis of rich, poor, etc., because it honestly feels as though you really are simply trying to bait an argument...

For me, it comes down to this.

As a U.S. Federal employee, I am paid from the Government budget to do a job. That's very important, so please pay attention...

Both for my current position and as a contractor for the last 5 positions I've held before now, I was subject to a drug screening prior to being hired as a condition of my employment. I -- regardless of my status as either a Government employee or Contractor -- am subject to random drug tests as a condition of my employment.

Every Government employee or contractor serving the U.S. Government in any capacity that I've ever met is subject to the same rules. There is absolutely nothing wrong, or illegal, or in any way immoral with that..

Furthermore, TTBOMK there are no successful court cases that I am aware of (which haven't been overturned on final appeal anyway) where a court has said that it's against the law to require drug tests as a condition of employment...

You want to work for the public? You get tested. {bleep}... You want to work for {bleep} Walmart these days, you get tested..

Back to my original point, sorry.

As I was trying to say, Welfare, Food stamps, etc., are FEDERAL or STATE FUNDED PROGRAMS. If you ask for Welfare (in any of it's forms), you are being paid ostensibly from that same exact budget as Federal or State employees.

Why do you believe for a single second that anyone wanting to receive Federal funds in exchange for no contribution to society should be given a free pass to the exact same rules that I (as an employee of the Government) am subject to?

It's obvious from your response that you favor drug use, and that I can't argue. It might further surprise you that I believe the "war on drugs" is {bleep} moronic and only used as a means to make arrests to bolster the funds from the Government. I believe that a lot of things (like Marijuana) should be legalized and taxed to {bleep} and back to actually help the economy and to REALLY fight a successful war on drugs.

After all, take away the market from drug dealers, you won't have a war, right?

That being said, I do not do drugs. I think that while certain drugs might help your creativity, drugs as a whole tend to make you stupid. There's also the simple fact that -- right or wrong -- the use of illegal narcotics is... I dunno... {bleep} illegal...
 
I don't have time to reply in full but I will say that as I kinda mentioned on here before I have a new job now. When I started they made me sign a bunch of papers as normal. And since our client is NCR, a major US based company specializing in the point of sale market, we had to do a security background check. And they also requested a drug test. I showed that to my boss and he said we don't do that in Canada. It's illegal actually. NCR can do whatever it likes in the US but here in Canada they are not allowed too. The only time one would need to take a drug test is if his job involves others safety, like an airline pilot or surgeon. And I think that's good policy.

Note that this is different from being wasted on the job site. If I came in to work drunk or stoned I'd probably be let go. But that's drunk, drinking is perfectly fine. We have a keg of beer in the lunch room at all times so they seem pretty lax.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
Wayne said:
I -- regardless of my status as either a Government employee or Contractor -- am subject to random drug tests as a condition of my employment.

Every Government employee or contractor serving the U.S. Government in any capacity that I've ever met is subject to the same rules. There is absolutely nothing wrong, or illegal, or in any way immoral with that..
Click to expand...

Nothing illegal, sure, but the law is arbitrary. Immoral? Yes, I believe it is immoral. You're employer owns eight hours of your day, 5 days a week. They have no right over any of the other time: none. Just because you acquiesce to their demands doesn't mean their demands are just or justified - you have just become accustomed to complying. This was NOT normal a couple of decades ago.
It's obvious from your response that you favor drug use, and that I can't argue.
Click to expand...
That is not my position at all. My position is that no employer has a right to dictate what you do in your off time and I do not agree that simple illegality makes an act wrong, or gives an employer any justification for enforcing the law on it's employees when they are not at work.

Anal sex is illegal in quite a few jurisdictions and if there were a test that could prove that you had indulged in anal sex before coming to work, would employers be justified in firing people who's consenting partner like to take it up the pooper? Would it be any business of the employer at all? After all, depending on jurisdiction it would be {bleep}ing ILLEGAL.
 
Ok, thanks to Glaucus, I now see the disconnect.

In Canada, mandatory drug testing as a condition of employment is illegal. Here in the US, for about the last 25 years, mandatory drug testing is perfectly legal for any company to require in exchange for your service...

We have no common ground on which to discuss this matter, as we have two completely different basis of perspective, but it's weird to figure out that you're fervently objecting to drug testing in America based on your beliefs as a Canadian citizen under a completely different set of laws..

Here, drug testing has been this way here for longer than I can remember, so I can't fathom any perceived "immorality" or illegality with the practice. It simply is, and for most of my working life, has always been.

Since I don't do drugs, I've never cared if they wanted me to pee in a cup. I've even had a situation or two where -- for a small startup company -- they asked me to pay for the test then get reimbursed. Never thought anything of it. Again. It simply is the way it's done here. You want job? They want test? You take test. Simple.

.. And I still fervently believe that if an individual wants to receive free money from the same (essential) pocketbook that I'm paid from (and I work hard for it), they should be absolutely -- without a doubt -- subject to the same exact rules that I am.

Wayne
 
Wayne said:
In Canada, mandatory drug testing as a condition of employment is illegal. Here in the US, for about the last 25 years, mandatory drug testing is perfectly legal for any company to require in exchange for your service...

We have no common ground on which to discuss this matter, as we have two completely different basis of perspective, but it's weird to figure out that you're fervently objecting to drug testing in America based on your beliefs as a Canadian citizen under a completely different set of laws..
Click to expand...

We have no common ground because you want to talk about what is legal and what is illegal and I want to talk about what is right and what is wrong. The reason it is illegal to test your employee's pee in Canada is because enough people in Canada realized it was wrong and made the law reflect that. I think the main difference between Canada and the US is that in Canada we don't believe that you are the property of your employer. Your employer has the right to tell you what to do in the hours that you are paid for but no right to tell you what to do with the hours that you are not paid for.

In Canada you can be fired if you are not performing your job sufficiently well. It doesn't matter if you are under-performing because you are drunk, stoned, wilfully obstructive or simply incompetent. Not doing your job properly is the full and fair extent of how you can be judged on ... the performance of your job. That still means you are unlikely to get away with a six beer lunch or getting your stone on or even being hung over or tired from a bout of all night partying. The onus is on the employee to be prudent in their off hours so they can do their job when required but that's it. How they chose to be prudent is their business and whether they are correct in that is reflected in their job performance which is the employers business.

You seem to be fine with letting your boss enforce the laws of the land. Like I said before, if there was a buggery test, should employers be allowed to use it to determine if a person should have a job? If you lived in a state where anal sex is illegal would you be fine being required to submit to a rectal swab for semen and a genital swab for faecal coliforms? Or would you just shrug off that requirement because you don't engage in that sort of thing so what's the big deal in having a mandatory random rectal and genital exam as a condition of employment since the employer basically has the right to require you to meet any test they want in order for you to have a job?

The fact that you are even being asked to pee in a cup is an invasion of your privacy and an insult to your dignity. It's also a massive waste of time and money to have people tested when most people will not fail. In fact I'd wager that they don't bother testing the pee of employees that they like but won't hesitate testing the pee of employees they want to get rid of and firing people for bad pee is probably harder to contest in court than firing for cause.

And there IS a divide between the poor and the wealthy. The wealthy will never get their pee tested because the wealthy don't make their money from working.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
That still means you are unlikely to get away with a six beer lunch or getting your stone on or even being hung over or tired from a bout of all night partying.
Click to expand...
Unless you're the mayor of Toronto! Lol


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
@Wayne

If you go back up to the top of this thread you will see that the drug testing of welfare recipients is unconstitutional, an invasion of privacy and doesn't save money. That leaves only your reason to do it which seems to be - I don't see why they should have it better than me in that regard.

And then, just today, I came across this George Carlin quote: not a new idea but a timely reminder and he says it so well.

“You know how I define the economic & social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the crap out of the middle class. Keep em showing up at those jobs.” -- George Carlin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top