# I have to know why!!!!!!



## myheaven (Apr 14, 2006)

Why is it against the rights to test welfare recipients for drugs but not for the people who work? I don't get it! 
My dh routinely has to be subjected to surprise pee tests. Mind you he has never touched a drug in his life. My family members on welfare who only do drugs get the world handed to them. I just don't get it! 
Please some one give me a logical excuse why!


----------



## kimmom2five (Apr 19, 2009)

Because it's a waste of money. Because despite prejudices most people on welfare don't do drugs and it would cost an astronomical more amount than it would save.


----------



## myheaven (Apr 14, 2006)

I'm not saying all are on drugs. My mother wasn't. 
You may have put logic to the not testing. But why do they play the against human right to test?


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

I don't think you should have to be drug tested on the job, either. If you come to work impaired you should be fired, but random testing of all employees is ridiculous.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

I believe it is unconstitutional to do random drug testing. If there is some indication of drug usage, that's one thing. Otherwise it violates one's rights to be innocent until proven guilty, to unreasonable search and seizure, etc. It doesn't matter whether we speak of welfare or jobs.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Employee drug testing in a right to work state is a "wasted" idea. Employees are freebound slaves to the idiocy of the employer anyway. (A freebound slave is someone who is technically free, but has extreme restrictions imposed on him _*including "voluntarily" giving up of rights*_ if he wants to remain employed.)

Back when I was working for other people, if the issue came up in an interview I asked "Is the owner of the company also required to take random drug tests?" It might sound smartazz on the surface, but the most harm from a drug user to employment and safety is if the people in charge are the ones doing drugs - and it happens a lot.

There is a minor intimidation factor in employment testing of any type, but it is not preventative other than that. Testing is more to satisfy the needs of anal-retentive accountants and HR directors anyway. Clearly defined workplace rules and proper management are about a zillion times more important.

To paraphrase the OP question "My husband's rights have been compromised by his employer, shouldn't everyone have their rights compromised?"


----------



## 1shotwade (Jul 9, 2013)

I think most companies do stuff like that "just because we can". One of my sons got hired at a company and his first night on the job he was told "you'll have to learn Spanish if you want to work here"! That's "just because we can" The government has busted all the unions so the company has free reign over everything. There are companies near here that stop EVERYONE including deliveries, at the gate. NOONE is allowed on the property with tobacco. If they see cig. butts in your ashtray you are fired! And it's all "just because we can"
The Gov. raised the taxes on alcohol by 2.1% and at the same time raised the taxes on tobacco 2378% "just because we can", Everyone in the Gov uses alcohol so they don't want to tax that too heavy. Congress passes a health care plan for everyone in the country EXCEPT Congress "just because we can"


Wade


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

If you are dependent on the State for providing your needs, then the State should have the right to ensure you are not using your money to purchase illegal drugs. If you don't want to be tested, don't engage in the activity, be it working or accepting the wealth of others to provide for yourself.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Elffriend said:


> I don't think you should have to be drug tested on the job, either. If you come to work impaired you should be fired, but random testing of all employees is ridiculous.


Nearly every employer requires a pre-employment drug tests, but I have never heard of an employer, normally performing random drug screens, for hired employees.

Where is this done?


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

A friend of mine is a VP in his father's company. He has to participate in random drug tests - because it saves them money in insurance costs!


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

I pay $65.00 a pop for my random's (truck driver) do you really want to add that expense?
Arkansas it is illegal to drug test without cause ie. post accident, pre-employment, ect.
except a very few industries. Mostly federally regulated, transportation, mining to name a couple.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Nearly every employer requires a pre-employment drug tests, but I have never heard of an employer, normally performing random drug screens, for hired employees.
> 
> Where is this done?


Some state employees are subject to random drug tests.


----------



## myheaven (Apr 14, 2006)

I'm not saying that my dh rights are infringed upon. Its a part of the job. I'm saying that the welfare recipients are screaming about their rights infringed upon.
I can see how it would cost too much.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

Random drug testing at a small factory in a nearby town cost 50% or so of the employees their jobs. When dangerous machinery is involved, an employer had better make darn sure employees aren't high while working.

A friend's husband was hired for a very good factory job on the basis of two things. One was his qualifications and the second he was one of very few applicants who passed the drug test.

No one is forced to take a test. They can refuse and be fired or not hired. Their choice. 

I'd say the same should be applicable to welfare. No one is forced to take a test, but if they want benefits they will have to take the test.


----------



## myheaven (Apr 14, 2006)

I fully agree Ann. My dh has a CDL with hazmat. The man has carried some mighty dangerous stuff


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

You won't work at a nuclear power plant without agreeing to random drug tests. I got the tap on the shoulder two days in a row.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

No one is forced to take a test. They can refuse and be fired or not hired. Their choice. 

I'd say the same should be applicable to welfare. No one is forced to take a test, but if they want benefits they will have to take the test. 


Like
 I very much agree with this. Have always worked in the public sector and drug tests were always something to look forward too. Folks would get all upset and I would tell them it is their choice....drug test or not drug test, both choices have consequences!


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

I can't see how some say it would cost money to drug test the welfare people.Here in this area alone they would say enough welfare money to pay to test the other half the state :hammer: For everyone failing say they save $1,200.00 per section eight house that would be rent and goodies . That $1,200 will buy a lot of pee bottles :sing:

I can see that in times coming they will toss the smokers way before the drunks or druggies :hammer:


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

If it's a precondition for getting a job, just like the work hours - it's part of the job.

If welfare was set up so new applicants had to be tested, there's nothing wrong with it. Continued spot testing would be included as part of the program.

Like a non-compete contract, if you sign it before taking a job - it's legally binding. If you're already working someplace, and they present you with a non-compete contract - go ahead and sign it, it's not binding.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

So you don't think that people are signing away their rights for employment? Isn't that a form of coercion? Much like, if you don't want your store to be set on fire, pay us money? If you want to live the life you desire, give up your rights to be considered innocent without proof? 

Our founding fathers would rather have 10 crooks go free than put 1 innocent man in jail. No so today!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

myheaven said:


> Why is it against the rights to test welfare recipients for drugs but not for the people who work? I don't get it!


The question seems to assume that the purpose of drug screening is to provide justification to weed people out. If that's what you think then the question makes sense.

But the real purpose of drug testing is to provide a safe workplace. With welfare recipients there is no workplace to keep safe, so the question doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

GrannyCarol said:


> So you don't think that people are signing away their rights for employment? Isn't that a form of coercion? Much like, if you don't want your store to be set on fire, pay us money? If you want to live the life you desire, give up your rights to be considered innocent without proof?
> 
> Our founding fathers would rather have 10 crooks go free than put 1 innocent man in jail. No so today!


How so coercion ?? One is free to set up their own sawmill or start their own ditch digging business . Then should you want to hire those stoned out of their gourd go for it . I never had anyone drug tested because it would been a wast of money on one guy :hammer: 

Some need to be the employer for a better view just once :thumb:


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Nearly every employer requires a pre-employment drug tests, but I have never heard of an employer, normally performing random drug screens, for hired employees.
> 
> Where is this done?


My DH is a cop and they are all subject to random health testing. So are members of the US military. Firefighters and paramedics/EMT's are also often drug tested. 

When I worked at a big corporation, we all had to pass a drug test to be hired in the first place, and they randomly drug tested people regularly (a certain # of people per month). When I was working as an adolescent counselor, I had to sign that I was willing to take random drug tests. Many school systems also have that in their contracts, so any school system employee can be randomly drug tested.

And you ALWAYS have the right to refuse....but you should start packing up your stuff if you do because you're gonna get fired over it. If you know when you start a job that this is a condition of employment, it shouldn't be a surprise.

I also have worked places where they re-did our contracts of employment with new conditions, such as increased/decreased amounts of sick/vacation time, to reflect a change in job title, or to show a raise given. At that time, they can add in a provision that you can now be subjected to random drug tests on the job....and you can choose to either accept those new terms of employment or quit :shrug:. Now I think you would have a good case for unemployment at that point, but they could still do it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Basically everything and anything is called a right when arguments are made. 
I can understand an employer wanting a drug test as he is liable for his employees bad judgements while impaired on the job. For example, a overhead door company sent an impaired employee to install a garage door when my house was being remodeled. The man did not call and just showed up. Rather than let it go when I wasn't at home, he took the took the locked gate off it's hinges, allowing livestock to roam, the installed the wrong door style incorrectly so it jammed when the motor tried to lift it, he left about 6 inches of open space at the top, he put the door lights in the wrong place and then just propped the gate on the gate post and left.
So I called the contractor with some sizzling words, he in turn called the installer's boss, and the boss, not wanting to lose the contractor's ongoing business, came out himself to fix the mess. He did some extra things for me as an apology. 
But think how lucky he was that one of the horses did not get on the road to be hit by a car, killing the driver. 
But on the other hand, whether a person on welfare is an addict or not, no one is going to cut off his benefits in the hopes he will straighten out. He won't and the awful headlines if they tried would be a serious political liability. Not to mention all the lawsuits.
It's just that there are almost no expectations or standards for a welfare person anyway.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> But the real purpose of drug testing is to provide a safe workplace. With welfare recipients there is no workplace to keep safe, so the question doesn't make a lot of sense.


I think the point of drug testing people on welfare is that if they have the cash to buy illegal drugs, they clearly don't need my tax dollars handed to them. Essentially that's forcing the working population to support the drug habits of the non-workers.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

There is no logic to it. 
The bottom line for me is if you accept help from me, you agree to what ever strings I attach to it. 
The same goes with gov't aide. 
I know not all folks on welfare do drugs. However in my experience living among welfare recipients for every 1 who didn't I knew 3 who did.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

GrannyCarol said:


> So you don't think that people are signing away their rights for employment? Isn't that a form of coercion? Much like, if you don't want your store to be set on fire, pay us money? If you want to live the life you desire, give up your rights to be considered innocent without proof?
> 
> Our founding fathers would rather have 10 crooks go free than put 1 innocent man in jail. No so today!


I would bet the founding fathers would have a coronary if they learned that 1/3 of the population is using the guns of govt to seize the assets from the rest of the population to provide for their needs. The jobs are owned by the employer, not the employee. If they don't want the test, earn a living elsewhere. If the govt dependent doesn't want a test, provide for yourself. Seized assets for govt welfare is a relatively modern phenomenon.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The question seems to assume that the purpose of drug screening is to provide justification to weed people out. If that's what you think then the question makes sense.
> 
> But the real purpose of drug testing is to provide a safe workplace. With welfare recipients there is no workplace to keep safe, so the question doesn't make a lot of sense.


No! The purpose for drug testing welfare recipients is to prove they are not using govt provided help to purchase illegal drugs. If they can buy drugs, they can use that money to provide for theirselves. If they are using the govt help to pay for the drugs, then they can do without.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

plowjockey said:


> Where is this done?


Military.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I think all their cell phones, computers, big screen TVs should be routinely monitored instead.
Oh, wait...


----------



## flowergurl (Feb 27, 2007)

Because America as we used to know it is DEAD. We live in an insane world where everything wrong is now right and everything right is now wrong.


----------



## summerdaze (Jun 11, 2009)

plowjockey said:


> Nearly every employer requires a pre-employment drug tests, but I have never heard of an employer, normally performing random drug screens, for hired employees.
> 
> Where is this done?


I work for a small company of under 50 employees. Everyone is drug tested when they are hired, and about once a year they call 3-4 people up to go do a random test. About 3 months ago 4 people had to stop and go do it.

I understand that several years ago, a long time trusted employee in the front office embezzled a large sum of money from the company, and it was thought that she might have had a drug problem, but I don't know if it was just a guess, or if it was a fact, really. The owner of the company said he had loved her like a daughter, and was changed from the betrayal of it. They told me that less people had keys to the place, a closer eye kept on what was coming into and out of the place by employees, and drug testing were just a few of the results of this. One bad apple, you know?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I once brought on such a round of protest that many were convinced I was on to something when I suggested mandatory drug testing for schoolteachers. Of course, it never went anywhere, teachers union being what it is, but they certainly exposed themselves by the amount of screetching they did....Joe


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I'm surprised the states haven't demanded drug tests for driving licenses, hunting, CCW etc. And of course at your expense.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Nearly every employer requires a pre-employment drug tests, but I have never heard of an employer, normally performing random drug screens, for hired employees.
> 
> Where is this done?


The railroad. The guys call it "winning the lottery". I think they have to blow a breathalyser and also give a urine sample.


----------



## quietperson (May 31, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Nearly every employer requires a pre-employment drug tests, but I have never heard of an employer, normally performing random drug screens, for hired employees.
> 
> Where is this done?


Nearly every manufacturing plant and warehouse that is left in operation in Ohio. It doesn't matter if you've been there one day or many years, if the supervisor has "reasonable suspicion" (or someone doesn't like you and tries to get you in trouble) then you get pulled for a "whiz quiz". 

Some employers even go to the extent of doing a hair folicle test, and depending on the length of your hair they can tell if you've done drugs in the last several years.

If the company has the policy of not hiring smokers, they can even check for the presence of tobacco.


----------



## greenmulberry (Nov 28, 2006)

bluemoonluck said:


> I think the point of drug testing people on welfare is that if they have the cash to buy illegal drugs, they clearly don't need my tax dollars handed to them. Essentially that's forcing the working population to support the drug habits of the non-workers.



Except for the fact that in states that have tried this, they find VERY low rates of drug use, and it is a colossal water of taxpayer money. 

Testing welfare recipients for drugs is a bad idea because it wastes money. It has nothing to do with rights.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

bowdonkey said:


> I'm surprised the states haven't demanded drug tests for driving licenses, hunting, CCW etc. And of course at your expense.


You have to pay for those. Government, typically, doesn't pay you to do/get them.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

greenmulberry said:


> Except for the fact that in states that have tried this, they find VERY low rates of drug use, and it is a colossal water of taxpayer money.
> 
> Testing welfare recipients for drugs is a bad idea because *it wastes money*. It has nothing to do with rights.


Of all the things the Government wastes money on is this one all that bad? I'd rather they drug test welfare recipients then send billions overseas to countries that hate us.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Vash said:


> Of all the things the Government wastes money on is this one all that bad? I'd rather they drug test welfare recipients then send billions overseas to countries that hate us.


I would prefer them to do neither!


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

bowdonkey said:


> I would prefer them to do neither!


Agreed.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> Nearly every employer requires a pre-employment drug tests, but I have never heard of an employer, normally performing random drug screens, for hired employees.
> 
> Where is this done?



Government contractor employees.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Nearly every employer requires a pre-employment drug tests, but I have never heard of an employer, normally performing random drug screens, for hired employees.
> 
> Where is this done?


Our son is an airline pilot and this is just part of his job.


----------



## smalltime (Jan 26, 2007)

The argument is moot... People who use drugs regularly know how to pass a drug test, there are oodles of products out there that you can use and most are very inexpensive. Not to mention that most drugs are undetectable within a few days, Marijuana is the only drug that sticks with you for long periods of time and that is easy enough to get around too. Id say 85% of the people I have worked with or for uses some type of illegal substance and nobody ever gets caught


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

smalltime said:


> The argument is moot... People who use drugs regularly know how to pass a drug test, there are oodles of products out there that you can use and most are very inexpensive. Not to mention that most drugs are undetectable within a few days, Marijuana is the only drug that sticks with you for long periods of time and that is easy enough to get around too. Id say 85% of the people I have worked with or for uses some type of illegal substance and nobody ever gets caught


Doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to it, though.


----------



## unregistered358895 (Jul 15, 2013)

The real purpose behind employer drug testing is insurance based. Business insurance is costly (for some small companies, high premiums can run you out of business - I know as our rates just went up 25% as a reward for having a banner year last year), and products like liability, worker's comp., health and manufacturing insurance often have qualifiers for reduced rates if the employer can "prove" that they have a drug-free workplace. The only way to prove that is through drug testing.

I can see the argument being made that because welfare recipients are not technically "on the job" that they are not tested. Although, honestly anyone who qualifies for benefits due to having minors under their care could easily be classified as receiving benefits as a caregiver or childcare provider which anyone with a toddler will tell you is a real and true job.


----------



## smalltime (Jan 26, 2007)

Who benefits from drug testing welfare recipients?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

smalltime said:


> Who benefits from drug testing welfare recipients?


Just a guess, based on being a CDL holder, it will be the hospitals where it's administered. And of course the manufacturer of the drug testing paraphernalia. When I'm forced to take them it costs the taxpayer $80?


----------



## smalltime (Jan 26, 2007)

Vash said:


> Doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to it, though.


Why not? You can't do anything about it... And to what benefit would it be to anyone if it did pass? What are the real Pro's and Con's of this? I don't see it saving tax payers any money. Why do folks care what someone else is doing if it's not hurting you? Just because someone smokes a little marijuana on the weekend, they shouldn't be able to feed their children? Why do we assume that just because your poor you use drugs, how many folks on Gov. assistance do you think are substance abusers? How much is it going to cost tax payers to subsidize these people in all the other areas of their lives like homelessness, Foster care, counseling, Law enforcement, and the Courts once they can no longer feed their families and turn to crime to make ends meet? 
personally, I don't think anyone should be drug tested. That being said I know several people that receive Gov. assistance in some why or another, mostly food stamps, that work a full time job so just because your receiving assistance doesn't mean your an unproductive member of society, lazy, or some kind of druggie.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

myheaven said:


> Why is it against the rights to test welfare recipients for drugs but not for the people who work? I don't get it!
> My dh routinely has to be subjected to surprise pee tests. Mind you he has never touched a drug in his life. My family members on welfare who only do drugs get the world handed to them. I just don't get it!
> Please some one give me a logical excuse why!


Because dem der democrats need dem der drug fogged welfare votes and employers know a drug free workplace is a higher quality , higher profit workplace of course.



AngieM2 said:


> Government contractor employees.


 The random DoD required wiz quizzes in the government division where I worked in Rocket City were creatively executed by our security chief.

Every week all of us in our division filled cups and she would come down and randomly pick the number of cups marked with the sample batch numbers only our manager had the cross reference to she needed to comply, then one of us safety officers collected the leftovers in a biohazard bag to throw into the incinerator.

Even though she only needed a 10% sampling we were all wee weeing every 7 days.

I only failed a quiz one time and that was after a Guns n Roses concert at the VBCC and she let me take a make up exam to verify it was only a minimum exposure second hand smoke positive after I showed her my ticket stub from the concert. After that if I was going to go to a concert which might expose me I would clear it with her before I bought my tickets because my paycheck meant more to me than a concert once or twice a year.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

There is great advantage to being drug free but people who use drugs of every kind, from alcohol to meth, are always under the delusion that they never hurt anyone else and that no one can tell. 
If they are lucky, they will not ever kill someone by making a stupid drug fuzzed decision. But way too many will. And then there are the smaller errors of judgement from the hospital tech screwing up their job through the teacher unable to keep their temper with the children and the parent not cooking a hot meal for the kids, all while thinking how well they are doing.
The truth is that welfare benefits are not paid based on deserving them- they are paid because there is nothing else to do with people. Either they will take care of themselves or they won't and it is strictly their choice whether they want that or not as the rule makers have made it so already.
So I agree there is no purpose to drug testing. The ship of personal responsibility has long sailed away from that dock.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

greenmulberry said:


> Except for the fact that in states that have tried this, they find VERY low rates of drug use, and it is a colossal water of taxpayer money.
> 
> Testing welfare recipients for drugs is a bad idea because it wastes money. It has nothing to do with rights.


I have no idea what the real cost of a drug test is, but I'm almost certain the mark up is hefty. And anything made mandatory automatically becomes ripe for some inflation. They got you over a barrel, either comply or lose your license, benefit, whatever. As an aside I really am surprised it isn't required for anything that requires a firearm or a drivers license. TPTB are always looking for excuses to make someone to submit to something for some perceived good. In the process we accept the fact we must obey. In time it just becomes a part of life. In the meantime you pay for it.


----------



## OK Yankee (Oct 30, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Nearly every employer requires a pre-employment drug tests, but I have never heard of an employer, normally performing random drug screens, for hired employees.
> 
> Where is this done?


My husband works on the pipeline as an inspector. He is subject to random UAs. When we both worked doing xray, we were both subjected to random UAs. 

He got picked quite regularly because they knew he would pass.

Yankee


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

The sticking point is " Are you going to let children starve just because their parent smokes dope?" 

I was upset about the lack of a drug test for welfare folks. But, after I found that it is an uncommon problem, I let it go. It's a non-issue.

Like the people without health insurance using the emergency room for free. It is rare. In fact, as soon as people get health insurance, emergency room use increased. Not how I'd been led to believe.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

haypoint said:


> The sticking point is " Are you going to let children starve just because their parent smokes dope?"


At that point, the parents shouldn't even have custody.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Vash said:


> At that point, the parents shouldn't even have custody.


Then the govenment takes over child care and creates a mass "orphanages" for them. And we know how that works. 

No, as long as there is social tolerance for rotten behavior, children are the gun pointed at society to force money out of it.


----------



## smalltime (Jan 26, 2007)

Vash said:


> At that point, the parents shouldn't even have custody.


That's ridiculous, occasionally or recreationally using marijuana does not warrant taking someone's children away from them.. I mean, really people, are you that uninformed?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

smalltime said:


> That's ridiculous, occasionally or recreationally using marijuana does not warrant taking someone's children away from them.. I mean, really people, are you that uninformed?


Too many define occasional use as every night and all weekend. When you see a 5 year old who lives on peanut butter sandwiches because they know how to make that for themselves and the parent thinks it's ok because they don't run out, then they really should not have children. But as I said above, that ship has sailed.

Potheads always seem to think they are just fine and they are not really effected just because it's their constant state.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

smalltime said:


> That's ridiculous, *occasionally or recreationally using marijuana does not warrant taking someone's children away from them*.. I mean, really people, are you that uninformed?


Normally, I'd agree. But if the parent in question is on government assistance they should have no right to use marijuana occasionally or otherwise (medicinal purposes aside).


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

Funny...I work in a psych unit. Each patient had a mandatory drug test so we know if they will be going thru withdrawal. 85% to 90% are positive for something. 75% are on govt assistance. So to say drug testing doesn't catch people on the system does not wash with me. I see it first hand.
The only true drug that does not show on a urine drug screen is bath salts. Those are the people that like to hurt others when high. Ask me how I know.


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

haypoint said:


> The sticking point is " Are you going to let children starve just because their parent smokes dope?"
> 
> I was upset about the lack of a drug test for welfare folks. But, after I found that it is an uncommon problem, I let it go. It's a non-issue.
> 
> Like the people without health insurance using the emergency room for free. It is rare. In fact, as soon as people get health insurance, emergency room use increased. Not how I'd been led to believe.


And why is the sticking point not, "Is *the parent *going to let their children starve just because they want to smoke dope?" 

Or is it true that the "ship of personal responsibility" has sailed from the dock as "Where I want to" has already mentioned?

Over the years I have seen quite a few individuals living off of the government teat also partake in illegal substances. I am not saying that it is a rampant problem, but I would rather that my tax money not facilitate their illegal or even legal bad habits.

And who is to say if the problem is common or uncommon, a study/survey done by some grad student, CNN, FOX News? As if they do not have their own agendas.

TRellis


----------



## Junkman (Dec 17, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Nearly every employer requires a pre-employment drug tests, but I have never heard of an employer, normally performing random drug screens, for hired employees.
> 
> Where is this done?


 School Bus Operators in WV. At least my County. Want a person driving your children with impaired responses? Our drivers never complain. One of our furniture companies got new insurance carrier that required all personnel to be tested. His delivery men all left because they couldn't pass tests. What's the big deal. Pee in a cup. No problem here.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

Google's your friend, folks. 

You'll find several articles about how it cost Florida more money than it saved. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html

I guess not every welfare recipient is on drugs. Now how else can the Right make poverty into a moral defect and a sin?


----------



## 3ravens (Mar 16, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Nearly every employer requires a pre-employment drug tests, but I have never heard of an employer, normally performing random drug screens, for hired employees.
> 
> Where is this done?


Every hospital I've worked at in the last 20years or so. Some tested more often than others, but they all had it in the contract.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Nearly every employer requires a pre-employment drug tests, but I have never heard of an employer, normally performing random drug screens, for hired employees.
> 
> Where is this done?


Railroad employees get randomly tested, even the ones working in the yards and not operating trains out on the lines. They call it "winning the lottery" when their name gets called....


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> I guess not every welfare recipient is on drugs. Now how else can the Right make poverty into a moral defect and a sin?


Yep that's it. Wanting to drug test welfare recipients is an attack on the people just like not wanting to hire felons is racist. :yawn:


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Nevada said:


> The question seems to assume that the purpose of drug screening is to provide justification to weed people out. If that's what you think then the question makes sense.
> 
> But the real purpose of drug testing is to provide a safe workplace. With welfare recipients there is no workplace to keep safe, so the question doesn't make a lot of sense.


 ..................I disagree..........IF they are Using drugs , they have to PAY for drugs ! So , If they receive cash distributions to pay their living expenses and they have NO job , then , their drug payments are coming from the Taxpayers . , fordy


----------



## smalltime (Jan 26, 2007)

Not necessarily, many of the folks I know who are on assistance and also use marijuana grow a little pot in their gardens...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

smalltime said:


> Not necessarily, many of the folks I know who are on assistance and also use marijuana grow a little pot in their gardens...


You know many on assistance?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

smalltime said:


> Not necessarily, many of the folks I know who are on assistance and also use marijuana grow a little pot in their gardens...


Gotta love self reliance in all its forms.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Gotta love self reliance in all its forms.


If only.........


----------



## smalltime (Jan 26, 2007)

where I want to said:


> You know many on assistance?


I don't know many who aren't...


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

> Please some one give me a logical excuse why!


Heard the perfect one today at my_ mandatory_ DOT driver meeting.

Workman Comp Insurance.

It one of the worst money-losing ventures for insurance Companies (due to Govt mandates) and is a sure loser for employers.

Each and every avenue, they can take to lower the risk of workplace accidents, is money in their pockets.

Drug testing and the threat of drug testing, helps actually keep people off drugs, which lowers _any_ risk of the drug use, affecting their work safety.

Why not? Makes perfect sense.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> Railroad employees get randomly tested, even the ones working in the yards and not operating trains out on the lines. They call it "winning the lottery" when their name gets called....


Most companies never random tested, by I'm a truck driver, so we get them, thanks to requirements from the DOT.

You are right, Railroads do, under the requirements of the DOT, also.

I meant just regular businesses, but DW ( a health professional) has informed me, that regular businesses have started doing randoms, on their own.


----------



## myheaven (Apr 14, 2006)

I know many who work at the Walmart distribution centers get to "win the lottery". Well at least once a year.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

smalltime said:


> Who benefits from drug testing welfare recipients?


 
Well In Florida the Governor's wife benefitted.
Conveniently enough she owned the testing company.

And quite often the lawmakers have stock in, family members in or donators in the business.


And like many of the others have said, it is a MASSIVE waste of money.
They have found a much, much lower rate of use among welfare recipients than the population in general.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

chickenista said:


> They have found a much, much lower rate of use among welfare recipients than the population in general.


You need to provide some reliable, non-welfare lobbyist/advocate source before I'd believe that. Who are "they", how do they know, what do they define as welfare, and how do they know what everyone else is doing anyway. I suppose if you included social security as welfare it might be true. But getting a lot of old peopke to pee in a cup on demand might not go over so well.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> You need to provide some reliable, non-welfare lobbyist/advocate source before I'd believe that. Who are "they", how do they know, what do they define as welfare, and how do they know what everyone else is doing anyway. I suppose if you included social security as welfare it might be true. But getting a lot of old peopke to pee in a cup on demand might not go over so well.


While Florida had their program in place over 4000 applicants for cash benefits were tested. 2.6% failed the test, mainly for pot, and another 40 refused the test. Tests cost $30 ea. and were paid for by the applicants who were then reimbursed by the state if they passed. You do the math.


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

If you work in the medical profession, your state licensing makes you subject to random drug testing. Also many hospitals do pre-employment tests and make you subject to random drug testing. 

I worked a facility where if you were hurt on the job, you peed in a bottle before seeing a doctor or going to the hospital. I always felt is was a violation of our rights since if we were a victim of a violent patient, we were treated like a criminal.

On a lighter note, if you can call it that. I worked as a temporary nurse once and one night there were a couple of controlled substance narcotics missing. There was nothing to suspect that somebody had taken them. They, it turned out, had slipped down in a crevice in the locked med cart, but as we were searching for them, the dept head came into the med room, breathing fire, stomping around and threatening us all with 'going down to the lab and peeing in a bottle to find out who had taken the narcs!' I was just in the right mood, and being a temp, emboldened to say what I thought about things, looked at him and said, "bring it on! Considering what the nurses have to put up with here, I'm surprised we all don't have narcotics in our systems!" The other nurses chimed in and agreed, he turned red, stuttered and left. the regular staff nurses thanked me for my response.

Do I think welfare recipients should be drug tested. A resounding YES! If it was good enough for me as a medical professional, it's good enough for the ones hanging on the government teat instead of being productive citizens taking care of themselves. I've stated a thousand times that YES, there are those who really need help, and should have it. But that's a small percentage in comparison with the ones who don't need it. 

Did any of you see the Sean Hannity interview with the young healthy man who was on the dole simply because he was a musician and 'working' to play his guitar and cut an album? It was amazing. Hannity offered him a job making 80,000 a year driving a truck in North Dakota and they guy turned him down! Drug test him? H**L yes!


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> While Florida had their program in place over 4000 applicants for cash benefits were tested. 2.6% failed the test, mainly for pot, and another 40 refused the test. Tests cost $30 ea. and were paid for by the applicants who were then reimbursed by the state if they passed. You do the math.


As a taxpayer, yes test them all. If my money is to be confiscated to reward poor decision making on the recipient's part, use some of it to assure they are not using the money on drugs. Cost be danged!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> While Florida had their program in place over 4000 applicants for cash benefits were tested. 2.6% failed the test, mainly for pot, and another 40 refused the test. Tests cost $30 ea. and were paid for by the applicants who were then reimbursed by the state if they passed. You do the math.


Welfare is defined as TANF only and only for adults receiving TANF. Benefits such as food stamps, medicaid, etc were not involved. Also the comparison point to a self reporting of drug use in the general population of 8-9% while the Florida tests gives a presumed positive of about 4% for TANF adults.
However the age difference and sex difference in the population is disregarded in that comparison. 
The general population percentage is substantially raised by the inclusion of people over 12 and under 25 and the much larger percentage of males in the count, which the report by HHS breaks out to be about ten times higher than the average, while the percentage of TANF adults over that age is about 75% and almost exclusively female.
Best as I can figure looking at incompatible stats is that, if comparing oranges to oranges, the drug use rate for TANF only recipients is the same or only a small percentage higher than the general population. 
This was interesting research.


----------

