Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-15-2012, 01:04 PM
 
7,112 posts, read 10,111,691 times
Reputation: 1781

Advertisements

Nathan Deal apparently favors Drug Testing unemployment beneficiaries. That in itself is expensive. Is drug abuse among those receiving unemployment a problem? This would be throwing good money down a rat hole. It'd be better spent providing training.

Nathan Deal:
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-15-2012, 01:12 PM
 
32,008 posts, read 36,668,783 times
Reputation: 13274
If you were lucky enough to work for an employer who provided unemployment insurance, I think you should get it.

The only reason drugs would be relevant is if you're sitting around stoned instead of getting out and looking for work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 01:49 PM
 
7,112 posts, read 10,111,691 times
Reputation: 1781
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
If you were lucky enough to work for an employer who provided unemployment insurance, I think you should get it.

The only reason drugs would be relevant is if you're sitting around stoned instead of getting out and looking for work.
But is it worth the time and expense to determine who are the laid off druggies? Maybe it would be better to spend the money to get people back to work rather than looking for ways to kick them off benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 02:27 PM
 
32,008 posts, read 36,668,783 times
Reputation: 13274
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathmanMathman View Post
But is it worth the time and expense to determine who are the laid off druggies? Maybe it would be better to spend the money to get people back to work rather than looking for ways to kick them off benefits.
It's an interesting question and I honestly don't know what the data say about it.

In the abstract, of course you want to get people working. The old teach-a-man-to-fish aphorism and all that.

However, saying "we want to spend money to get people back to work" and actually doing it are two different things. Specifically what actions would you take? How much does that process cost? What sort of work are you preparing them for? Are there actually jobs available? Assuming you've somehow figured out how to get them into a job, how long will they stay employed?

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of requiring across the board drug tests in order to get unemployment. I was talking with someone just the other day who was laughing about how easy it has been for her to get unemployment benefits over the last several years and that no one ever checks up on her. That's aggravating but drug testing would do nothing to crack down on her kind of abuse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 02:29 PM
 
Location: NYPD"s 30th Precinct
2,565 posts, read 5,500,041 times
Reputation: 2691
Florida did this last year and all they accomplished was learning that welfare recipients tested positive a whopping 2% of the time, or less than a third of what an average group of Florida residents would be expected to hit.

I'm sure its entirely coincidental too that Florida governor Rick Scott just happens to co-own a company that does drug testing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 02:48 PM
 
989 posts, read 1,739,879 times
Reputation: 690
Beating the standard employment drug testing is too easy. The cost of actually trying to distinquish habitual vs casual drug users are too high. There are too many variables and multiple test are needed. Do you know how hard it is to fail a drug test, extremely hard if you use inexpensive masking agents. Do you know how expensive it is to test for masking agents, very.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 03:35 PM
 
8,289 posts, read 13,538,788 times
Reputation: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febtober View Post
Florida did this last year and all they accomplished was learning that welfare recipients tested positive a whopping 2% of the time, or less than a third of what an average group of Florida residents would be expected to hit.

I'm sure its entirely coincidental too that Florida governor Rick Scott just happens to co-own a company that does drug testing.
Well Rick Scott doesn't own the company that drug tests anymore. Instead he transferred ownership to his wife! Those tests cost about $30 a pop too which the recipient has to pay for upfront & if they tested negative the state would have to refund the cost to them.
This cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars in reimbursing about 98% of those that got tested before a Federal judge declared testing as UnConstitutional and stopped the practice altogether.
I am sure Georgia will wind up with the same fate as Florida did. I also presume Deal is Republican right? If he is it figures since Pukes are always for freedom yet always trying to legislate morality!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 06:53 PM
 
876 posts, read 2,273,830 times
Reputation: 266
This would not bring about much welfare reform IMHO. I don't think it is a good idea. That seems to be more of a morality type of proposed legislation that panders to the anti-drug crowd.

In some occupations people are fired for failing random drug tests. That I completely understand by the employer, given the nature of some jobs and the potential liability issues, but this proposal, No.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 11:23 AM
 
Location: 30080
2,390 posts, read 4,395,568 times
Reputation: 2180
It's a waste for a few reasons. One, hard drugs are rectally it off the system in a few days at the most. Marijuana is detectable longer but there are tons of ways people get around that for even chapter than what the tests cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 01:20 PM
 
55 posts, read 179,874 times
Reputation: 27
It would be better spent on training. Even if they do hold drug testing, since the unemployment benefits last for 99-weeks, those that use could get back on drugs easily even if they quit for the drug test. I can't imagine the government can afford to drug test the millions of Americans on a random basis. Logistics enough would be difficult, plus take into facilities and tracking down those who don't test. What a nightmare!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:45 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top