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.
neither jtknight nor I even implied that drug testing is the answer to everything. Not sure where you're coming from with that, unless you failed one?
Drug testing is increasing for many, not just employment and or drawing on social services, so, I'm implying it. You don't know me and if you did you'd be very surprised. Testing body fluids for guilt with no crime committed is a violation of privacy. I've never taken a drug test but I know of confirmed, disabled people who have. I know of very hard workers who have a hell of a work ethic who have through un-secure non dangerous jobs who receive random tests because the company receives discounts from insurance companies. I do believe high security jobs require tests, I believe, if a manager witnessing behavior that appears to be from intoxication, missing days, late etc. should be tested, or bad accidents that happen. But randomly testing a free people's body fluids with no crime or incompetents committed is a violation of privacy. And above all especially when a high official reaps profits directly from such tests should be absolutely criminal. What is really going to happen is so much money will be paid to companies who test with little positive drug use results. I would be more inclined to allow testing to those their social worker has deemed appropriate for specific reasons, not random.
Testing body fluids for guilt with no crime committed is a violation of privacy. .
What about drug testing for a job? That's common these days....is that an invasion of privacy? No. The employer wants to make sure they are not hiring a drug addict, which is understandable, its their money. With welfare, they are taking my money....my tax dollars that I work for.....as a taxpayer, I have the right to demand that that money is being used wisely and not being handed out to a drug addict.
What about drug testing for a job? That's common these days....is that an invasion of privacy? No. The employer wants to make sure they are not hiring a drug addict, which is understandable, its their money. With welfare, they are taking my money....my tax dollars that I work for.....as a taxpayer, I have the right to demand that that money is being used wisely and not being handed out to a drug addict.
Which nets little positive results. I would liken it to the "stupid factor" if one is tested positive. Why? When applying for jobs a smart drug addict will be clean. Also, most addicts don't bother working. Narcotics do not stay in the system long but pot does. To be realistic someone who smokes pot once in a while is not a threat to a company's bottom line but a opiate addict and or cocaine addict sure can. The latter two can be flushed from the body quickly. Also, there are unintended consequences that result in false positives that happen not a little bit but quite often. However, I think it is up to a company if they want to test. When it pertains to State governments then it becomes a little bit trickier because they have a constitution for the people, the rule of law that needs to be enforced otherwise one violation made legitimate can then lead to another violation etc.
However, I think it is up to a company if they want to test.
Make up your mind. First you ***** it is an invasion of privacy. Now you say it is OK for employers to do it..........
Also, this thread is about welfare recipients getting tested, not all the situations you're complaining about. Think it is a little different when these are people being supported with PUBLIC funds. You want a free check, prove you're clean.
Make up your mind. First you ***** it is an invasion of privacy. Now you say it is OK for employers to do it..........
Also, this thread is about welfare recipients getting tested, not all the situations you're complaining about. Think it is a little different when these are people being supported with PUBLIC funds. You want a free check, prove you're clean.
If a private company wants to test job seekers that's their business but not the government. So then what is your problem, no common sense? A lack of comprehension in connecting the dots, are you stoned? I made it clear what I feel about poor Americans who, by the way, have every right a wealthier American has in this country. No testing unless the person applying shows sighs of drug abuse and only then recommended by a social worker, period. Also, genius, in this economic climate what in the hell makes you think for one second that most people applying for assistance is a drug addict? I'll wager the welfare office was the last place they ever thought they would ever have to rely on to feed their children. Better hope you don't end up in the welfare line peeing in a cup to receive a little money to put food on the table. This is quite an ordeal for those who have paid taxes for decades. And since you are what you are and probably thinking I'm one of those in line, no, I'm the opposite, but not narrow minded, short sighted and stupid.
What about drug testing for a job? That's common these days....is that an invasion of privacy? No. The employer wants to make sure they are not hiring a drug addict, which is understandable, its their money. With welfare, they are taking my money....my tax dollars that I work for.....as a taxpayer, I have the right to demand that that money is being used wisely and not being handed out to a drug addict.
Meanwhile CEO are getting high on high price coke and still get substudies from the government but yet many say nothing. But let someone who worked their min wage butt off (but it's still not enough to get by w/o foodstamps) and come home and smoke a joint, all hell breaks loose!
BTW, I agree with JMKING wholeheartly! The only drug that they will ever find in the average job appliacant is hemp, all of the stuff that can harm a company or make them liable is cleared through their system in less than two days.
I'll also make the claim there are plenty of good reasons why a person may have legal opiates in their system and why they should be. This situation applies to both private and public jobs including welfare. In this situation it then becomes clear it really isn't the substance in the body but the possibility of predicting someone's behavior instead. So in some sense it is behavior being tested which can be a slippery slope. Like I said earlier, someone who tested positive for illegal narcotics at a pre-defined time and date you can pretty much conclude this person's behavior leans towards the moron end of the scale.
Which nets little positive results. I would liken it to the "stupid factor" if one is tested positive. Why? When applying for jobs a smart drug addict will be clean. Also, most addicts don't bother working. Narcotics do not stay in the system long but pot does. To be realistic someone who smokes pot once in a while is not a threat to a company's bottom line but a opiate addict and or cocaine addict sure can. The latter two can be flushed from the body quickly. Also, there are unintended consequences that result in false positives that happen not a little bit but quite often. However, I think it is up to a company if they want to test. When it pertains to State governments then it becomes a little bit trickier because they have a constitution for the people, the rule of law that needs to be enforced otherwise one violation made legitimate can then lead to another violation etc.
It takes about 3 days for opiates/cocaine to leave the system. I doubt an addict could go that long without a fix.
I agree about the probable cause basis for the testing. Good point. And it's not just about money. If a child's safety is in question, my opinion is to err on the side of caution. If a parent's tox screen comes back clean and there's no indication of further need (specifically child neglect), that should be the end of it.
It takes about 3 days for opiates/cocaine to leave the system. I doubt an addict could go that long without a fix.
I agree about the probable cause basis for the testing. Good point. And it's not just about money. If a child's safety is in question, my opinion is to err on the side of caution. If a parent's tox screen comes back clean and there's no indication of further need (specifically child neglect), that should be the end of it.
Most wouldn't, many wouldn't even bother in applying but a functional addict can. A matter of fact most users are weekend warriors anyway.
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.
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.
