U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
View Poll Results: Should people be required to submit to a drug screen before receiving unemployment benefits or welfa
Yes 118 65.19%
No 63 34.81%
Voters: 181. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:31 PM
 
20,417 posts, read 26,539,344 times
Reputation: 13111

Advertisements

I see that no one has bothered to address a simlilar post of mine so here it is again:

Quote:
Just out of curiosity...what do you think about the fact that most drugs are out of a person's system within a matter of days?

It's frustrating for employers because drug testing just isn't that great in weeding out the meth users...why would it be any different if it were required for welfare/unemployment?
The idea of drug testing is a "feel good" solution and though I agree that there are certainly people out there who scam the system in order to receive benefits...drug testing is not going to catch these people.

As an employer I flat out refuse to have a meth user on the place. But they are the ones who are most likely to be able to pass a drug test. I fired two people on the spot last summer because I came up while they were having conversations concerning their personal meth use.

A drug test probably wouldn't have shown that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:44 PM
 
Location: earth?
7,288 posts, read 10,364,337 times
Reputation: 8956
The costs related to drug testing would be offset by savings in benefits, throwing people out of the system when they flunk . . .so it's a win/win. The only people who could possibly be against would be those on drugs who don't want their party interrupted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:53 PM
 
Location: Sarasota, Florida
15,400 posts, read 19,038,260 times
Reputation: 11043
IMHO.....it's far more efficient and cheaper to check Politicians and CEO's for drugs(including alcohol) after all their decisions affect all of us and our nation's future. Seriously with many of the decisions made the past few decades I think quite a few brain cells have been dying among members of Congress and our Corporate Elite......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Montana
1,219 posts, read 2,756,464 times
Reputation: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
1. yes on the welfare
2. no on the unemployment unless it's the cause of termination, then yes
3. why is this a nationwide poll? shouldn't montana decide how it administers welfare? Didn't clinton sign that into law many moons ago? Why are you asking for my vote for what happens in your neighborhood?
I posted this poll out of pure curiosity. I do live in Montana and have seen the system abused first hand here... I am curious to see what other people from around the country think. I'm not a legislator, nor a person in any kind of position to address this kind of thing, just an open minded working guy that is wondering what other people think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 10:57 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,972,055 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
I see that no one has bothered to address a simlilar post of mine so here it is again:



The idea of drug testing is a "feel good" solution and though I agree that there are certainly people out there who scam the system in order to receive benefits...drug testing is not going to catch these people.

As an employer I flat out refuse to have a meth user on the place. But they are the ones who are most likely to be able to pass a drug test. I fired two people on the spot last summer because I came up while they were having conversations concerning their personal meth use.

A drug test probably wouldn't have shown that.
Addiction to meth comes with many physical changes. I posted earlier that the welfare office would be trained to detect withdrawal symptoms, so they could also be trained on physical changes that could possibly indicate meth and coke use. Alcohol is harder.

I also posted earlier that the drug testing needs to average monthly but it needs to be random, with maybe a 24-hour notice or perhaps even less (like a call in the morning and they have to report by 5pm or something). That would weed out the abusers who try to hide it. Do it again in two weeks, then again in five, then again in three, then again in six...they never know when it's gonna happen.

And good for you for firing those druggies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 11:03 PM
 
Location: earth?
7,288 posts, read 10,364,337 times
Reputation: 8956
Next thing you know, drug addicts will be a protected class under the ADA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 06:57 AM
 
Location: South Fla
9,644 posts, read 8,338,523 times
Reputation: 1942
Quote:
Originally Posted by artwomyn View Post
You can't compare parenting, which is a choice, to people getting welfare and UI benefits. That's patently absurd! Welfare and UI recipients, already have to follow certain guidlines to qualify for benefits. And you're assuming that ALL welfare and UI recipients, are using their payments to buy drugs. Which is also absurd.

Once again, you're assuming that welfare and UI recipients, are ALL lazy, shiftless, immoral, and irresponsible. It's the same old song and dance, that you conservatives put on. I think that if anyone should be drug tested, it should be you conservatives. With the harebrained schemes that you all come up with to harass the poor, you must be under the influence of some kind of illegal drug(s)!
Lets make this simple.

Do you think someone that buys 100.00+ a week on weed should be getting almost 400.00 a mth in food stamps? How can you justify that? Please explain if they can afford weed cant they afford food?

As far as the requirements. There is so many loopholes its not even funny. Women having the babys dad that lives with them pays most of the bills and yet they are getting gov aid. How can you justify this? People NOT getting married just to be able to keep their gov aid?

No one is saying that everyone that gets aid is doing drugs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 07:26 AM
 
20,417 posts, read 26,539,344 times
Reputation: 13111
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
Addiction to meth comes with many physical changes. I posted earlier that the welfare office would be trained to detect withdrawal symptoms, so they could also be trained on physical changes that could possibly indicate meth and coke use. Alcohol is harder.

I also posted earlier that the drug testing needs to average monthly but it needs to be random, with maybe a 24-hour notice or perhaps even less (like a call in the morning and they have to report by 5pm or something). That would weed out the abusers who try to hide it. Do it again in two weeks, then again in five, then again in three, then again in six...they never know when it's gonna happen.

And good for you for firing those druggies.
That's a lot of drug testing and a lot of money. I don't think the savings would be offset much by those leaving the system because they couldn't pass a test. Anyone can pass a test if they know how and druggies almost always know how.

About training the welfare office to detect symptoms...my concern would be that it would create the same mindset that's plaguing the TSA right now. Government employees shouldn't have that much power over the lives of individuals who have committed no crimes and the training would involve of course more tax dollars.

Alcohol is legal. It's probably unconstitutional to mandate that someone cannot drink at all while receiving benefits. In Alaska...weed is legal. It's legal to grow so many plants--six I think, not sure, in your own home for your own personal use, so the same principle would probably apply. I'd rather have a weed smoker than a drunk around any day btw.

I doubt that very many of the posters in this thread are even aware that federal welfare law bans all people convicted of a drug related felony from receiving food stamps or cash assistance. The law also gives individual states the option of eliminating the ban or amending it somehow.

Personally I think that enrollment in job training programs is a better option. There's no way to fake that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 07:28 AM
 
20,417 posts, read 26,539,344 times
Reputation: 13111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex View Post
Lets make this simple.

Do you think someone that buys 100.00+ a week on weed should be getting almost 400.00 a mth in food stamps? How can you justify that? Please explain if they can afford weed cant they afford food?

As far as the requirements. There is so many loopholes its not even funny. Women having the babys dad that lives with them pays most of the bills and yet they are getting gov aid. How can you justify this? People NOT getting married just to be able to keep their gov aid?

No one is saying that everyone that gets aid is doing drugs.
That one's easy. A lot of people grow it themselves. In some states it's even legal to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 07:29 AM
 
21,044 posts, read 19,007,637 times
Reputation: 5929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberwolf232 View Post
Should people be required to take drug tests to receive welfare and unemployment benefits?


*Sorry for the typo in the poll question... the last word is welfare. =)
Why are you putting these two things together?

They are two different programs that have nothing to do with each other (???)


Do YOU think those Uber-Wealthy who got huge tax breaks from Bush and continue to do so should be drug tested?


Do you think the Wall Streeters who got bailed out and received huge bonuses with OUR money should be drug tested???


Didn't think so...
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:

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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top