Should people be required to take drug tests to receive welfare and unemployment benefits? (doctor, quotes)
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.
Union assembly lines on drugs and alcohol did a number to the American automotive industry as well all know.
The recreational drugs is why you test.
Is that fair if they're only doing "recreational drugs" on their time off?
Quote:
If you are on them, you should not be getting assistance because you already have too much money to get your drugs.
Then I guess we should test for alcohol, junk food, and all other unnecessary expenses... I know people on unemployment who go to the movies, even though they could watch TV/movies for free online. So should we yank their benefits too? Also know many who smoke cigarettes, and those are over $5/pack these days!
Fwiw, I rarely pay more than a few dollars for my "medication" - sometimes nothing at all.
Quote:
You should be sober to work.
Indeed, which is why most places have policies against drug/alcohol use on the job - but unfortunately, these tests can only say if you've used anything recently (within a month or more). Does getting drunk or stoned at a party on Saturday affect your ability to work on Monday? Has a weekend hangover ever made you ineffective the following week?
Quote:
If you don't want to work, no unemployment benefits or welfare.
That is how it goes IMO.
And if you WANT to work, and your occasional indulgences don't affect that in any way... then what?
Exactly... I mean, I can see how a junkie or crackhead isn't "suitable for work," but a weekend drinker or pot smoker? And most people are ignoring the medical marijuana issue, which is now a factor in at LEAST 12 states. If you can show up to work and do your job effectively, I don't see how a random test could suddenly deem you as less reliable.
People also don't seem to see the huge invasion of privacy and control of their own body as a problem. Weird.
Drugs, pot, are mostly "the boogy man" to many people, unfortunately.
People also don't seem to see the huge invasion of privacy and control of their own body as a problem. Weird.
Totally! The funny thing is, I've had this debate in the past, and it's usually the conservatives who side with testing... but in the same breath, they'll whine & complain about liberals wanting to "steal our civil liberties" and supporting "nanny states." I guess these liberties only apply to owning high-powered assault rifles, LOL.
(fyi, I'm a libertarian who supports BOTH personal gun ownership and drug legalization - before anyone jumps on me for that comment)
Quote:
Drugs, pot, are mostly "the boogy man" to many people, unfortunately.
Yep, and it's really quite sad... high time we ended this stupid "war on drugs," no pun intended.
Is that fair if they're only doing "recreational drugs" on their time off? You hope they are not so pathetic as to do it enough to show it in their blood during a test.
Then I guess we should test for alcohol, junk food, and all other unnecessary expenses...They fire you for being on alcohol and drunk. I know people on unemployment who go to the movies, even though they could watch TV/movies for free online. So should we yank their benefits too? Also know many who smoke cigarettes, and those are over $5/pack these days!Off topic IMO.
Fwiw, I rarely pay more than a few dollars for my "medication" - sometimes nothing at all. If under the care of a real doctor (not some $40 note for pot) you should be fine.
Indeed, which is why most places have policies against drug/alcohol use on the job - but unfortunately, these tests can only say if you've used anything recently (within a month or more). Does getting drunk or stoned at a party on Saturday affect your ability to work on Monday? Has a weekend hangover ever made you ineffective the following week? Well if you want to collect on the dole you better consider how bad you want to be drugged or drunk.
And if you WANT to work, and your occasional indulgences don't affect that in any way... then what?
Cool as long as you don't want unemployment or welfare.
People also don't seem to see the huge invasion of privacy and control of their own body as a problem. Weird.
Drugs, pot, are mostly "the boogy man" to many people, unfortunately.
Too many people have drug habits and even in rehab the chances of people getting it back together is like 3%.
America can do without the recreational drugs or abuse of alcohol for that matter.
Totally! The funny thing is, I've had this debate in the past, and it's usually the conservatives who side with testing... but in the same breath, they'll whine & complain about liberals wanting to "steal our civil liberties" and supporting "nanny states." I guess these liberties only apply to owning high-powered assault rifles, LOL.
(fyi, I'm a libertarian who supports BOTH personal gun ownership and drug legalization - before anyone jumps on me for that comment)
Libertarians are social liberals, so that makes sense.
Conservatives want smaller government with less expenses.
You don't want to pay for waste. What can be more wasteful than paying for a recreational drug user's time off with unemployment or welfare.
Let them test clean and get some assistance. If they fail, go find a rehab and get your life straight.
If under the care of a real doctor (not some $40 note for pot) you should be fine.
The "pot doctors" are real MDs, and I don't see how it matters if you paid $40 for a pot prescription, or $xxx for any other doctor's appt & prescription. Many of the universally accepted Rx medications are more harmful/addictive than pot, and yet I'm the one who's so often poorly judged... despite the fact that I don't drink, or take any other prescription (or recreational) meds. How ironically hypocritical.
Oh, but yes, I personally AM under the care of a "real doctor" - which doesn't matter when it comes to these drug tests.
Quote:
Cool as long as you don't want unemployment or welfare.
I was just thinking about something... if you go to work high/drunk, or if you really aren't suitable for employment, you will eventually be fired. If you're fired you will not be eligible for unemployment, and welfare isn't available for single childless folks. So doesn't this problem already kinda handle itself? Should we really spend MORE money the taxpayers & government can't afford, on testing people who are mostly eligible on all other fronts? Think about it.
Libertarians are social liberals, so that makes sense.
Conservatives want smaller government with less expenses.
You don't want to pay for waste. What can be more wasteful than paying for a recreational drug user's time off with unemployment or welfare.
Let them test clean and get some assistance. If they fail, go find a rehab and get your life straight.
And who will pay for this rehab, let alone the drug testing for millions of Americans? Methinks the taxpayers and/or government would.
The "pot doctors" are real MDs,Yeah, very reputable advertising in porn magazines looking for the pot users and I don't see how it matters if you paid $40 for a pot prescription It is a note, not a prescription, or $xxx for any other doctor's appt & prescription. Many of the universally accepted Rx medications are more harmful/addictive than pot, and yet I'm supposedly the one doing "bad things" here - despite the fact that I don't drink, or take any other prescription (or recreational) meds. How ironically hypocritical.It should only be acceptable by a doctor by prescription and the doctor should be held responsible for just enabling addicts.
I was just thinking about something... if you go to work high/drunk, or if you really aren't suitable for employment, you will eventually be fired.Yes that happens, and you also are able to cause the business to close if someone sues the boss for damage done by the addict. If you're fired you will not be eligible for unemploymentThey are starting to test, and even welfare will be impossible unless you're married with children (and meet all other requirementsBeing on drugs nullifies that.). So doesn't this problem already kinda handle itself? Should we really spend MORE money the taxpayers & government can't afford, on testing people who are mostly eligible on all other fronts? Think about it.
Testing is good when people want access to the state or federal treasury.
As long as you don't want those funds, keep taking the drugs.
And who will pay for this rehab, let alone the drug testing for millions of Americans? Methinks the taxpayers and/or government would.
Rehab at best gets 3% results, so it goes back to Nancy Reagan and JUST SAY NO.
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.
