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.
Not to mention the majority of people on SS have medical problems and are taking a variety of medication in the first place.
Cash Assistance used to require a drug test. I'm sure they stopped doing it for a reason. Could have been that it wasn't cost effective after cash assistance became outsourced to a private company to process.
Testing for the presence of narcotics would probably be best, as they can be the most destructive to an individual and indeed a family. However, keep in mind that many narcotics are perfectly legal, some over the counter and others by prescription. It can be difficult to differentiate between them without a dedicated lab compared to a simple mass spectrometer required to detect the presence of THC.
Well, all television programs and movies are required to display a rating, which in turn would hopefully encourage viewer discretion. While not exactly a legislation of personal behavior, it is an established guideline upon which to base your decision.
All very true. Well said. The difficulty, to say nothing of the cost, makes this very idea yet another government waste of money. However, if it played to the base that would support the idea AND this could be lumped in with the "War on Drugs" and the lucrative industry of incarceration it would likely gain political traction with the right. If they can find a way to make such a decision profitable instead of just politically expedient it would likely become potential Republican written legislation
I'd be the first one to say "test them", but then the bleeding hearts would whine about our responsibility to detox and re-hab the ones that fail the test. We could easily pay out more for these services and the ongoing counseling that our reluctant patients would require!
Drug testing to cut off the losers would probably wind up costing us more than it's worth, especially since some of our taxpayers are afraid to put restrictions on how our money is spent and force people to take responsibility for their own lives.
Every Drug Test I have ever taken I have Failed but I told them before hand that I'm on these Legal Meds for Sever Pain have been for years so there is no way I would pass.
Every Drug Test I have ever taken I have Failed but I told them before hand that I'm on these Legal Meds for Sever Pain have been for years so there is no way I would pass.
hillman
If you have a legal prescription for the drug, your employer cannot know if it showned up in a drug test unless "you" tell him. If the test shows something that could be prescribed by a doctor the testing company must call you first and get the name of your doctor to verify you have a current prescription.
If it's legal; the results of the test must go back to the employer as a negative for drugs.
Also, no employer can legally have you tell them what medications you take.
It is the law!
If you have a legal prescription for the drug, your employer cannot know if it showned up in a drug test unless "you" tell him. If the test shows something that could be prescribed by a doctor the testing company must call you first and get the name of your doctor to verify you have a current prescription.
If it's legal; the results of the test must go back to the employer as a negative for drugs.
Also, no employer can legally have you tell them what medications you take.
It is the law!
What if your LEGAL prescription happens to be for medical marijuana?
What can an employer legally........say about this, when it comes to pre-employment UA's or random OTJ drug testing?
I love seeing you conservatives who claim to be in favor of individual liberties and small government calling for warrantless, suspicionless drug testing.
And to those of you who complain that it's only fair because you have to be tested for drug use for your job: I don't think that should be allowed either. As long as you are doing your job it's none of your employer's or the government's business what drugs you are using.
I love seeing you conservatives who claim to be in favor of individual liberties and small government calling for warrantless, suspicionless drug testing.
And to those of you who complain that it's only fair because you have to be tested for drug use for your job: I don't think that should be allowed either. As long as you are doing your job it's none of your employer's or the government's business what drugs you are using.
I recently had to take a random drug test to keep my job. Should people who recieve welfair benefits have to take random drug tests? I think it's only fair.
I'd never thought of that, but I think it's a great idea! If you must pass a drug test for a job, why not for government handouts?
I'm personally not in favor of all the drug testing currently required for jobs. I can see its value for certain jobs but not for most. But that's not the issue at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
... people on Social Security should be tested too. Tax money should not be spent on these items....
Hey, wait a minute here! Social Security is NOT "tax money". It's not a handout. It's a government-forced pension plan that workers have paid into. It's our money, and the government owes it to us when we retire. I've been paying into it for 50 years and will never get back all I've paid in, certainly not with interest. It has nothing to do with welfare.
I love seeing you conservatives who claim to be in favor of individual liberties and small government calling for warrantless, suspicionless drug testing.
And to those of you who complain that it's only fair because you have to be tested for drug use for your job: I don't think that should be allowed either. As long as you are doing your job it's none of your employer's or the government's business what drugs you are using.
We are in favor of individual liberty. When you do not provide for yourself but, rely on the rest of society to take care of you, you relinqhish some liberty. Just like being in the military.
being "on drugs" is NOT acceptable during work hours or coming to work after having taken drugs.
You would be the first one to blame a company if were injured by an employee of a company who was on drugs.
We are talking about illegal drugs.
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.
