Manditory Drug Test, or not? (real estate, health insurance, budget)

[MSMAC]

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay
me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes
as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck I am required
to pass a random drug test, which I have no problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes
to people who don't have to pass the urine/drug test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check? Or even an unemployment check? Because I have to pass one to earn it for them.

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get
back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with
helping someone sit on their butt using my taxes to get high, drunk or abuse of some other thing.

Could you imagine how much money the state would save if
people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check.

How do you feel about this and if this outrages you what could we do. somehow I feel helpless and yet so angry at the problem. And I cant help the feeling that nothing will be done and my rant will go nowere.

Shane

[Calibelle]

I totally agree with you. If people genuinely are in a rough spot in life, and need the welfare help, I am happy for my taxes to go to them. But it is so irritating, when I see people constantly drunk, and high, living off my hard earned money.

I think that SergeantL might be a good person to give his two cents on this... he always has great opinions on things like this.

[SergeantL]

Mandatory drug and alcohol testing is an interesting constitutional topic. Some would argue that it is a search without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment; however, I do not agree. The Fourth Amendment is only applicable in cases where the government will be taking action against the individual, such as a trial or other administrative action, and the evidence will be used against that person. Although the government requires drug and alcohol testing in many industries, the employer takes action, not the government.

Additionally, mandatory drug and alcohol testing after an arrest for suspicion of driving under the influence is an exception to the Fourth Amendment in that all states have some form of an “implied consent law.” An implied consent law basically states that an individual agrees to testing when they sign for their license. Utah is a unique state in this respect.

In California, where I did my time as an oinker, if a person refused to submit to a blood alcohol test (BAC), all we could do was suspend their license and go to trial without BAC evidence. The entire case of whether the driver was impaired was based on the observations of the officer. We won some; we lost some. In Utah, the law is written in manner such that should a person refuse a BAC test, it is a confession of intoxication. I like Utah’s law.

Next, many industries are required to administer drug and alcohol test for the safety of all citizens. Here are just a few: Pilots, truck drivers, train engineers and personnel, etc. As you can imagine, there is an overriding need to ensure these people are clean and sober. Although law enforcement was not on the required list, my city had a policy of random drug and alcohol testing and I was happy to submit.

Now, Calibelle, I know you are a reasonable and rational person, so I am wondering how many actual drunk and high people you see feeding from the public trough. I know you are in England, which has what I consider to be a scandalous welfare system, but how much contact can any average person outside of government service have with welfare abusers? I am not doubting what you are saying; I am simply wondering how you came about your observations.

Next, mandatory drug testing is only justifiable where there is an overriding public interest in protecting health and safety. No matter how hard I try, I can’t make a case for protecting the public’s health and safety by testing welfare recipients. I guess we could create an implied consent law on welfare recipients, but the creation of a system to administer and enforce the testing would be astronomical and would result in more money out of our pockets.

I understand everyone’s frustration with welfare, but let’s not make it any more expensive than it is now, especially in Utah. (The last three words were added to keep this entire thread in compliance with the intent of this forum)

[Calibelle]

Yes... if you compare England's welfare, to Utah's welfare... it is completely different. Here in the UK.... the same families live generation, after generation, off the government. If you are homeless... you get a house. If you lose your job, your house is payed for. If you have baby as a single mother, you get your own flat immediately. Everyone has the same national healthcare, which we pay up the wazoo for, so that isn't an extra feature on the welfare system.

There are people that I personally know of, in Utah, who really need welfare. They have 3 kids, a low income, and the dad is in construction with no health insurance, so they all get medicaid, food stamps, ect.

I also have come across people in Utah, who do the bare minimum so they can have welfare. They smoke pot, they don't do much to contribute to society, and they just continue to take advantage of the system. They also work for cash under the table, which they don't claim in their taxes. I would love to see a way, that they could be made to clean up their act.

Maybe Utah should pass a law, that after you are on welfare for a certain amount of time, you should be required to do a drug test every so often. That way, people would be encouraged to stay clean, and actually start to contribute something to society. I don't think they necessarily need to test every person as a requirement for receiving welfare.... but as I said, perhaps they should require a test after a person has been on welfare for a specific amount of time. That way, the moochers would be weeded out, and those who really needed it, would continue to get it.

[SergeantL]

Originally Posted by Calibelle

Maybe Utah should pass a law, that after you are on welfare for a certain amount of time, you should be required to do a drug test every so often. That way, people would be encouraged to stay clean, and actually start to contribute something to society. I don't think they necessarily need to test every person as a requirement for receiving welfare.... but as I said, perhaps they should require a test after a person has been on welfare for a specific amount of time. That way, the moochers would be weeded out, and those who really needed it, would continue to get it.

Well, if they do so in Utah, I hope they are serious about the issue and drop the slobs. I have seen many cases in California were drug abuse was considered a disability and the jerks received welfare as a result.

I think J. Golden Kimball had it all wrong, when he suggested burning down the South and baptizing for the dead. He should have suggested it for California.

[MSMAC]

I do want to go to extreeme here and see laws passed. if they wish to recieve FREE money why not volentarily submit to a drug test. if the problem is the amount of money for each test, what about the cost be taken from the amount given. again to them it is free money to them, they wouldnt be getting it otherwise. Of course there are always exeptions to the rule, such as if they are on the system for aextended period or just to get back on thier feet. also those who lost a job or cant keep a job because of abuse.

I do strongly feel that if somthing like this would reduce the intake of drugs and alcohol with those who abuse the system. I am saying abuse of alcohol not just the consumtion. You take all of it away it will just become another boot-legging spree all over again.

If you make those who are down on thier luck be more responsible with thier lives, they take more pride in who they are. I speek from my past in seeing my own father go downhill. He got hurt on the job then started into the government assistance program. Lack of work do to hurt on the job experience can kill the family budget. Then Depression set in, which led to alcohol and drugs then eventually his death. If he had to take a test monthly or weekly, he might just be alive today. Drugs might not have been an option because he would't have the money to buy them. I know you could argue that he could get them if he wanted to, but even so it would hinder him or even the common person from getting their fix because of the lack of cash.

[SergeantL]

I thought some of you might find these articles interesting. If we're not careful, it could happen in Utah.

Wash. Bill Would Provide Food Stamps to Drug Felons

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/p...96/1033/NEWS01

[butter]

here is my pragmatic observation: if you dont pay addicts enough to subsist, wont their monkey, whatever it is, make them steal? it seems like most burglary is committed by people on drugs. i have no data on that, just a perception. i could be way off the mark. but i feel your rage.

i paid unemployment for years. many years. then found myself unemployed. i had seen it coming for a few months, so i got a real estate license. while i looked for similar work, i didnt do any real estate deals...i didnt have a clue how. but the state denied my unemployment claim because i owned the license. very frustrating.

butter