Random drug testing for all government employees and welfare recipients (food stamps Included) (wage, regular)

[thriftylefty]

there's this little concept called "equal protection under the law"

[Ceece]

I'm all for holding people accountable but I fail to see why random drug testing does that. All that will tell you is whether someone used a drug, nothing else. That's really NOT the definition of "accountability", it's just the answer to the question "have you used a drug?".

[Ceece]

Well sweetie, I am actually quite well acquainted with the issue. Especially since I've lived in states where medical marijuana has been either close to being legalized or actually has been legalized.

Living where they ALMOST legalized pot doesn't mean you know anything. Weird that you would think that.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming

Let's hold them accountable. If any government employee shows traces of drugs, discharge the employee and prosecute. Do the same for food stamp and other welfare recipients. Let's even include people receiving unemployment benefits.

When people live off the earnings of others, they deserve to be treated as second class citizens.

Yet another example of a solution in search of a problem.

Actually, it is thinking such as this which is contributing quite a bit to our current national anxiety. Rather than trying to better identify root problems and come up with long term solutions, we keep recycling this "I'm better than you" junk, trying to find alternative ways to get the message out to targeted classes of folks (and the target keeps moving) that "I'm better than you are, and don't you forget it".

Kind of a path towards cyclical losing, in my opinion.

[chielgirl]

Many federal jobs require random urinalysis tests; it would depend on the type of job and the security clearance one possesses.

But that's a fact, so it won't matter.

[Darkatt]

Originally Posted by Ceece

I'm all for holding people accountable but I fail to see why random drug testing does that. All that will tell you is whether someone used a drug, nothing else. That's really NOT the definition of "accountability", it's just the answer to the question "have you used a drug?".

Not only will it tell you whether someone has used a drug, it can also depending on the type of test, tell you what drugs.

People accepting any type of public benefits, should not be wasting that money on recreational pharmaceuticals. That money is being provided for survival, and really should be utilized for that purpose. If you have money to waste on drugs, maybe you don't need as much money as you are receiving?

[NomadRefugee]

I think a lot of people in this thread are looking at this in a sort of Utopian way.

Sometimes you have to forget how things work in a perfect world and just be realistic about human nature.

People do drugs. And if someone is broke and struggling they probably will drink a little bit or get a little high to feel good. That's just human nature.

It seems like it's another righteous battle that's doomed to fail. Controlling people's drug intake is almost always a losing battle. It's Utopian, it denies human nature.

[seyareno]

Originally Posted by Wayland Woman

Drug testing all welfare recipients would be a waste of tax payers money. Most welfare recipients are elderly or children. Test only when their case worker feels there is justification. Same with federal workers.

Yeah for the children. I don't see many children cashing welfare checks, it goes to the parents or guardians. I worked in a grocery store while I was going to school in a lower income neighborhood years ago, when they still actually had stamps so you knew who was using them.

I couldn't begin to tell you how many kids where told no you cant have a candy, because I cant afford it as the adult bought cigarettes, beer, or liquor. I know candy isn't the best thing to ask for but do you think the adults answer would have changed if the child wanted milk, juice or a piece of fruit?

[Back to NE]

Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming

Let's hold them accountable. If any government employee shows traces of drugs, discharge the employee and prosecute. Do the same for food stamp and other welfare recipients. Let's even include people receiving unemployment benefits.

When people live off the earnings of others, they deserve to be treated as second class citizens.

This may be the most ignorant, mean-spirited post I've seen on CD, sounds like you've been listening to too much Palin and not interacting with people enough (out in sparsely populated/sparsely important Wyoming).

What do you do for a living sir? Are you sure it's not "living off the earnings of others"? Let me know so you can be accountable. In the meantime, pay your taxes cheapskate.

[malamute]

Of course.

No one who has money for drugs should be living off the taxpayers' dime.