Should people be required to take drug tests to receive welfare and unemployment benefits? (lawyer, how much)
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.
If you kick all able-bodied welfare recipients off of the rolls, then you'd better make sure that they can all get jobs, that pay enough for them to support themselves and their families. Especially in this economy, where EVERYBODY is having trouble finding work. Otherwise, a job program will never work.
A better idea for able-bodied welfare recipients, would be to pay them to go to school, to get their GEDs, and/or vocational training, or college degrees. That way, they can qualify for adequate paying jobs. If the government can provide financial aid programs for regular students to go to college, then they could do the same for able-bodied welfare recipients.
Instead of keeping those on welfare poor, and invading their privacy by drug testing them, society should be investing in education for them. Then, they can be upwardly mobile, and stand a chance to stay off of welfare. However, due to our current awful economy, there's no guarantee that even highly skilled former welfare recipients, can find adequate paying jobs now. So you need to keep that in mind too.
Once again you are the one dealing in absolutes. Where in my post did I indicate that all poor do drugs? I'll answer that for you. Nowhere....
Its a matter of safety in a factory. In a factory there is plenty of danger that requires us to be alert. The last thing any of us needs is to be working with a stoner, or a drunk. I have no desire to get run over by a stoned or drunk fork truck driver. I have no desire to pull a stoner out of the machine because they were stoned and put their hand where it doesn't belong.
You may enjoy working with stoners but I certainly don't. As I said before if a welfare recipient or unemployed person is clean then they have no worries. The only ones with something to fear are criminals who actually use illegal drugs. They deserve the consequences.
As I said in a previous post, employers could do drug tests under certain conditions: if the employee had a previous conviction for drug abuse, if the employee was fired from a past job for drug abuse, if an employee is operating heavy machinery on the job, if an employee is driving a vehicle on the job, if the employee works with children or the elderly, or the employee is responsible for the lives of others on the job. If a factory job involves operating dangerous machiney, then employees in those jobs, could be drug tested also.
I don't believe that drug testing is warranted, if an employee's job falls outside of the categories that I've mentioned above. I still don't think that there's any justification, for drug testing UI or welfare recipients. And it's not a matter of 'having something to hide'. It's a matter of not allowing our government to invade the privacy of more and more people, at random. Even if they are receiving state or government benefits.
We've already been losing our freedoms and privacy rights, since George Bush was President. And drug testing of welfare and UI benefit recipents, would just further erode the rights of American citizens!
Thank you for not allowing your own heart to become hardened because of your own experiences & thank those who had the good sense to recognize a precious life worth giving a chance to.
If those who helped you when you were young could see you now, I am sure they would be very proud.
Thank you for your kind words. It's interesting sometimes where life takes a person. I just hope I can teach my kids to make better choices than I did, so that they might not have to work quite as hard when they get to be my age.
Sounds like you are very active! I'd like to say thanks for the work you do at the food bank. It's very important to have places where people can go when they are hungry.
As I said in a previous post, employers could do drug tests under certain conditions: if the employee had a previous conviction for drug abuse, if the employee was fired from a past job for drug abuse, if an employee is operating heavy machinery on the job, if an employee is driving a vehicle on the job, if the employee works with children or the elderly, or the employee is responsible for the lives of others on the job. If a factory job involves operating dangerous machiney, then employees in those jobs, could be drug tested also.
I don't believe that drug testing is warranted, if an employee's job falls outside of the categories that I've mentioned above. I still don't think that there's any justification, for drug testing UI or welfare recipients. And it's not a matter of 'having something to hide'. It's a matter of not allowing our government to invade the privacy of more and more people, at random. Even if they are receiving state or government benefits.
We've already been losing our freedoms and privacy rights, since George Bush was President. And drug testing of welfare and UI benefit recipents, would just further erode the rights of American citizens!
I disagree almost completely. You are free to take a job or decline a job based on how you feel aboout their policies. If you feel drug testing invades your privacy seek employment elsewhere. It really is that simple.
As for people seeking finacial aid from the gov. They have already given up a great deal of their privacy by simply filling out the applications. I for 1 want to know that our tax dollars are not contributing to the nations drug problems by subsidizing a person choice to break our laws. Hey if you don't want the test then look elsewhere for help. If your a drug user then find another method to finance your habit.
Some states have tried to enact this...Michigan is one, I believe. It was found to be unconstitutional.
The 4th amendment guarantees all citizens of this country protection from searches without reasonable cause (someone needs to tell TSA that but that's another discussion).
That's what I've been trying to say about legal precedent. You take the right away from the poor and you're taking it away from yourselves. Remember this?
Quote:
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I disagree almost completely. You are free to take a job or decline a job based on how you feel aboout their policies. If you feel drug testing invades your privacy seek employment elsewhere. It really is that simple.
As for people seeking finacial aid from the gov. They have already given up a great deal of their privacy by simply filling out the applications. I for 1 want to know that our tax dollars are not contributing to the nations drug problems by subsidizing a person choice to break our laws. Hey if you don't want the test then look elsewhere for help. If your a drug user then find another method to finance your habit.
You obviously have some deep need to control the poor, just because they collect government benefits to survive. And many Americans need to do that, especially since the unemployment rate is still so high. As far as I'm concerned, invading the privacy of ALL welfare and UI benefit recipients, just because SOME of them MIGHT be using drugs, is unjustifiable. Our country doesn't need any more eviserations of our personal privacy rights, than we already have. And your concern about how your tax dollars are spent, is just NOT a good enough reason, to invade the privacy of welfare and UI benefit recipients, as far as I'm concerned. So you and I, will just have to agree to disagree on this subject.
You obviously have some deep need to control the poor, just because they collect government benefits to survive. And many Americans need to do that, especially since the unemployment rate is still so high. As far as I'm concerned, invading the privacy of ALL welfare and UI benefit recipients, just because SOME of them MIGHT be using drugs, is unjustifiable. Our country doesn't need any more eviserations of our personal privacy rights, than we already have. And your concern about how your tax dollars are spent, is just NOT a good enough reason, to invade the privacy of welfare and UI benefit recipients, as far as I'm concerned. So you and I, will just have to agree to disagree on this subject.
Control? Why do you deal in absolutes?
No I have a need to make sure our tax dollars are better spent tomorow than they have been so far. I am always willing to help those who need help. That only goes so far. We have no need to help someone fund a drug habit. That would be counter productive. Whats next? Make drugs free and part of our welfare system? What privacy? They have surrendered what little privacy they enjoyed by filling out the applications.
You seem to want to paint with a wide brush. Anyone who disagrees with you hates the poor. Anyone who feels the poor should be at least as accountable as those paying the taxes that fund their welfare want to control them. Not at all. if my brother came to me for money and I suspected it was to buy drugs I would say no. I would instead go buy him food and pay his bills. I would not support a potentially lethal habit. If I did that would make me a partner in his addictions. I simply chose not be any drug users partner. its not my fault that they are that stupid to go down a path that everyone knows is bad.No I don't, I absolutely don't feel bad for anyone who made the choice to do drugs. Let darwinism work and spare the gene pool.
What drugs? Drug use and government benefits really don't have anything to do with each other anyway. There are plenty of people who don't use drugs who get benefits who are more damaging to society than, say, someone who occasionally smokes pot.
If you have a some problem with government benefits then you should try to fix that rather than go down the road of picking and choosing who gets them based on a set of critera that would surely continue to grow. Set a firm limit to benefits, and stick to it. That's the only way to go.
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.
