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.
One of the differences between earning and being given something? As far as paying for the drug test goes, keep in mind that my company benefits from the job I do. Or at least they should benefit financially. So, whatever benefits I receive from an employer, be it a check, not having to pay for a drug test, insurance, etc, is all earned. The welfare person, unlike the unemployed, is not earning.
You do realize, don't you, that if you don't pass the test for a job, the job offer is rescinded? And they still don't ask you to pay for it.
Drug testing costs about $89 the last time I checked. Not sure what welfare pays, but that's someone's light bill. Seems to me that such a provision would just make poverty worse.
As I've said before, the Welfare Reform Act of '96 gave the states the right to deny any benefits to those who have been convicted of a drug felony, and many states do that. So a lot of hard core druggies have already been weeded out of the system.
I agree with you that it's frustrating to see others not having to provide for themselves but eroding the 4th amendment for a certain segment of society isn't the answer.
It could be claimed that structural friction in our markets is the result of less effective public policies, not a lack of a work ethic.
Ok, sure. It is what it is, tho.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla
You do realize, don't you, that if you don't pass the test for a job, the job offer is rescinded? And they still don't ask you to pay for it.
Everything I receive from my job is a form of compensation for the work I do. Lunch during the interview process, not paying for a drug test, etc are all investments based on the potential work I will do. If no work happens, it results in a loss for the co. If work happens, it's a gain. Those are the facts. Receiving a hand out is not the same as earning no matter how some attempt to twist it.
Quote:
Drug testing costs about $89 the last time I checked. Not sure what welfare pays, but that's someone's light bill. Seems to me that such a provision would just make poverty worse.
As I've said before, the Welfare Reform Act of '96 gave the states the right to deny any benefits to those who have been convicted of a drug felony, and many states do that. So a lot of hard core druggies have already been weeded out of the system.
I agree with you that it's frustrating to see others not having to provide for themselves but eroding the 4th amendment for a certain segment of society isn't the answer.
Well, as I said a few posts. It is what it is. I'm certainly not going to expend any energy on it outside voting. Further, my opinions of how effed up these people (welfare folk on drugs) are matters little. They know they're effed in the head on some level I'm sure.
Everything I receive from my job is a form of compensation for the work I do. Lunch during the interview process, not paying for a drug test, etc are all investments based on the potential work I will do. If no work happens, it results in a loss for the co. If work happens, it's a gain. Those are the facts. Recieving a hand out is not the same as earning no matter how some attempt to twist it.
Well, as I said a few posts. It is what it is. I'm certainly not going to expend any energy on it outside voting. Further, my opinions of how effed up these people (wefare folk on drgus) are matters little. They know they're effed in the head on some level I'm sure.
Personally I don't know enough welfare recipients to have a clear idea of just how many of them are using drugs or... "effed up in the head".
It's clear that some see no societal value in protecting the Constitutional rights of the "poor", but then fail to understand that that the Constitution works in such a way that that eventually that type of precedent will effect the rights of all of us. And the 4th amendment is a big one.
It's been tried, anyway, and serious druggies know their way around a drug test. Meth users....pffffttt....can pee clean a couple of days after using.
Excuse me, but I've seen that very thing all over this thread.
where???
all I have seen is the debate for or against the OP statment
should people wanting assistance be required to take a drug test
no-where have I seen anyone (i might be wrong) say they should pay for it themselves
you (the government) can do these tests for less than a dollar per person,..considering that welfare or eu can be in the THOUSANDS per month per person. it doesnt seem to difficult or to hard to do random tests on people wanting/getting assistance
drug tests are required for most things
almost every athlete has to take random drug tests
the military has not only random, but also a 100% annual so you get at least 2 per year (I am reitred military)
the civil service requires it
DOT required that ALL CDL carrying truck drivers be randomly tested (you never know when or where)
what wrong with requiring the government assistance people to take a drug test
they dont have to test for BAC or for THC, they sure can see if the person is a crack addict...maybe this way we can even get the people that need help and rehab that service....ever think of that, before you bash people for saying "you want the assistance do the test"
Public assistance does not usually require safe work habits in potentially dangerous occupations.
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.