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.
Drug testing SOUNDS good. Until you realize that these people are dirt poor and you are literally saying "no food for you or your kids!"
And thinking thats a good idea.
And then you find out that its not saving money, its just punishing folks. Its a bad investment. And WAY too many of your political folks are drug fiends. Making it ironic.
I agree, but then again if they're too poor to feed themselves and their children, how are they paying for drugs? If you ask me, drug testing keeps these people employable. I have to take a drug test to work for a company. I'm very ambivalent about it for that reason.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
As an employer who has suffered financial loss at the hands of drug users I disagree. The point of the test is to not hire a drug user in the first place, especially where safety is concerned.
Should a crane lift company not be allowed to drug test prospective employees before hire, or should they just wait until one comes in jacked up on something and drops a one ton roof top a/c unit on a co-worker or pedestrian. Again, no one is entitled to a job or someone else's money. What thief taught you otherwise?
WHO taught you how to read?
I never said anything about anyone being entitled to a job OR someone else's money, your vivid if completely wrong imagination aside.
If someone's CV, job history, references are satisfactory, I simply don't believe ASSuming they're guilty of drug use until proven otherwise is the right thing to do. Especially considering there's often reliance on the most inexpensive forms of testing whose accuracy leaves much to be desired.
Hope, it passes. I am so glad that many middle-American are getting more and more conservative by the day.
I think it is just wonderful how conservative many legislatures are now and with the federal government now on their side, they can pass lots of common-sense, good, conservative legislation for their citizens.
Love how the Republicans control so many states and how the Republican legislatures are now free to pass lots of common-sense conservative legislation.
Best idea so far in 2017. Is it that hard to stay off drugs while going to the mailbox to collect a check? Life is better for family and work if someone is off drugs. The government is there to help people, right?
I never said anything about anyone being entitled to a job OR someone else's money, your vivid if completely wrong imagination aside.
If someone's CV, job history, references are satisfactory, I simply don't believe ASSuming they're guilty of drug use until proven otherwise is the right thing to do.
yes you did. If you deny an employer the right to drug test (or any other such requirement they feel neccesary)before hiring someone on, you are saying that person is entitled to the job and no amount of muddled and convoluted logic (or use of caps) can change that.
Maybe, and the governor of ND is probably investing in pee-cups as we speak.
If I recall he was in the medical field and owned a lab. Just before he became governor he placed his lab in his wife's name. He then introduced drug test Bill in which his wife's business received Florida taxes for services. If this is true, why is he still the governor of Florida?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
yes you did. If you deny an employer the right to drug test (or any other such requirement they feel neccesary)before hiring someone on, you are saying that person is entitled to the job and no amount of muddled and convoluted logic (or use of caps) can change that.
In two words: BULL POOP!
I'm saying peoples' qualifications qualify them for jobs and they should not be subjected to invasions of their privacy without cause.
If I recall he was in the medical field and owned a lab. Just before he became governor he placed his lab in his wife's name. He then introduced drug test Bill in which his wife's business received Florida taxes for services. If this is true, why is he still the governor of Florida?
Yes, he transferred the company worth about $62 million to his wife's name few months before the testing begun.
So, the testing costs more than it saves, and it also produced false positive readings. People who take advil, or other over the counter drugs tested positive and had to jump through the hoops to prove their innocence.
The experiment revealed two things:
1. It costs more than it saves
2. Drug use among people on welfare was significantly lower than non-recepients
Yes, he transferred the company worth about $62 million to his wife's name few months before the testing begun.
So, the testing costs more than it saves, and it also produced false positive readings. People who take advil, or other over the counter drugs tested positive and had to jump through the hoops to prove their innocence.
The experiment revealed two things:
1. It costs more than it saves
2. Drug use among people on welfare was significantly lower than non-recepients
I agree, but why is he still the governor of Florida? It seems to me why would he even care whether it saved the taxpayer money or not, as long as he profited. Has anyone determined how much profit his family made? Has anyone looked into whether he has introduced other bills or ignored/overturned laws in order for his family to game the system further?
administering the test, in cases like Florida, have already shown to cost more than the people they are catching over the entire life of the program.
I believe Florida also put the cost onto the welfare recipient and would then 'reimburse' the cost. I dont think it was a small amount either. For a person or family that needs that money, to put a burden like that before getting welfare is horrible. To me, if they want to require drug testing, the cost MUST be covered in full by the state.
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.
