Urine Testing

[ClayBarham]

URINE TEST
(From the net)

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 it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test . Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare 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 sitting on their ass, doing drugs, while I work. Can you imagine how much money the U.S. would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check ?????

Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though .. something has to change in this country and soon!

[Scorpion]

I have absolutely no problem with someone who accepts public assistance being required to submit to random urine testing. It helps guarantee that tax money is not being spent on drugs or alcohol.

If they don't like it, get a job and support yourself.

[Elrathin]

I absolutely agree that a urine test should be used to get a welfare check. That might actually encourage people to seek help for their habit.

Another thing I don't understand is the state pays unemployment checks to people that don't work. Isn't there something these folks could be doing for the state to earn the check?

[Cobra]

Yeah drug test them. Everybody else has to be tested why not them if they are getting a government check.

[Pookie]

I'm jumping on board with this one, too. Yes, definitely drug-test them! I have to expect to be drug-tested at random in order to keep my job, so I think they should expect the same thing to keep their checks.
Thought-provoking post!
Purrs,
Pookie

[Shintao]

I oppose the urine test for anyone as a violation of the 4th Amendment of search & Seizures conditioned to duress (You do it or you lose your employment/benefits/etc).

Maybe we should give employees a pregancy test, as we should have a right to get rid of them instead of paying time off for parenthood. Maybe we should give an alcohol test after lunch breaks. I think we should be able to test an employees reaction times & weed out the slow thinkers as well. You all seem happy to test everybodies privacy, how about we open up your medical records while we are it? How about a good ol fashioned cavity search in Mr. Jones office?

You people just don't get it - do you? "Everytime you take away some elses rights you have just limited your own." Can't you people care enough about the freedoms veterans die daily for you, to friggin fight to preserve them here in America? How dare you surrender Liberty, while another body bag flies back to America.

No we don't need to test people on welfare, and we should be fighting to take back the 4th Amendment rights from corporations stranglehold. Not assisting them down the merry path to enslavement.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[AlanC]

I have no problem with it at all. There are some jobs, a lot in fact, where the use of drugs puts the employer, the employees and/or the public at risk.

The employer who lets an employee use drugs to the extent that they endanger others is liable. They certainly have the right to screen who they employ.

Don't like it, feel it violates your god given right to screw up your life? Then work somewhere else where they don't care about such things.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That does not refer to an employeers right to know who and what they are hiring and trusting with a job.

[ViolaLee]

But Shintao - you're talking about individual rights. Bourne and Scorpion think that individual rights are a conservative ideal.

What's a Democrat doing standing up for individual rights while the Republicans are standing down for them?

[Shintao]

I have no problem with it at all. There are some jobs, a lot in fact, where the use of drugs puts the employer, the employees and/or the public at risk.

So you are willing to surrender your 4th Amendment rights so you can have a secure feeling? I am not surprised a conservative would surrender his freedoms instead of fighting to keep them.

The employer who lets an employee use drugs to the extent that they endanger others is liable. They certainly have the right to screen who they employ.

That is BS. And he only becomes liable when he tests employees. And they have a right to ask, but I can refuse. What right have they to screen an employee?? Who surrendered that right to the corporation?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

What does that say? It doesn't say "maybe" or "could" or "will" be violated does it? It says "shall not" be violated. And what should NOT BE VIOLATED?


Don't like it, feel it violates your god given right to screw up your life? Then work somewhere else where they don't care about such things.

I don't like it, but it isn't me who needs to work somewhere else, it is the corporation who can take his friggin business to a country where he can do cavity searches while the worker smiles.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That does not refer to an employeers right to know who and what they are hiring and trusting with a job.

"UNREASONABLE" Maybe you should be asked to give a sperm sample. That couldn't be unreasonable in your line of thinking. Mr. Conservative.[hr]
But Shintao - you're talking about individual rights. Bourne and Scorpion think that individual rights are a conservative ideal.

What's a Democrat doing standing up for individual rights while the Republicans are standing down for them?


I will always stand for Constitutional rights, because I fought for my freedoms, and I watched men die in my arms for those freedoms.

Individual rights are held within the body of the bill of rights, while community rights are in the body of the Constitution. The Bills spell out what is our rights, and I surely defend them.

[ViolaLee]

I will always stand for Constitutional rights, because I fought for my freedoms, and I watched men die in my arms for those freedoms.

Individual rights are held within the body of the bill of rights, while community rights are in the body of the Constitution. The Bills spell out what is our rights, and I surely defend them.


And I agree with you completely.

[AlanC]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,


That is a stricture on goverment, not private employers. The answer is simple, don't work for them. Most of the random testing has been allowed by employee unions, hardly bastions of conservative principles.

[Shintao]

I will always stand for Constitutional rights, because I fought for my freedoms, and I watched men die in my arms for those freedoms.

Individual rights are held within the body of the bill of rights, while community rights are in the body of the Constitution. The Bills spell out what is our rights, and I surely defend them.


And I agree with you completely.


I think ClayBarham stirred up the bees nest just to watch the reactions around here. I admit he does bring on good topics to discuss! Thanks Clay!! The divide between Cons & Libs continues to grow!!!! :ecstatic::madlaugh::clapper:[hr]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,


That is a stricture on goverment, not private employers. The answer is simple, don't work for them. Most of the random testing has been allowed by employee unions, hardly bastions of conservative principles.


I agree with what you say. My ol union did tests. I just want America to stand up for their freedoms, really fight for them, demand them, kick these idiots out of congress on both sides of the isle who are hell bent on destroying us. If this country had a workers union to unite Americans, this crap wouldn't be happening. But the powers that be want us divided right down to the last two hands separated. They want us to think we are individuals, they want us to have no voice, have no power, and then we become the sheep in the field, easy to steers, easy to feed off of.

Think back to where this idea of individualism took hold as a conservative value. I think it was with Gingrich, in that period, and the conservative media getting behind it, then Rush, etc. They got us where we don't know our neighbors, work inside of box cubicals, etc. Rats...............

[Elrathin]

I oppose the urine test for anyone as a violation of the 4th Amendment of search & Seizures conditioned to duress (You do it or you lose your employment/benefits/etc).

I would agree with you, however, the problem is consistency. The state ALREADY requires it's employees to do the urine test, so why not the people getting the checks?

Pandora's box has been opened and the state is not going to change its policy on employees being drug tested. I'm just saying how about some consistency?

[ClayBarham]

What's this "community rights"in the Constitution????? That is a framework for a government whose function is to protect individual rights. If drug testing were a part of it, I'd vote against it. However, if a State, assuming the electorate goes along with it, in its zeal to protect individual rights to life, establishes rules of the road for operating motor vehicles, like telling one to drive on the right side of the road without being blasted with alcohol and drugs, most rational folks would agree with the efficiency of it and how it will protect people. Drug testing, as well as breathalysers, are one way the states have to try to protect people. Is that bad? Does that equate with listening into plots by the Mafia or the Taliban in order to save lives? Hmmmmm.

[AnnEsthesia]

One quick silly question for all of you stroking each other in this thread:

Many if not most of these people you would urine test for their welfare checks have children. How would you propose dealing with the fact that those children still need a place to live, food to eat and clothes to wear?

[Elrathin]

How would you propose dealing with the fact that those children still need a place to live, food to eat and clothes to wear?


Do you think the children living in an environment where illegal activities are going on is appropriate?

[AnnEsthesia]

Of course not. But gunning people down on your own is hardly consistent with a society of laws.

[Scorpion]

Shintao:

I admire your interest in constitutional protections but in this case you're opinion is a bit misguided.

Accepting welfare monies is at the discretion of the recipient. No one is forcing that money on him/her. By accepting that money the recipient agrees to, among other conditions, random urine testing.

If the recipient doesn't want the intrusion of random urine screenings all they need do is discontinue accepting welfare. Very simple.

[PatrickHenry]

...gunning people down on your own is hardly consistent with a society of laws.
Could you stay on topic?

Random drug testing is intrusive and only defensible where the safety of others is at stake.

Operators of equipment, transportation and other threats to the public should be sober. Others...not so much.

And Elrathin...Unemployment is INSURANCE, not free money from the state. You have to EARN it.

[Scorpion]

...gunning people down on your own is hardly consistent with a society of laws.
Could you stay on topic?

Random drug testing is intrusive and only defensible where the safety of others is at stake.

Operators of equipment, transportation and other threats to the public should be sober. Others...not so much.

And Elrathin...Unemployment is INSURANCE, not free money from the state. You have to EARN it.


I'm not certain if I understand your position but, as for me, I do not want my taxes going to provide welfare payments to someone who would use my money to feed their alcohol and/or drug habit.

In my profession random blood and urine screening is a condition of continued employment. I have absolutely no problem with it.

[AnnEsthesia]

...gunning people down on your own is hardly consistent with a society of laws.
Could you stay on topic?

Random drug testing is intrusive and only defensible where the safety of others is at stake.

Operators of equipment, transportation and other threats to the public should be sober. Others...not so much.

And Elrathin...Unemployment is INSURANCE, not free money from the state. You have to EARN it.


You are right, I was distracted and lost which thread I was in. In answer to the question, no, I do not think that living in the situation is a good thing, but unless you are going to take the child from the parents, you have to give them the means to survive. It is hardly compassionate to say "sorry, but your mom did not pass the test so your family is cut off."

[Elrathin]

Of course not. But gunning people down on your own is hardly consistent with a society of laws.


I'm not following you, what does this have to do with welfare?[hr]
And Elrathin...Unemployment is INSURANCE, not free money from the state. You have to EARN it.


So you are saying people are entitled to receive money from the state for not doing anything?

Sorry but people should have to EARN that money they receive, it shouldn't just be given for doing nothing.

[hr]
It is hardly compassionate to say "sorry, but your mom did not pass the test so your family is cut off."


It's called personal responsibility. Much like if a person robs a bank, they go to jail, if the parent can't stop doing illegal activities, the child goes elsewhere.

I don't know any judeg that says, sorry you broke the law, but since you are a parent, we are going to let it slide this time. Also don't you think 3 generations of a family on welfare is showing a trend?

[PatrickHenry]

So you are saying people are entitled to receive money from the state for not doing anything?
Where did you get that? I said you were wrong in saying that unemployment insurance shouldn't exist.
Here's what you said: Another thing I don't understand is the state pays unemployment checks to people that don't work. Isn't there something these folks could be doing for the state to earn the check?

People have already EARNED that money which gets them through a layoff until their next job. Their employers paid it into a fund which is tapped to pay them a weekly check so they can meet their obligations while looking for work.

I don't see why recreational drug use is anybody's business but your own.

If you are impaired at work, your boss has a right to fire you for not meeting the conditions he sets for employment.

What you do on the weekend has no bearing... whether you have a job or are on welfare. Not that I support wholesale welfare to those who don't want a job.

[Elrathin]

People have already EARNED that money which gets them through a layoff until their next job. Their employers paid it into a fund which is tapped to pay them a weekly check so they can meet their obligations while looking for work.


Alright then how do you explain 3 generations on welfare then? Did they work 300 years for that money or something? Gimme a break. Welfare is not meant so that you can live off it for years, which is the way it is now.

[Kenzieman]

People on welfare should absolutely be screened for drugs. I completely agree with the other posters that the taxes I pay should not be doled out to someone that will use them to buy drugs.

Furthermore, people who have drank/drugged themselves down to the point that they are unable to work because their brains no longer function have no business recieving SSI and disablilty compensation. If you voluntarily do something (something illegal I might add) that causes you to be unable to work, TOUGH NUTS PAL. Hope you have a backup plan, because it's not my job to take care of you.

As far as children being denied monies because their parents are unable to continue recieving welfare because they are drug addicts----I will bring something in from another thread. There are thousands of couples out there waiting to adopt. Doing drugs is a choice---nobody is forcing them to make that decision.

[Scorpion]

Well said Kenzie, well said. You are a credit to conservative values.

If someone on welfare has children and they're denied welfare because they can't pass a urine screening then the kids become wards of child protective services and are placed in foster care until the situation is remedied.

Paying some drunk or doper welfare because we don't want to risk harm to the children is irresponsible nonsense.

[PatrickHenry]

People have already EARNED that money which gets them through a layoff until their next job. Their employers paid it into a fund which is tapped to pay them a weekly check so they can meet their obligations while looking for work.


Alright then how do you explain 3 generations on welfare then? Did they work 300 years for that money or something? Gimme a break. Welfare is not meant so that you can live off it for years, which is the way it is now.
Dude! We are talking about two DIFFERENT programs.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_insurance#United_States


2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_%28financial_aid%29#Welfare_in_the_United_ States

Get your terms straight and then we'll talk...

[ClayBarham]

Before the Feds decided to adopt entitlements as a way to get reelected, all manner of welfare or assistance given to people in need, was done on the county level, close to where one lived. It was a shameful experience to have to go to the county assistance people and say you need help, as, in a way, you are asking your neighbors. And, they being closer to you, expect you to join with your neighbors and get a job, so avoiding being trapped into doing the right thing was difficult. This is why federalizing it was better for the folks who wanted simply to live ff their neighbors and not be seen by them, as it is embarrassing. If they were drunk all the time, county welfare, being closer, better able to provide solutions and discipline, would insist they dry up. Federals would never make such a demand.

[Pookie]

Anyone who openly opts for danger in the workplace is wishing others harm, I think. Drug testing would not be necessary if there HAD NOT BEEN FATAL ACCIDENTS DUE TO INTOXICATED/INFLUENCED EMPLOYEES IN THE PAST.
Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it.
Watch out for that next Amtrak train. The stoned engineer, practicing his rights, might have missed the signal.
Hisses,
Pookie

[PatrickHenry]

Anyone who openly opts for danger in the workplace is wishing others harm, I think. Drug testing would not be necessary if there HAD NOT BEEN FATAL ACCIDENTS DUE TO INTOXICATED/INFLUENCED EMPLOYEES IN THE PAST.
Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it.
Watch out for that next Amtrak train. The stoned engineer, practicing his rights, might have missed the signal.
Hisses,
Pookie

This is a disingenuous argument, Pookie.

Most folks aren't driving trains at work or the equivalent.

Most folks are pushing paper and you know it.

That doesn't risk anyone's safety.

And smoking dope on the weekend will result in a positive on a random drug test.

Why should that be a cause for discipline/dismissal for a paper pusher?

Don't get me wrong. I don't use or promote the use of drugs.

I do call for decriminalization and a focus on crimes that have victims, not "consensual" crimes....

[Scorpion]

Anyone who openly opts for danger in the workplace is wishing others harm, I think. Drug testing would not be necessary if there HAD NOT BEEN FATAL ACCIDENTS DUE TO INTOXICATED/INFLUENCED EMPLOYEES IN THE PAST.
Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it.
Watch out for that next Amtrak train. The stoned engineer, practicing his rights, might have missed the signal.
Hisses,
Pookie

This is a disingenuous argument, Pookie.

Most folks aren't driving trains at work or the equivalent.

Most folks are pushing paper and you know it.

That doesn't risk anyone's safety.

And smoking dope on the weekend will result in a positive on a random drug test.

Why should that be a cause for discipline/dismissal for a paper pusher?

Don't get me wrong. I don't use or promote the use of drugs.

I do call for decriminalization and a focus on crimes that have victims, not "consensual" crimes....


I think that Pookie's argument is well stated and intelligent.

Where is this country going if employees are permitted to engage in patently unsafe behavior which carries over into the workplace and directly effects production, efficiency, research and customer service? That's right, we're finished.

What's troubling is that in your mind you justify drug and alcohol abuse and its attendant effects solely based on a persons occupation. That just doesn't make sense.

Harm comes in many forms, not just physical danger or harm.

Don't get me wrong. I don't use or promote the use of drugs. By advocating tolerance for drug/alcohol abuse that is precisely what you are doing.

[PatrickHenry]

Drug use is not necessarily drug ABuse.

Just as alcohol use is not necessarily alcohol ABuse.

You sound like a drug cop, Bourne.

Sobriety is valuable to me personally.

Just as recreational use of drugs and alcohol is valuable to others.

Many people will test positive for drugs long past the period when they are impaired.

But back to the welfare issue. Some folks are on welfare or disability for medical reasons. Some have a prescription from a physician to use marijuana.

Those who do should not be denied their check for using their medicine.

And furthermore I have no problem with anyone who doesn't jump through government's increasingly intrusive hoops to justify their lives...

[AnnEsthesia]

[hr]
It is hardly compassionate to say "sorry, but your mom did not pass the test so your family is cut off."


It's called personal responsibility. Much like if a person robs a bank, they go to jail, if the parent can't stop doing illegal activities, the child goes elsewhere.

I don't know any judeg that says, sorry you broke the law, but since you are a parent, we are going to let it slide this time. Also don't you think 3 generations of a family on welfare is showing a trend?


Yep, but what if the parent is an occasional user? Or slips and uses? You suddenly take the kids or you cut them off? And where do you put the kids?

Not everyone is lucky enough to have good parents. I can just hear the screaming from the right when all those kids have to be supported on the tax payer's dime. (Yes, I do mean more than they already are. It costs a lot for a child to be in the system.)[hr]
As far as children being denied monies because their parents are unable to continue recieving welfare because they are drug addicts----I will bring something in from another thread. There are thousands of couples out there waiting to adopt. Doing drugs is a choice---nobody is forcing them to make that decision.


Tell that to the children currently in the system who never can find a family to adopt them.

[Scorpion]

Drug use is not necessarily drug ABuse.

Just as alcohol use is not necessarily alcohol ABuse.

You sound like a drug cop, Bourne.

Sobriety is valuable to me personally.

Just as recreational use of drugs and alcohol is valuable to others.

Many people will test positive for drugs long past the period when they are impaired.

But back to the welfare issue. Some folks are on welfare or disability for medical reasons. Some have a prescription from a physician to use marijuana.

Those who do should not be denied their check for using their medicine.

And furthermore I have no problem with anyone who doesn't jump through government's increasingly intrusive hoops to justify their lives...


Ok PH. We disagree. You obviously favor risking alcohol and drug abuse courtesy of the public dole without intrusive oversite and you regard random urine tests as an unwarranted intrusion.

I, on the other hand, want my tax dollars well spent instead of turning welfare into subsidizing drug or alcohol abuse. I expect, no demand, that government guarantee that my tax money is spent helping people instead of feeding destructive habits.

[ClayBarham]

You are facing the thoughts of people who believe the rights claimed for us in the Declaration include booze, drugs and a good time doing little or nothing while waiting for a piece of the taxpayer's earnings. Sometimes, you might think these people are trying to be funny, but they are really serious.

[Elrathin]

Clay there are MANY on the right that believe alcohol and recreational drugs should be legal, keep that in mind before you try to demonize the left with that.

[Kenzieman]

Yep, but what if the parent is an occasional user? Or slips and uses? You suddenly take the kids or you cut them off? And where do you put the kids?


If someone is recieving welfare, and spending that money on drugs, and spending time high that they could be spending finding a job, and intentionally sabotaging their chances to get a job by being high, I really have no choice but to view them as terminally irresponsible. Once again, it's all about choices.




Not everyone is lucky enough to have good parents.


I agree---and the point is?




Tell that to the children currently in the system who never can find a family to adopt them.


We all can only do what we can do.

Do I think that everyone that comes up hot on a urinalysis should lose their kids---no.

Do I think that if someone comes up hot on a urinalysis, they should lose their welfare----no doubt.

I'll repeat it again----choices, and taking ownership o that choice.

[Scorpion]

Clay there are MANY on the right that believe alcohol and recreational drugs should be legal, keep that in mind before you try to demonize the left with that.


Hey El, I hate to be the one to break the news to you but prohibition was repealed and alcohol is legal in the US.

[AnnEsthesia]

But again, if you take away the welfare to buy food from the people who have children, you are penalizing the children. Do you want to be a country that says to kids: "Sorry, you have shit for parents. They have not abused you enough for us to take you away and support you ourselves, but they have screwed up and so you will not eat again until they are straightened out." ??

[Scorpion]

Clay there are MANY on the right that believe alcohol and recreational drugs should be legal, keep that in mind before you try to demonize the left with that.


That is, excuse me, absolute horseshit. I'd like to see some figures which demonstrate that the right favors discretionary recreational drug use. Evidenciary figures please!

[underdawg]

I think urine tests should be abolished period.

[Kenzieman]

But again, if you take away the welfare to buy food from the people who have children, you are penalizing the children. Do you want to be a country that says to kids: "Sorry, you have shit for parents. They have not abused you enough for us to take you away and support you ourselves, but they have screwed up and so you will not eat again until they are straightened out." ??


The question is----do we reward drug users for being drug users by allowing them to stay on welfare while continuing to be drug users? What about the children of murders, rapists, bank robbers, etc? Do we dismiss their crimes because it is hard on their kids for them to be away? NO---we don't.

These people are making their own choice---and they--and their kids if there is noone to take care of them and the state won't take them-- have to live with the concequences. I don't disagree that it sucks for the kids, but on the same token, I did not make the decision. Their parents did.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I disagree with urine testing, or drug testing period, until better methods are created to test actual "under the influence%".

All of the current tests are flawed, few if any show actual "level of influence" at the current time of testing, and the information regarding these tests is not protected adequately in law, to protect the rights of people subject to them, from discrimination.

[potter]

Sure, test any recipient of tax funds for drugs. This includes all public servants right up to senators and the president.

I also think a public background check and resume should be mandatory by anyone running for office.

[Osborn F. Enready]

How do the people who support urine testing, defend the failures of the testing methods? The lack of laws to protect people being tested from discrimination by employers based on false positives or positives that have nothing to do with "hours on the clock"?

[potter]

How do the people who support urine testing, defend the failures of the testing methods? The lack of laws to protect people being tested from discrimination by employers based on false positives or positives that have nothing to do with "hours on the clock"?


Oh..you mean fairness? :madlaugh::madlaugh:

We're a punative society, we only like to punish. Fairness is for those crazy liberals.....:ecstatic:

[/sarcasm]

[December]

I disagree with urine testing, or drug testing period, until better methods are created to test actual "under the influence%"

Hello, Osborn F. Enready.

There are plenty of drug users in America, and they cannot do their jobs properly.
I DO know that.
So how do you suggest the drug user is to be identified than?

[Osborn F. Enready]

December said:
There are plenty of drug users in America, and they cannot do their jobs properly.
I DO know that.

I doubt your accusation, and would love to prove you wrong on that provided the chance, and there are many ways to do that.

December said:
So how do you suggest the drug user is to be identified than?

Why should they be?

If their actions alone aren't a giveaway, why bother?
If you need a test to tell you this, is it really a problem?

The point I am making is that urine testing is not only Constitutionally questionable regarding an employers right to do so, without regard to the information being passed, but also highly flawed in itself, as the testing methods are not vetted for accuracy between different drugs.

Urine testing especially.

Drugs like Cocaine, crack, heroine, all pass through a persons system fairly quickly, usually within 24-72 hours. People who use marijuana may test positive for up to 30 days, or longer, after using.

Employers have no right to discriminate based on drug use if that drug use isn't being done on company time. If a test can't show this, it isn't really a valid test for drugs, its a test for bias, so an employer can discriminate against people whose lifestyles they don't agree with.

Judge a person on their performance, not their after hours entertainment.

[AnnEsthesia]

So you would want to fly in a plane where the pilot could be using drugs? I sure as heck would not![hr]
The point I am making is that urine testing is not only Constitutionally questionable regarding an employers right to do so, without regard to the information being passed, but also highly flawed in itself, as the testing methods are not vetted for accuracy between different drugs.


How is it Constitutionally questionable? When you take the job you sign the employee agreement giving your employer the right to drug test you. If you don't want to be drug tested, find another job.

[Kamehameha34]

So you would want to fly in a plane where the pilot could be using drugs? I sure as heck would not!


I wouldn't want to fly in a plane with a pilot that manages to be incompetent all by themselves either, and by the same token i wouldn't mind if the pilot did drugs as long as they don't interfere with their piloting. Drug's needn't even enter the equation.

[moses2792796]

Depends on the type of drugs, if he'd been smoking meth, then I'd happily fly in that plane. I don't see how faster reaction time and extra alertness can decrease one's ability to fly a plane. On the other hand if he'd taken LSD before the flight I wouldn't be so happy, but I don't think any pilot would be crazy enough to try that.

[AnnEsthesia]

Yea, because hard drug users really are good at decision making.

[Kamehameha34]

Yea, because hard drug users really are good at decision making.


Those who are hindered by the drugs by an unacceptable level can be released, and those who endure the drugs in their system don't do the airline harm.

Your argument is self-defeating.

[AnnEsthesia]

No, not really. Do you think someone who is using is automatically unfit enough to ring the correct bells? Again, if you want to fly in a plane piloted by someone on drugs, go for it. I will not and thanks to federal laws, they are drug tested often and randomly.

[Kamehameha34]

No, not really. Do you think someone who is using is automatically unfit enough to ring the correct bells?
If "the right bells" are set so that they allow this much room for error, then standards aren't high enough.

And even then, if someone could 'not ring any bells' and still be the cause of a plaincrash, it doesn't really matter if they're using or not.

Again, if you want to fly in a plane piloted by someone on drugs, go for it.

I'd much rather fly in that plane than in one piloted by an even less competent imbecile, even if they're drug free.

Not all drug users are categorically incompetent, and those that are can be removed from the labor pool without even taking their drug usage into consideration.

[AnnEsthesia]

Well, as I said, you are free to fly in on an airline that does not test for drug usage. Thankfully, I can fly on ones that do test.

[Kamehameha34]

Well, as I said, you are free to fly in on an airline that does not test for drug usage. Thankfully, I can fly on ones that do test.


Private organizations are free to do that, and you are free to discriminate as a consumer.

However, government mandated drug screenings overstep constitutional bounds.

[AnnEsthesia]

Sorry, no they do not. The employee can choose not to have that job. When you accept that job, you sign a form stating you agree to be tested.

[Osborn F. Enready]

AnnEsthesia, mypoint is that there is such a thing as responsible use.

Someone having something in their system does not automatically mean they are irresponsible users.

I don't support drug use in the workplace, but at the same time, examples such as the "Ohio Drug Free Workplace Program" are blatantly discriminating in my opinion.

http://www.ohiobwc.com/employer/programs/dfwpinfo/dfwpdescription.asp

This program gives employers kickbacks from workers compensation to drug test their employees, whether its digging a trench or piloting a plane. Its an obvious attempt to squeeze all illegal drug users out of work, in Ohio. Whats that do for crime?

[AnnEsthesia]

As the wife of someone who tests their employees randomly, I can tell you for a fact that the ONLY employees who bitch, moan and have a problem with the testing are those who are using drugs and eventually wind up being fired because they fail the testing and refuse to go to treatment.

Public safety is more important than your right to use drugs. If you do not want to be tested, find another job. You know when you sign that form that you can and probably will be tested.[hr]
Its an obvious attempt to squeeze all illegal drug users out of work, in Ohio. Whats that do for crime?


Am I supposed to feel sorry for people who are using ILLEGAL drugs? Again, if you have signed a form allowing them to test you, don't cry later if you lose your job because your weekend snort showed up on the test.

[Osborn F. Enready]

AnnEsthesia said:
As the wife of someone who tests their employees randomly, I can tell you for a fact that the ONLY employees who bitch, moan and have a problem with the testing are those who are using drugs and eventually wind up being fired because they fail the testing and refuse to go to treatment.

And your point here?

Are you saying there is no such thing as responsible drug use? Do you not use drugs?

AnnEsthesia said:
Public safety is more important than your right to use drugs. If you do not want to be tested, find another job. You know when you sign that form that you can and probably will be tested.

I don't sign the forms, so I am not tested. Now I don't work at a regular job.

Can you prove how this helps safety of the public?
Can you prove these people are a threat?
Do you have evidence of your arguments, or references or facts, or logical premise with which to make your point?

[Kamehameha34]

Sorry, no they do not. The employee can choose not to have that job. When you accept that job, you sign a form stating you agree to be tested.


You didn't even address "constitutional bounds." You merely restated that private employers can set their own standards.

Government mandated drug screenings overstep constitutional bounds, regardless of whether or not the job is voluntary.

[AnnEsthesia]

AnnEsthesia said:
As the wife of someone who tests their employees randomly, I can tell you for a fact that the ONLY employees who bitch, moan and have a problem with the testing are those who are using drugs and eventually wind up being fired because they fail the testing and refuse to go to treatment.

And your point here?

Are you saying there is no such thing as responsible drug use? Do you not use drugs?


With the possible exception of pot, no there is no such thing as responsible hard drug use. I have yet to see a responsible crack head. Have you?

AnnEsthesia said:
Public safety is more important than your right to use drugs. If you do not want to be tested, find another job. You know when you sign that form that you can and probably will be tested.




I don't sign the forms, so I am not tested. Now I don't work at a regular job.
Can you prove how this helps safety of the public?
Can you prove these people are a threat?
Do you have evidence of your arguments, or references or facts, or logical premise with which to make your point?


Yep. If you mix the wrong chemicals together because you are not paying attention and you release it into the public distribution supply, you can sicken or kill a bunch of people. Drugs are KNOWN to cause problems with attention span, etc. By removing drugs from the equation, one can reduce the potential for public harm.

Do you really deny that drug use can cause people to make potentially dangerous mistakes?[hr]

Sorry, no they do not. The employee can choose not to have that job. When you accept that job, you sign a form stating you agree to be tested.


You didn't even address "constitutional bounds." You merely restated that private employers can set their own standards.

Government mandated drug screenings overstep constitutional bounds, regardless of whether or not the job is voluntary.


And again, if you do not wish to be drug screened, find another job. Public safety is more important than your right to use drugs. Besides the fact, show me in the constitution where it says you have the protected right to get high.

[Mark L Hamburger]

I don't sign the forms, so I am not tested. Now I don't work at a regular job.

Can you prove how this helps safety of the public?
Can you prove these people are a threat?
Do you have evidence of your arguments, or references or facts, or logical premise with which to make your point?


I guess I've just been lucky, but I've never been subject to random drug-screens, just pre-employment. In all such jobs, I have worked with many regular drug-users and have never worked with one that allowed it to interfere with their work.

It seems to me that the only people that support this sort of thing don't have any first-hand experience with drugs or drug users. While I admit that there are certain instances where a drug user isn't suited for a particular job, it shouldn't be that all drug users should be prevented from getting a job at all. You don't fire or refuse to hire someone that drinks, you only fire someone when it affects their ability to do their job. It should be the same for anything else.

[Kamehameha34]

And again, if you do not wish to be drug screened, find another job. Public safety is more important than your right to use drugs. Besides the fact, show me in the constitution where it says you have the protected right to get high.

"Finding another job" is not the issue. It's acknowledged that the private sector has a right to discriminate.

It's not up to me to show where in the constitution drug use is allowed, the burden of proof is on you to provide for me where the constitution gives the government authority to proscribe consumption of certain chemicals.

[Osborn F. Enready]

AnnEsthesia said:
With the possible exception of pot, no there is no such thing as responsible hard drug use. I have yet to see a responsible crack head. Have you?

Yes.

I also have known responsible LSD users, responsible cocaine users, responsible prescription drug users, etc.

The drug of choice does not define the person, their actions and integrity do.

AnnEsthesia said:
Yep. If you mix the wrong chemicals together because you are not paying attention and you release it into the public distribution supply, you can sicken or kill a bunch of people. Drugs are KNOWN to cause problems with attention span, etc. By removing drugs from the equation, one can reduce the potential for public harm.

You can't remove drugs from the equation, as time and the history of prohibition tell you.

Has outlawing murder removed murder from the "equation"? No. Outlawing murder is necessary however, as murder is a violation of another persons rights.

Outlawing Alchohol, do you remember that foray into illogical law?

It didn't work, and the war on drugs is no different. Its only creating a wider, more expansive, and better funded black market. Its also helping to push more young kids to abuse "prescription drugs" off of mom and dads medicine cabinet shelf.

The drug war is a constant drain of taxpayers dollars garnering no real results other than a lot of non-violent "supposed" criminals taking up space in jail, sucking up more of those taxpayers dollars.

I have no problem with an employer using an ACCURATE test to see if a person is "under the influence" on company time. The problem is there are no drug tests that are that accurate, yet.

My employer has no right to information on what I put in my body on my own time, especially if its going to be used for job descrimination.

AnnEsthesia said:
Do you really deny that drug use can cause people to make potentially dangerous mistakes?

No. I also didn't say I advocated drug use at work, on the job, or while operating dangerous equipment.

I WAS arguing about how until a decent drug test comes out, testing shouldn't be done unless employees have a right to protect the information about them that does not happen on "company time". An employer has NO RIGHT to that information, and using it as a "reason" to fire someone is blatant discrimination based on lifestyle, which you have no right to even know about.

Do you think employees should be able to know about employers private lives?

AnnEsthesia said:
And again, if you do not wish to be drug screened, find another job. Public safety is more important than your right to use drugs. Besides the fact, show me in the constitution where it says you have the protected right to get high.

Thats a fallacy argument if I have ever heard one.

Show me in the Constitution it says you have a right to buy and consume FOOD!

Will you comply with that law if they create one AnnEsthesia?

People consuming drugs responsibly has no effect on other people, or their safety.

NOTICE I said RESPONSIBLE CONSUMPTION.

Do you know that hemp, a natural cannabis product, has over 157 industrial uses?

http://www.hemptons.co.za/Uses/Industrial/Industrial.htm

Did you know the U.S. can't take advantage of that crop, or any of those industrial uses due to our backwards drug prohibition policies?

http://www.iastate.edu/~rhetoric/105H17/pmeyer/cop.html

Did you know that once hemp was a national product of the U.S.?

http://hempmuseum.org/SUBROOMS/HEMP%20HISTORY%20EARLY%20U.S..htm

Did you know that hemp makes the most beneficial biofuel on earth?

http://www.hemp4fuel.com/
http://www.hempcar.org/

Did you know Henry Ford built a car in the 1940's that ran on hemp fuel, and was built by plastics made from hemp oil?

http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rgDyEO_8cI


No, mainly because the anti-drug propaganda and the state department don't want you knowing that.

The fact is, drug prohibition is damaging Americas industry, its people, and is creating a gap of trust between non-violent law abiding citizens and the government, and their agents in the middle, the police.

Here are some policemen and women who are taking the task at hand:
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

[AnnEsthesia]

No, I do not have to provide info on the constitutionality of anything, considering I did not bring it into the conversation. If you want to discuss constitutionality, show me where it says you have the right to use illegal drugs.

And again, these drugs are ILLEGAL. If you were on legal drugs that could hinder your judgment, you could be removed from that position too. Nor do I want a narcoleptic pilot flying my plane.

If you want to use drugs, go work somewhere where they will not test you. If you are using drugs and you have agreed to random testing, don't whine and cry when you are tested and show up positive and are fired.

My heart just bleeds for you if you are a drug user and you cannot use drugs for fear of your employer firing you. Truly it does.

Oh, and yes, I do know drug users, lol. I have quite a few in my extended family and I meet a whole bunch at work.

If you want to use drugs, I am sure McDonalds is hiring and are not too picky on who works there...[hr]Oh and as for the hemp stuff... yep, help oil is great. I have lotion made with it. I also know that if you were to smoke hemp, you would get one hell of a head ache. [hr]Industrial hemp is legal to grow in 29 countries worldwide (including all G7 nations except the USA) and is explicitly exempt from international drug treaties, under which it need not be subject to stricter regulations than spinach or tomatoes. Growing hemp for horticultural purposes is also exempt. Usually varieties of cannabis grown for fibre and seed are low in THC (< 1% THC) but high in CBD which counteracts the effects of THC, making these plants completely unusable as a recreational drug, even if their THC content was as high as 1%.

http://www.taima.org/en/hemp.htm

[Osborn F. Enready]

Pretty sad debate on the issue at hand, other than an attempt to marginalize and slander all drug users, responsible or not.

That is disappointing.

[AnnEsthesia]

Sorry, I do not feel you can be a responsible meth user. Or a responsible crack head.

[Shintao]

Before the Feds decided to adopt entitlements as a way to get reelected, all manner of welfare or assistance given to people in need, was done on the county level, close to where one lived.

Oh, you mean the 1776 entitlements to families with war disabilities. I think they did d that at the state level.

It was a shameful experience to have to go to the county assistance people and say you need help, as, in a way, you are asking your neighbors.

Yeah, while the county administers it here, the neighbors understand it is not a shameful thing, it is a necessity to American survival under a capitalist economic system.

And, they being closer to you, expect you to join with your neighbors and get a job, so avoiding being trapped into doing the right thing was difficult.

Yep, they waited at the factory gate & the boss man picked out a few abled body men to be used for the day, then the horde of culls was sent on their way back to the food lines and county welfare office for handouts.

This is why federalizing it was better for the folks who wanted simply to live ff their neighbors and not be seen by them, as it is embarrassing.

Yep, but people on welfare today are smarter than the ol folks were and understand the capitalist system was made for the few & they aren't destined to be part of the few. Since the rich aren't intimidated by stealing from the poor, the welfare folks aren't embarrassed anymore. A win-win situation.

If they were drunk all the time, county welfare, being closer, better able to provide solutions and discipline, would insist they dry up. Federals would never make such a demand.


Of course they couldn't be drunk from wlefare benefits, so you must be talking about workers who lost their jobs because they spent wages on liqour and got drunk. And today the county welfare office isn't concerned. They just wished wouldn't get drunk in the doorway and pass out.[hr]
And again, if you do not wish to be drug screened, find another job. Public safety is more important than your right to use drugs. Besides the fact, show me in the constitution where it says you have the protected right to get high.

"Finding another job" is not the issue. It's acknowledged that the private sector has a right to discriminate.

It's not up to me to show where in the constitution drug use is allowed, the burden of proof is on you to provide for me where the constitution gives the government authority to proscribe consumption of certain chemicals.


Anything not delgated to the feds or state, is delegated to the people. Since thefed don't do drugs, and the state doesn't do drugs, I guess the people do the drugs. Well, looky thar!!! :madlaugh:

[Shintao]

So you are saying people are entitled to receive money from the state for not doing anything?

Sorry but people should have to EARN that money they receive, it shouldn't just be given for doing nothing.

I think they do. Clinton strted a program to put welfare people to work and they were willing and ready to go to work for their welfare. Bush didn't stop that program did he, when he subsidized welfare with his faith based charities?


It's called personal responsibility. Much like if a person robs a bank, they go to jail, if the parent can't stop doing illegal activities, the child goes elsewhere.

There are few people actually willing to take personal responsibility for themselves these days. Look at Christian Ken Lay, Donald Thrump, Libby, Cheney, Bush, and on & on. The society is diseased and flowing in corruption. Cheat on your taxes?

I don't know any judeg that says, sorry you broke the law, but since you are a parent, we are going to let it slide this time. Also don't you think 3 generations of a family on welfare is showing a trend?


Really? Well how about the Attorney general? How about the necon Supreme Court who installed the resident? Why do we have judges chosen by the parties, and liberal leaning or right leaning orI am the man?

[Osborn F. Enready]

AnnEsthesia said:
Sorry, I do not feel you can be a responsible meth user. Or a responsible crack head.

Well that is the problem then, is it not?

That YOU don't FEEL people can be responsible, so you want the government to use force against them, even though you can't prove your point.

What gives you the right to use government force as your own personal cudgel based on personal "beliefs"?

The reason crack and meth BOTH exist, is due to prohibition laws.

The made crack to make it easier to part out in small, handleable quantities, and provide more profit for the black marketer selling it.

They made meth, to get around other illegal drugs problems, before meth became illegal just like the rest.

THE PROHIBITION is the problem......

[PatrickHenry]

This thread is not about urine testing per se, but rather about a piss test to get a welfare check...

I have a buddy who got run over by a bus about 20 years ago. He has a big scar and a plate in his lower back. He is in serious pain all the time.

He has three daughters, ages 14, 13 and 10. He has a scrip to smoke cannabis, but once the 13 year old saw him do it and FREAKED.

Now my friend takes pills to control his pain and sometimes he overmedicates. I have seen him seriously impaired, even heard of him driving while impaired. He can't work. And his wife died several years ago in a medical oversight. So he is trying to keep his little girls on the right pathway, and doing a good job. They are bright, happy children, and I want them to stay with their father and each other.

Listen, I am a foster parent and the system does what it can to keep kids together, but that is frequently impossible. So I don't want these kids removed from their father. I want them and him looked after so that they can grow into their full potential.

So I won't be supporting a piss test to take away his income support if he shows positive for drugs. He's doing the best he can to manage, and I don't think any one of you could do better.

[Shintao]

This thread is not about urine testing per se, but rather about a piss test to get a welfare check...

The ultimate violation of the 4th Amendment is the cavity search. This search ranks right up there in 2nd place.

[Kenzieman]

This thread is not about urine testing per se, but rather about a piss test to get a welfare check...

I have a buddy who got run over by a bus about 20 years ago. He has a big scar and a plate in his lower back. He is in serious pain all the time.

He has three daughters, ages 14, 13 and 10. He has a scrip to smoke cannabis, but once the 13 year old saw him do it and FREAKED.

Now my friend takes pills to control his pain and sometimes he overmedicates. I have seen him seriously impaired, even heard of him driving while impaired. He can't work. And his wife died several years ago in a medical oversight. So he is trying to keep his little girls on the right pathway, and doing a good job. They are bright, happy children, and I want them to stay with their father and each other.

Listen, I am a foster parent and the system does what it can to keep kids together, but that is frequently impossible. So I don't want these kids removed from their father. I want them and him looked after so that they can grow into their full potential.

So I won't be supporting a piss test to take away his income support if he shows positive for drugs. He's doing the best he can to manage, and I don't think any one of you could do better.



In this situation, the man would have nothing to fear from a urinalysis because he HAS A PRESCRIPTION. He is legally permitted to use these medications. If he is overmedicating with the pills, then he needs to have his symptoms re-evaluated and his meds changed. There are thousands of pain meds out there---one of them will work. If that isn't an option, there are surgical procedures that can alleviate pain as well.

If someone is using ILLEGAL drugs---or legal drugs that they don't have a scrip for--then they are breaking the law. If they are on public assistance, they have no business spending money on ILLEGAL DRUGS. If someone is trying to raise children, they have no business spending money on ILLEGAL DRUGS. If someone has no job, they have no business spending time and money on ILLEGAL DRUGS.

As far as the I'm not high at work so it doesn't matter to my employer" argument----it holds no water. If someone is a drug user, more often than not, it infiltrates their lifestyle. Crack, cocane, meth, LSD and Heroin do not make someone not want to use them. They make them want them more---and more----and more. I will not say that there are NO responsible people who use illegal drugs, but I will say that they are few and far between. For the vast majority of people who use illegal drugs it becomes all consuming. You argue that mistakes in a "desk job" don't harm anyone? Tell that to the people whos personal information is stolen and used to get money---to pay for drugs. What if someone working in a pharmacy--a desk job--and they mess up someones prescription for a heart medication? Think that could do some damage?

I see the point that you are trying to make here------the problem is YOU ARE WRONG. Illegal drugs are just that----ILLEGAL. If a person wants to work for someone else, that person must accept the terms of that employment. If a person is on public assistance, by their very nature, they do not have money to spend on drugs. Or rather, they money that they could spend on drugs could certainly be spent on something else---paying of debts, buying food, improving their education so they don't need to be on welfare.

If people are intersted in doing drugs and still being employed, my suggestion is this---start your own business or move somewhere where it is legal.

[AnnEsthesia]

Amen to that Kenzie.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Kenzieman said:
As far as the I'm not high at work so it doesn't matter to my employer" argument----it holds no water.

Yes, indeed it does. I am guessing you are stating this as a matter of opinion?

Kenzieman said:
If someone is a drug user, more often than not, it infiltrates their lifestyle.
Crack, cocane, meth, LSD and Heroin do not make someone not want to use them. They make them want them more---and more----and more. I will not say that there are NO responsible people who use illegal drugs, but I will say that they are few and far between.

Can you prove this? Any stats, or is this personal opinion talking? I smell a pigeonhole.

Kenzieman said:
For the vast majority of people who use illegal drugs it becomes all consuming.

Again, any proof of this that doesn't eminate from the anti-drug propaganda team at the State Department?

Kenzieman said:
You argue that mistakes in a "desk job" don't harm anyone?

No, I argue that if they aren't high on company time, the employer has no business harassing them.

Kenzieman said:
Tell that to the people whos personal information is stolen and used to get money---to pay for drugs.

Show me some cases of this? Is this unique only to drug users, or do many other "seemingly" law abiding citizens steal things from work to save money, or for extra money?

Shall I give some examples?

The people we are supposed to TRUST with our information:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092101602.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4180/is_20020812/ai_n10068022

http://www.govtech.com/gt/208147?topic=117680

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13152636/

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/04/11/lost-or-stolen-identities/

Fear mongering against drug users is what I am seeing, along with a lack of cause and effect.

Kenzieman said:
What if someone working in a pharmacy--a desk job--and they mess up someones prescription for a heart medication? Think that could do some damage?

Again, high at work, or not?

Kenizeman said:
I see the point that you are trying to make here------the problem is YOU ARE WRONG.

In your opinion. We all have opinions, some of which are factually related and not entirely based in subjective belief.

Kenzieman said:
Illegal drugs are just that----ILLEGAL.

So is corruption, but its quite a popular trend in Washington among the lawmakers.....

Bad laws are made everyday, and some are struck down in due process. The rest, its up to the public to fight and repeal, as we are doing with the ridiculous drug prohibition laws.

Kenzieman said:
If a person wants to work for someone else, that person must accept the terms of that employment.

Agreed, as long as those terms don't violate rights of the employee.

Kenzieman said:
If a person is on public assistance, by their very nature, they do not have money to spend on drugs.

Agreed.

Kenzieman said:
Or rather, they money that they could spend on drugs could certainly be spent on something else---paying of debts, buying food, improving their education so they don't need to be on welfare.

Agreed.

Kenzieman said:
If people are intersted in doing drugs and still being employed, my suggestion is this---start your own business or move somewhere where it is legal.

...or, fight to remove ridiculous prohibition laws that damage society and force a wedge of distrust between the government and its citizens, as well as fighting for the rights we should by all reasonable argument have, before they were stolen by over-reaching federal government.

[Kenzieman]

Kenzieman said:
If someone is a drug user, more often than not, it infiltrates their lifestyle.
Crack, cocane, meth, LSD and Heroin do not make someone not want to use them. They make them want them more---and more----and more. I will not say that there are NO responsible people who use illegal drugs, but I will say that they are few and far between.

Can you prove this? Any stats, or is this personal opinion talking? I smell a pigeonhole.



Studies have shown that these ILLEGAL drugs are damaging and habit forming. If you want to debate that, be my guest.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-addiction/DS00183

http://www.focusas.com/Heroin.html

http://www.crackreality.com/

As far as "stats" to back up my statement that most drug users are by and large irresponsible, if you honestly believe otherwise, please state it.


Kenzieman said:
For the vast majority of people who use illegal drugs it becomes all consuming.

Again, any proof of this that doesn't eminate from the anti-drug propaganda team at the State Department?


Same answer---if you honestly believe that more drug users are well rounded, responsible individuals, state it.


Kenzieman said:
You argue that mistakes in a "desk job" don't harm anyone?

No, I argue that if they aren't high on company time, the employer has no business harassing them.


Just because someone is not directly under the influence does not mean their actions are not impared by their addiction. Would you allow someone who is in active delerium tremens to drive a bus? Or do your taxes? Or fill your prescriptions? They are not "under the influence" but their minds are certainly not on what they are doing!!


Kenzieman said:
Tell that to the people whos personal information is stolen and used to get money---to pay for drugs.

Show me some cases of this? Is this unique only to drug users, or do many other "seemingly" law abiding citizens steal things from work to save money, or for extra money?

Fear mongering against drug users is what I am seeing, along with a lack of cause and effect.


I will fully agree that there are plenty of people out there that do not do drugs that still break the law. No arguments there.

Last time I checked this thread wasn't talking about them though.

Should I be wary--or fearful to put it into context--of someone who is using illegal drugs---I would say yes 99% of the time. If they are not impared to the point of negligence, then they have THE POTENTIAL to endnager people around them due to drug seeking behavior--for the same reason that I have to assume that people on the road are bad drivers and take steps to ensure my safety. Am I being paranoid----maybe. But if my paranoia saves the life of my wife or my children I can live with that.



Kenzieman said:
What if someone working in a pharmacy--a desk job--and they mess up someones prescription for a heart medication? Think that could do some damage?

Again, high at work, or not?



Doesn't matter----especially in this particular instance.


Kenizeman said:
I see the point that you are trying to make here------the problem is YOU ARE WRONG.

In your opinion. We all have opinions, some of which are factually related and not entirely based in subjective belief.



[quote]Kenzieman said:
Illegal drugs are just that----ILLEGAL.

So is corruption, but its quite a popular trend in Washington among the lawmakers.....

Bad laws are made everyday, and some are struck down in due process. The rest, its up to the public to fight and repeal, as we are doing with the ridiculous drug prohibition laws.


Deflecting much? I won't deny that there are plenty of other crimes oput there, but again----NOT THE FOCUS OF THIS THREAD.



Kenzieman said:
If a person wants to work for someone else, that person must accept the terms of that employment.

Agreed, as long as those terms don't violate rights of the employee.


It's all about choice. If you don't want to be bound to those terms, CHOOSE to work somewhere else. If you CHOOSE to not work, and collect welfare form the government, then the people who pay you---the rest of the working American populace, has the right to screen you to recieve said payment. If they, and therefore the government, feels that you are not deserving of that money because you CHOOSE to spend it on ILLEGAL DRUGS, then they have to right to deny that payment.




I have a question---do you feel that people on welfare should be free to spend the money that WE give them on illegal drugs?

[Kamehameha34]

As far as the I'm not high at work so it doesn't matter to my employer" argument----it holds no water. If someone is a drug user, more often than not, it infiltrates their lifestyle.And just what about those "not" cases?

There are drug addicts that can function in everyday life. My father is an alcoholic, and is a network manager for the EPA. He's never been even tipsy at the office. Not once.

Addiction to a substance and competence in the workplace aren't mutually exclusive.


Let's also not forget, a positive on a test doesn't even mean you're an addict. It means you've used. Marijuana is a much less addictive drug than even cigarettes, or especially some of the harder drugs, yet it stays in your system for comparatively much longer.

Employers have the right to conduct drug tests if they choose to discriminate, but the government doesn't have the right or the constitutional authority to require it.

Agreed, as long as those terms don't violate rights of the employee.
Isn't it impossible to violate someone's rights if they agree to allow it?

If someone works for Microsoft and their superior requires them to shut down their internet site bashing Vista or face termination, that isn't a violation of their free speech rights. It's a negotiated agreement based on both the employer's right to discriminate and the employee's right to free speech. The problem is solved without government intervention, so I don't think there are any infringements of the first amendment.

[AnnEsthesia]

Yes Kame. If an employee signs the employee handbook where it is outlined that your employer can and will do random drug tests, you cannot later complain when you are tested and they start the process to terminate you. You knew, you agreed to it when you took the job... so sorry.

[Kenzieman]

As far as the I'm not high at work so it doesn't matter to my employer" argument----it holds no water. If someone is a drug user, more often than not, it infiltrates their lifestyle.

And just what about those "not" cases?

There are drug addicts that can function in everyday life. My father is an alcoholic, and is a network manager for the EPA. He's never been even tipsy at the office. Not once.



I'm sorry for your father's condition. Alchohol addiction is a terrible thing. But alchohol is not illegal. Being drunk at would certainly be an issue, but you've stated he has never been. I would encourage him to seek counseling and try to stop drinking---even if it's not affecting him at work it's still hard on a person's body.


I realize that there are people out there who do illegal drugs and hold jobs and do relatively well for themselves. As I've stated before, they are the exception and not the rule.

[Kamehameha34]

Studies have shown that these ILLEGAL drugs are damaging and habit forming. If you want to debate that, be my guest.

The market can take care of incompetence in the workplace. There's no government intervention necessary.

As for the drug users who aren't incompetent, who cares? What grounds would an employer have to fire them - what grounds does the government have to require their termination?

As far as "stats" to back up my statement that most drug users are by and large irresponsible, if you honestly believe otherwise, please state it.

You're the one making a claim. You have the burden of proof.

It's not up to us to "state" anything, except for the fact that your claim is insubstantiated. Substantiate it.

Just because someone is not directly under the influence does not mean their actions are not impared by their addiction. Would you allow someone who is in active delerium tremens to drive a bus? Or do your taxes? Or fill your prescriptions? They are not "under the influence" but their minds are certainly not on what they are doing!!

I wouldn't pay for the service of someone suffering from such side effects, or if they are in any way incompetent. I honestly don't care about what they do in their free time, and by the same token I would enlist the service of a drug addict if they were the best at their job.

That's capitalism.

Should I be wary--or fearful to put it into context--of someone who is using illegal drugs---I would say yes 99% of the time. If they are not impared to the point of negligence, then they have THE POTENTIAL to endnager people around them due to drug seeking behavior--for the same reason that I have to assume that people on the road are bad drivers and take steps to ensure my safety. Am I being paranoid----maybe. But if my paranoia saves the life of my wife or my children I can live with that.

Your mistake is thinking that drug users are of any danger to more than themselves, or moreso than non-drug users. If there's any evidence of this whatsoever I haven't seen it, even from you - the one allegedly defending the position in a debate.[hr]I'm sorry for your father's condition. Alchohol addiction is a terrible thing. But alchohol is not illegal.

What's the difference?

Alcohol was illegal at some point, does that mean it was any more detrimental?

The legality of a substance isn't what matters, it's the effect on the body. Alcohol has the potential of being just as impairing as marijuana, if for different reasons.

Being drunk at would certainly be an issue, but you've stated he has never been. I would encourage him to seek counseling and try to stop drinking---even if it's not affecting him at work it's still hard on a person's body.
He would thank you for this new information.

I realize that there are people out there who do illegal drugs and hold jobs and do relatively well for themselves. As I've stated before, they are the exception and not the rule.

Why does it matter who's the "rule" and who's the "exception"?

All incompetent people can be legitimately fired for incompetence.

Drug addiction is not necessarily equal to incompetence.
Therefore, drug addicts shouldn't be categorically discharged for incompetence.

If 90% of drug users in a workplace are incompetent, why fire the 10% that manages to meet expectations?

[Kenzieman]

Studies have shown that these ILLEGAL drugs are damaging and habit forming. If you want to debate that, be my guest.

The market can take care of incompetence in the workplace. There's no government intervention necessary.

As for the drug users who aren't incompetent, who cares? What grounds would an employer have to fire them - what grounds does the government have to require their termination?


We--at least I--have stated that drug users should not be recieveing WELFARE checks. If they are working, then that is between them and their employer. If they are collecting welfare, then I, and everyone else in this country who pays taxes, are their "employer". People in this country--moreso than not--believe that illegal drug use is bad. If the majority did not believe that then it would not be illegal. We would elect people that would change the laws to make these drugs legal. That's how our government works.

I will ask again---do you honestly believe that people on welfare have any business spending the money we give them on illegal drugs?


As far as "stats" to back up my statement that most drug users are by and large irresponsible, if you honestly believe otherwise, please state it.

You're the one making a claim. You have the burden of proof.

It's not up to us to "state" anything, except for the fact that your claim is insubstantiated. Substantiate it.

Same question as above. If you agree, then I'm not going to waste my time looking for facts.

Is it that you do believe that drug addicted welfare recipients are OK, and you are ashamed to say it? Or do you agree with me and you just want to argue?

[Shintao]

As far as the I'm not high at work so it doesn't matter to my employer" argument----it holds no water. If someone is a drug user, more often than not, it infiltrates their lifestyle.

And just what about those "not" cases?

There are drug addicts that can function in everyday life. My father is an alcoholic, and is a network manager for the EPA. He's never been even tipsy at the office. Not once.



I'm sorry for your father's condition. Alchohol addiction is a terrible thing. But alchohol is not illegal. Being drunk at would certainly be an issue, but you've stated he has never been. I would encourage him to seek counseling and try to stop drinking---even if it's not affecting him at work it's still hard on a person's body.


I realize that there are people out there who do illegal drugs and hold jobs and do relatively well for themselves. As I've stated before, they are the exception and not the rule.


And you know they are the exception, not the rule, because of what?

People using alcohol are brain damaged like any other drug you ingest, so they are affecting the work place like any druggie, and would still have it in their system. I assume they all go get their fix at lunch time and bring it back to the work place.

So while we set a an alcohol limit of .04 (whatever), why isn't there a limit set for drugs in the blood, instead of automatic comdenation for any amount? I have heard weed users drugs stay in their systems for a week, yet they are fired for that previous off-job experience.

[Kenzieman]

People using alcohol are brain damaged like any other drug you ingest, so they are affecting the work place like any druggie, and would still have it in their system. I assume they all go get their fix at lunch time and bring it back to the work place.


Agreed


So while we set a an alcohol limit of .04 (whatever), why isn't there a limit set for drugs in the blood, instead of automatic comdenation for any amount? I have heard weed users drugs stay in their systems for a week, yet they are fired for that previous off-job experience.

Because these drugs are ILLEGAL!!!!!:ecstatic:

[PatrickHenry]

There are millions of cannabis smokers in the US. If they are not high at work, I don't see why they should be subject to dismissal based on a piss test.

But back on topic: If a welfare recipient smokes a joint with a friend, that doesn't mean he bought the stuff.

I think we just have a member here who likes the Drug War.

[Kamehameha34]

We--at least I--have stated that drug users should not be recieveing WELFARE checks. If they are working, then that is between them and their employer.

No one should, but that's another story.

I agree with the unbolded portion.


Same question as above. If you agree, then I'm not going to waste my time looking for facts.

You should have substantiation for your claims before you make them anyway, but I don't agree with welfare in general so it's a moot point.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Kenzieman said:
It's all about choice. If you don't want to be bound to those terms, CHOOSE to work somewhere else.

How about I choose to change government to RESPECT individual rights, as they are CONSTITUTIONALLY charged with doing?

I don't see where any government has a right to claim a JUST use of force against individuals for consumption of natural substances, under any claim, but certainly not under the claim of protecting them from themselves.

Kenzieman said:
If you CHOOSE to not work, and collect welfare form the government, then the people who pay you---the rest of the working American populace, has the right to screen you to recieve said payment.

Firstly, I don't support government welfare.
Secondly, testing people who receive these payments will ONLY cost the taxpayer MORE MONEY, something many of us don't feel the right to tax for, TO BEGIN WITH.
Thirdly, the tests are flawed, and what is the sense or benefit in growing a market of flawed science, unless to manipulate it to appear legitimate?

Kenzieman said:
If they, and therefore the government, feels that you are not deserving of that money because you CHOOSE to spend it on ILLEGAL DRUGS, then they have to right to deny that payment.

I want to see their RIGHT to DEDUCT that payment SO THEY CAN REDISTRIBUTE IT?

Kenzieman said:
I have a question---do you feel that people on welfare should be free to spend the money that WE give them on illegal drugs?

I don't think the government has a right use force to aquire the wealth in which is redistributed, under the false "name" of public welfare, and I most assuredly don't think they can make claim to justify an ADDITIONAL cost at doling out the unjust, and forcefully aquired gains, regardless of pretense.

[Kenzieman]

Kenzieman said:
It's all about choice. If you don't want to be bound to those terms, CHOOSE to work somewhere else.

How about I choose to change government to RESPECT individual rights, as they are CONSTITUTIONALLY charged with doing?


Be my guest----the ability to change the government is one of the things that makes this country great. Just remember--to change the government you need a majority of people to believe the way that you do.


testing people who receive these payments will ONLY cost the taxpayer MORE MONEY, something many of us don't feel the right to tax for, TO BEGIN WITH.

the tests are flawed, and what is the sense or benefit in growing a market of flawed science, unless to manipulate it to appear legitimate?



To the first---I would guess---and this is just conjecture on my part--that all the addicts falling off the welfare rolls would more than make up for the cost of the testing.

To the second--How exactly are these tests flawed---when applied to the situation we are arguing here? You have stated before that the current testing method does not determine if someone is actually impared at work. Ok---I can buy that. But the situation we are arguing here is weather or not someone should be subject to drug testing if they recieve welfare. When you are on welfare, you are NEVER AT WORK, therefore the timing of your imparment is IRRELIVANT. This testing would be to determine if you are using the money GIVEN to you by people who pay taxes to purchase illegal drugs. If there is anything in your system, then you have done so. It is also used as sort of a responsibility test. If you are on welfare, and really should be looking for a job, why are you spending any time doing drugs? Is this something that will help or hinder you from gaining employment?

Kenzieman said:
I have a question---do you feel that people on welfare should be free to spend the money that WE give them on illegal drugs?

I don't think the government has a right use force to aquire the wealth in which is redistributed, under the false "name" of public welfare, and I most assuredly don't think they can make claim to justify an ADDITIONAL cost at doling out the unjust, and forcefully aquired gains, regardless of pretense.
[/quote]

Ok---that's certainly your right to believe. I realize that you disagree with the welfare system. Be that as it may, do you feel that recipients of welfare should be free to spend that money on illegal activities?

[PatrickHenry]

This testing would be to determine if you are using the money GIVEN to you by people who pay taxes to purchase illegal drugs. If there is anything in your system, then you have done so. It is also used as sort of a responsibility test. If you are on welfare, and really should be looking for a job, why are you spending any time doing drugs? Is this something that will help or hinder you from gaining employment?
You have made a statement that requires substantiation.

Money from welfare has been spent on drugs because the person has drugs in their system?

Unproven. What the welfare recipient smoked a joint with a friend who had some? What if they grew it in their back yard? Admit it that you just have a bias against the recreational use of drugs and welfare recipients and find this an easy excuse for targeting both.

And welfare is not the same as unemployment insurance. THAT'S the system that requires you to look for work.

[Kenzieman]

Money from welfare has been spent on drugs because the person has drugs in their system?

Unproven. What the welfare recipient smoked a joint with a friend who had some? What if they grew it in their back yard? Admit it that you just have a bias against the recreational use of drugs and welfare recipients and find this an easy excuse for targeting both.

And welfare is not the same as unemployment insurance. THAT'S the system that requires you to look for work.



Without a reciept (LOL) there is no way for me to prove someone spent welfare money on drugs. That is undeniably true.

However, if someone is on welfare---or even if they are not for that matter--but speaking to welfare recipients specifically, they have no business doing drugs. Someone on welfare has better things to do with their time--looking for a job comes to mind--than spending it growing drugs or using someone elses drugs. If they are growing drugs--where are they growing it? Usually, someone who is recieveing welfare is renting a place. I realize that there are people who own a home and recieve welfare, but certainly not the majority of people. We are giving them money to use for rent for a place to commit a felony? Ummmmm---NO!!! I just find it amazing that taxpayers, the people who contribute money to pay the checks that welfare recipients recieve, are arguing that it should be OK to use that money for drugs. That just floors me.

As to your statement that I have a bias against welfare recipients--you are partly true. People who recieve welfare because they are going through hard times and need some help to get through it AND are looking for work--work that is legal and will pay the bills--are absolutly fine by me. I have had my fair share of hard times and, though I'vfe never been on welfare, I have recieved food stamps and WIC. The people that I have a problem with are people that plan to go on welfare as soon as they are old enough. People that do and deal drugs while recieving MY TAX MONEY. People that abuse the system and bilk their neighbors for their living expenses while they are out partying and screwing around. People that have no desire to contribute back to society---they just want to live off the work of others.

To those people who have no issue with druggies on welfare----instead of sending that money to them, just send it to me. I can find constructive ways to spend it--my kids college, improving my home, paying my bills, things like that.[/b]

[Shintao]

Usually, someone who is recieveing welfare is renting a place.



Sacramento found a rash of rented/leased homes that were being used to grow pot in. All of these homes were found to be rich business type growers. I recall one was a realestate agent. I don't recall any welfare rentals, these were $2-300,000 dollar homes in rich neighborhoods.