ForumsWEPRWhats fair to you? Whats Fair to Every one?

33 5993
zoago
offline
zoago
14 posts
Scribe

If I have to be drug tested to get a new job. If I have to be drug tested to Keep my job. If I have toe be drug tested if I get hurt one the job. Then why don't people on disability or welfare or any other kind of state funding/supplementation get drug tested?
Any thoughts?

  • 33 Replies
grimml
offline
grimml
879 posts
Nomad

But what if you smoke weed in your spare time (not too often), for example at your holidays. Then you go to work but you ain't high or stoned or drunk or whatever... Why should the employer care what I do in my spare time?

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

When you are submitted for drug testing, how thorough of a search determines when you did those drugs. A blood test can reveal you have done those drugs for months. A urine sample is shorter, but I don't know how short it is. They won't do blood tests though, as far as I'm aware. That's the point, though. If they know you smoked pot, or did drugs recently, that's a bad image.

AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

Since these people don't have jobs then its ok they are doing drugs?


Your coffee, alchohol and cigarettes are all drugs that people spend money on, do we start testing the unemployed for these things as well? Do we then deny unemployed people these things because they spend money they get from the goverment on a pack of cigarettes?

Money is mearly a barter system to stop resources being gobbled up and keep our society in check. There is well enuf in the world for everyone to have food, some beer, a smoke, somewhere to go. But then we are talking idealistic ideas here. Yes I am Idealistic but I accept some arent altho their silly buggers imo :P

Why should it be? It's random and infrequent. It's to ensure the safety of the job and its employees. An employer or police officer is not intruding on your privacy if they want to make sure you are not taking drugs while on the job. It can essentially be a hazard.


Its not the testing thats the problem. Weed can stay with you for a while, allow random testing to happen i.e. become the norm and I guarantee most companies will want their employees to never take drugs, not even on recreation. Then you have people being made redundant for a recreational lifestyle that may not even affect their work ability. Its the illegality and criminalization of tha drugs thats the problem. Alchohol is legal and you dont see alchogeddon, nor would you see weedogeddon, crackcocainogeddon or herogeddon.

By all means test me, but treat it with the same idea as a breath test. Study the effects and determine in the same way as alchohol, when does it become safe i.e. when do the drugs effects and/or impair things like driving, operating machinery etc...

We do it with drink... other drugs are no different (tho you may find LSD has a considerably longer time that beer, so no waking up and jumping in your car in the morning)



To sum up I would say no we should not have drugs tests because you are slowly squishing peoples liberty to mess their own body up and thinking you can keep a lid on the human race. Children who are constantly suppressed end up with problems, humans as whole are not much different.

I wish we lived in my idealistic world where drugs were used as recreation in a responsible manner just like alcohol is, now you may laugh but seriously, we really havent had alcohogeddon have we and any illusions and justification of allowing alcohol to be legal and other drugs not legal is unfounded and automatically bias through what your told about drug deaths, overdoses, killings, crime, upbringing and taboo etc... most of this comes about precisely because its illegal and means we need to research these subjects properly.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

The drug tests are to ensure that all employees are of sound mind when working. The assumption is that one who has drugs in their system, or alcohol which is tested for as well, are most likely in some way impaired. The primary purpose behind this testing is for insurance reasons. If the employer can show to their insurance company that everyone passes a drug test, and has stipulations which state that any employee who is on drugs at the time of any accident or incident at work is solely liable, it reduces their insurance rates and increases profit.

AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

The drug tests are to ensure that all employees are of sound mind when working. The assumption is that one who has drugs in their system, or alcohol which is tested for as well, are most likely in some way impaired.


And in practice this is right to do... but we both know that if you had some traces of alcohol from last weekend in your hair (which is a record of your bodily consumption) then you would not be made redundant from a legal drug.

So again I say, test me, but only after you make these drugs legal.
zoago
offline
zoago
14 posts
Scribe

I am new To this Forum and I think I should have made my question more clear. IT should have been " Do you think People on welfare or any other state funding should be drug tested since most people get drug tested for jobs. I also believe every one deserves a go at life but is it fair if they are using tax funds to pay for a illegal habit?

zoago
offline
zoago
14 posts
Scribe

Hmmmm I guess you didn't read my last post.....

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Obviously you don't know a whole lot about the welfare/cash assistance system. If you are on social assistance programs you do not get cash unless:

A) You have a child and a partner is not paying their child support/you have filed for child support from your child's non-resident parent

B) You are on unemployment (meaning you had a job and were laid off for reasons other than termination by the company for violations) and then you only get that money commensurate to your previous pay and time at that job

C) You are a parent of a child who qualifies for and receives SSI (social security income)

D) You are a registered and participating Kinship Foster Care provider

In none of these instances is the cash amount substantial, and in all instances (except unemployment, which isn't a government benefit technically speaking) the spending of your cash assistance is monitored in that it is deposited on to a debit card and all transactions/withdrawls are monitored by the agency providing the funds. For example, if you are continuously using your cash assistance to purchase alcohol/tobacco products you may have your assistance terminated.

For this reason there is no need for drug testing of all recipients of assistance. Any other assistance other than cash is for food stamps and are only able to be used on qualifying food product purchases, or are in the form of direct payment, such as utility/rental assistance where the recipient of the benefits never even touches the money.

zoago
offline
zoago
14 posts
Scribe

Obviously you don't know how people like to work the system. Did you know that there are people who trade their food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar (or some other dollar amount)so they can buy drugs? Even if it is on a EBT card. Guess what they don't ask for identification when using food stamps.
Did you know that Social security Disability have a supplemental income.
"Supplemental Security Income ([b]SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes)[/b]"
This money is direct deposited into their account and they are able to do whatever they see fit with it.
This has been an ongoing debate for a long time.


In none of these instances is the cash amount substantial


How do you know that about unemployment? Not every one gets paid the same. The amounts vary dramatically from a maximum of $230 in Mississippi to $628 in Massachusetts and that's every week.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Did you know that there are people who trade their food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar (or some other dollar amount)so they can buy drugs? Even if it is on a EBT card. Guess what they don't ask for identification when using food stamps.


Yeah, I do know that, and I know that it's illegal and also quite rare. Also, most stores ask for your ID when using your EBT card much as they ask for ID when you use your credit card.

"Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes)"
This money is direct deposited into their account and they are able to do whatever they see fit with it.


Yep, and it's available to those who have paid into the tax fund, or are recipients of someone else's benefits after having paid into the system, and the money received is commensurate to the amounts paid in and the length of time paid in.

How do you know that about unemployment? Not every one gets paid the same. The amounts vary dramatically from a maximum of $230 in Mississippi to $628 in Massachusetts and that's every week.


Again, it's based on your previous income and length of time in that job. The more you make and the longer you work the more you are entitled to in the event of a lay-off.

Also, I'd like to point out the costs involved with drug testing everyone receiving benefits. These benefits are tax funded programs and if we required all recipients to submit to drug testing on some regular basis that would also have to be paid for by our taxes.

We would end up spending far more on testing than would be saved by taking away benefits from those who are misusing them. In such a financial situation where the money available is already not enough your proposition would further decrease the available funds and create an even greater strain on the funding organizations.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Oh, and since you didn't do your research into SSI, outside of quoting the text that pops up on the google search, let me copy the description from the SSI section of the SSA website:

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):

It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and

It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.
zoago
offline
zoago
14 posts
Scribe

It seems to me when you reply to a post your not giving your input Your giving THE answer. You said

In none of these instances is the cash amount substantial
and I replied with How do you know that about unemployment? Not every one gets paid the same. The amounts vary dramatically from a maximum of $230 in Mississippi to $628 in Massachusetts and that's every week. $230X4= 920 and $628x4= 2512. Those aren't amounts to sneeze at.
You totally avoided the question you kinda just walked around it by saying
Again, it's based on your previous income and length of time in that job. The more you make and the longer you work the more you are entitled to in the event of a lay-off.


About SSI

I know for a fact you don't have to pay into ssi to get ssi. All you have to do is get a doctor to say your disabled.

We would end up spending far more on testing than would be saved by taking away benefits from those who are misusing them.


Prove this.
zoago
offline
zoago
14 posts
Scribe

I actually went here. [url=http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/] Than you very much sir.

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

and I replied with How do you know that about unemployment? Not every one gets paid the same. The amounts vary dramatically from a maximum of $230 in Mississippi to $628 in Massachusetts and that's every week.


Again, these are MAXIMUM FIGURES. And, as I said, these are based on income. Now, our MAXIMUM UNEMPLOYMENT INCOME FIGURES for Massachusetts are, as you say, ~$2,500 monthly. Again, this is the most you can make on unemployment. Now, let's look at the median income (average monthly income) for Massachusetts.

Median income for Mass. for 2008 was $65,304 annually, or $5,442 monthly. So as you can see if you are getting the MAXIMUM for unemployment, you will be receiving less than half of the average income. Seems like it's a relatively small amount.

Median income for Mississippi for 2008 was $37,818, or ~$3,151 monthly. Again, a far cry from the MAXIMUM UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT of $920 per month.

Unemployment insurance is not designed to be an income, it's designed for you to receive a very small portion of your previous income so you don't end up homeless while you are between jobs, and again, time of employment, previous salary, cost of living, tax bracket, these are all factors which determine your benefit amounts.



I know for a fact you don't have to pay into ssi to get ssi. All you have to do is get a doctor to say your disabled.


While this is true, the preponderance of those receiving benefits have worked and paid into taxes, mitigating the cost to other taxpayers, like myself. Again, it is a federal benefit to the elderly and disabled. Honestly, I'm not too worried about this demographic running down to the Bronx to score some crack.

Oh, and about the drug testing: The average cost of a simple drug test is $42. There are currently 37 million people receiving food stamps, and another 4 million receiving other benefits, like cash assistance, TANF, utilities and rental assistance etc.

The cost to test these 41 million people just once annually for basic drugs would be in excess of 1.7 billion dollars. And, as we all know, one annual test does not cut it, especially to hinder the use of drugs like cocaine and methamphetemines which are processed in as little as 3 days, and marijuana which is processed in less than 30 days.

Again, these funds would be paid by our taxes, which you seem to have a problem with being spent in the form of assistance to needy families.

Let me ask you this: How old are you, how long have you worked, and how much have you paid in taxes, since you seem so concerned about it.
zoago
offline
zoago
14 posts
Scribe

I don't have a problem With Needy family's getting benefits. What I don't agree with are the people who abuse the system.

Showing 16-30 of 33