Printable View
In most places nowadays, you cant get a job without taking a drug test so what is the difference?
I'm not talking Big Brother crud, I'm just saying that if a aperson has a history of drug problems or something of that nature that they should have to be clean to gain benefits.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Irrelevant. This is not about jobs in the private sector. This is about how we draw the line concerning government intrusion into our private affairs.Quote:
Originally posted by cincygreg:
In most places nowadays, you cant get a job without taking a drug test so what is the difference?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This IS "Big Brother crud". It's all about how we are going to allow the government to monitor us.Quote:
I'm not talking Big Brother crud, I'm just saying that if a aperson has a history of drug problems or something of that nature that they should have to be clean to gain benefits.
The article that is referenced is about who gets to decide "probable cause" when mandating a drug test to recipients of public assistance. The main argument concerns whether to allow untrained, with respect to legal probable cause determinations, to mandate drug tests. It is an extension of police powers to people who have no business making such legal determinations.
It's like saying that marcie the crossing guard should be able to mandate a drug test for you because she sees you stumble on the curb. Lack of motor coordination ? must be drugs. You get to be legally required to pee in the cup.
Don?t misunderstand. I am against most all forms of drug testing as I find them to be outside of the pale for any government to mandate except in situations related to safety where there is real, legally defensible, probable cause for someone trained in such things to suspect that someone?s abilities are impaired at a time that causes a concern for people?s safety.
I am curious as well as to why seem to equate drug problems with governmental assistance. What?s your basis for this belief? I mean if receiving governmental assistance is an indicator of drug use then I have to ask again: You ever receive anything from the gov? Then why are you exempt from drug testing? We might want to make sure that a consumer, you, of government services is "worthy" of receiving them, after all.
This trend to want to cut people off at the knees if they somehow don't measure up to some sort of evangelical moral ideal is abhorrent to me. While I am not christian I always find it useful with these kinds of issues to ask the trite but sometimes true "What would jesus do" question. Somehow I don?t see him standing there with the specimen cup.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ September 17, 2004 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Pi?a ]</font>
It's not irrelevant you moron.
How can you honestly say that that it is irrelevent that people who seek employment in most jobs have to take a drug test ?
How can a sane person actually say that it is ok to test those who seek gainful empolyment, but not those who dont?
Get over yourself anf your pompous crap.
CG
I know your comprehension skills aren't what most would wish for in their children but I'll try just this once to explain what apparently is a complicated notion to you.
Drug testing for employment is irrelevant to this discussion because this discussion is not about employment. Simple? No? OK, let's continue.
This discussion is about who gets to decide to compel someone receiving governmental benefits to take a drug test based on their interpretation of what is or is not probable cause that they are using illegal drugs. The republican legistlators referenced in the article want to give that power to people who frankly aren't qualified to make that determination.
If you read the article you would see that. Well, ok, maybe you wouldn't but any reasonable person would.
So while employment testing may be tangentially related it is not directly comparable to the issue raised by the article.
In other words: It's not relevant.
Corporate drug testing could be relevant to this discussion in that neither is truly mandatory. I've been tested several times, but I could refuse and quit my job. (Or if I tested positive, undergo treatment and come out a corporate hero.) Similarly, welfare recipients could refuse the drug test and go off the program. Sure both are difficult choices, but what's the problem if you're not being forced to do it? [img]wink.gif[/img]
I think I mentioned this before, but some drug testees (heeee!) are more equal than others. Our company randomly drew the name of an employee for drug testing who has knowledge critical to improving technology. He balked and was allowed to take a one month leave of absence and take his test upon his return, then continue on as if nothing unusual had happened. Anyone else would prolly be shitcanned instantly. [img]mad.gif[/img]
Side issue - if marijuana is ever legalized, few people will be able to enjoy it. Every corporate or Government employee, and every welfare recipient will be tested regularly. Only college students, bums, and the self employed will be able to do it. Guess we'll have more professional students when that happens. [img]graemlins/party.gif[/img]
This is a gray area for me.
You see, I don't care if people want to use drugs for fun that don't endanger others by their use. For example, if you drink, don't drive. If you are going to be operating a large truck, go easy on the OTC cough/cold/allergy medicine if you know you're sensitive to sleepiness with them. Don't take angel dust if you are going to be around other people.
But don't use money that I have provided via the government for things other than shelter, food and other basic necessities of life.
And don't ask your employees to take a drug test if their productivity is not suffering.
The guy that Lan referred to - the guy that was more equal than the others due to being more valuable - if he did not have "performance issues" that were causing problems why should he be tested? It would serve the employer right if this guy went to a company that did not have random testing for existing employees, just upon cause.
Oh yeah, and I agree with Pi?a about the Marcie the crossing guard thing. That is one of my problems with the way the thing in Michigan is being presented, that people without proper training will be making the judgements.
(Pi?a, that was a pretty funny image! I got a good mental picture of Marcie when I tripped on the curb, the set of her mouth as she whipped out her notebook.)
Pina, I think YOU need to be tested!
The point is that people on welfare should not be able to subsidize illegal activity with their welfare money.
It would be almost impossible to monitor how they spend it, and that would be a waste of more tax dollars but...
Drug testing those with drug histories might at least put a dent in it.
I used the employment thing as an example of why you have no clue about anything and the fact that you see no corelation between welfare and jobs.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Answer me this. Why not? Really, why do you think they shouldn't be able to spend their benefits as they see fit?Quote:
Originally posted by cincygreg:
The point is that people on welfare should not be able to subsidize illegal activity with their welfare money.
(And before you go off on one of your juvenille rants about how anyone can't see why not please keep in mind that they only prove that you can't support your position. Not that the other person is wrong.)
So, big mouth, prove your case.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Illegal drugs are, well, illegal.Quote:
Originally posted by Pi?a:
Answer me this. Why not? Really, why do you think they shouldn't be able to spend their benefits as they see fit?
2. It's not THEIR money. Taxpayers support the them. And welfare isn't a "benefit".
I have no problem with helping people in need. I DO have a problem with supporting crack habits.
Welfare is there to help those who can't work. If one cannot work because one is a druggie, there are enough programs out there to help one get straight.
Our tax dollars should not go to those who won't work so they can stay home and get high.