• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Mandantory Drug Tests

Status
Not open for further replies.
#81
Rockmusician said:
I am all for drug testing, community service and placing limits on how long a person can receive the benefits you mentioned. I also think the system has to stop rewarding people for having more children. If you are getting welfare, one of the requirements should be that you cannot have any more children until you are off of it.
Click to expand...

The single mother should have to work, go through the VERY stressful process of getting benefits, spend the time getting drug tested, do community service, have a deadline and take care of her children so that social services doesn't take them away.

Maybe you weren't raised by a single mother and have no compassion or understanding of the strength it takes to do what they are already doing, but some people were. Being a single mother is probably one of the toughest balancing acts ever.
 
#83
While I fully realize that there are people taking advantage of the system, I am also aware that all of those receiving aid are not criminals. Treating them like they are liars and addicts from the get-go is operating under a false assumption.

This is entirely unconstitutional. Why? Because the government, employees of said government, and employees of agencies tied to the government are not allowed to test, search, or otherwise violate your privacy without a warrant. There are exceptions to this, such as a DUI test, but you have to agree with those exceptions. That is where getting drug tested for a job differs from this. By agreeing to take a drug test at a work place, and accepting a position at that workplace, you are agreeing to play by their rules. You are entering a contract with them and AGREEING to waive your right to privacy and get tested. Just because you are on welfare does not mean you are a druggie, and manipulating the system to assume guilt is ridiculous.

While there may not be anything directly in the Constitution about providing assistance to citizens, laws passed by Congress allow certain individuals to collect money during so called "times of need." Many people disagree with handouts in general, that's fine. Many people want a reform of the system, and that's fine too; however, drug testing is not going to "fix" wellfare the way people want it fixed. If you want there to be a reform in the system, by all means go for it, but don't violate someone's rights to do it.

And no one has answered the question of costs. Where will the money to fund this come from? Do you believe that the savings due to a decrease in people receiving benefits will outweigh those costs, etc? Do you have any evidence to back those claims up? If not, then not only will this be unconstitutional, but it could be a potential financial disaster.
 
#84
jp58 said:
This is entirely unconstitutional. Why? Because the government, employees of said government, and employees of agencies tied to the government are not allowed to test, search, or otherwise violate your privacy without a warrant. There are exceptions to this, such as a DUI test, but you have to agree with those exceptions. That is where getting drug tested for a job differs from this. By agreeing to take a drug test at a work place, and accepting a position at that workplace, you are agreeing to play by their rules. You are entering a contract with them and AGREEING to waive your right to privacy and get tested. Just because you are on welfare does not mean you are a druggie, and manipulating the system to assume guilt is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Nothing unconstituational about it. By agreeing to accept assistance from the state you are agreeing to play by their rules, and if drug testing is a part of those rules then so be it. As it stands, drug testing is not. The government can change that if it sees fit.
 
#85
On reflection, and on re-examining the DUI checkpoint thread I've reconsidered. I'd not support mandatory testing for anyone who doesn't have a previous record of drug use. Anything else seems inconsistent to me.

Once someone has crossed the line, then the people picking up the tab get to say "we'll pay for needs, but not wants; recreational drugs are - by definition - not needs; you're a proven drug user; we're going to require testing". ('course, you can extend that to cigarettes and alcohol as well, and probably should...)

Folks who don't have a record of drug use should be able to keep their dignity.

IMO, etc.
 
#87
UncleFluffy said:
On reflection, and on re-examining the DUI checkpoint thread I've reconsidered. I'd not support mandatory testing for anyone who doesn't have a previous record of drug use. Anything else seems inconsistent to me.

Once someone has crossed the line, then the people picking up the tab get to say "we'll pay for needs, but not wants; recreational drugs are - by definition - not needs; you're a proven drug user; we're going to require testing". ('course, you can extend that to cigarettes and alcohol as well, and probably should...)

Folks who don't have a record of drug use should be able to keep their dignity.

IMO, etc.
Click to expand...

Alcohol and cigarettes are legal products. Who decides what "Need" is? Might as well extend it to french fries, soda, etc.
 
#92
Jim Campbell said:
and that choice comes with a price....because one makes that choice in no way makes it my responsibility to support them....
Click to expand...

Maybe take a look at post #78, why should I be supporting them? They earn more than enough, but still function on pure greed, oh I do feel the guilty should be pursued, all the way to the Houses of Parliament ; )

I'm none too pleased about subsiding their coke habit neither.

Invalid Link Removed
 
#95
Drug testing is an invasion of privacy and method of surveillance. Requiring it is also a way to line the pockets of the companies that administer the drug test.

From a UA standpoint. Drug testing also singles out Marijuana users because the compound; THC, can remain in your system for up to 30 days after one use whereas harder drugs are out of your system in a few hours to a few days.

What this does is say it's okay to do crack and meth because you can likely pee clean if you get popped but don't do a harmless little plant because you can loose your job,...or be considered non-hire-able or not be considered for assistance if the OP has his way.

That said I really don't think that illicit drug users should get a free ride,...but drug testing isn't the answer.
 
#97
It was just an idea. I am not anti drug. I am not anti alcohol. I drink and smoke. I also work 60 hrs a week, supporting my fiance, and daughter. If i had my way, people would be held accountable for their actions. I don't believe you should have privacy from drug tests if you are relying on others (taxpayers) to support you. Just like a parent can piss test their kids.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back