Welfare applicants decline to take drug test, fueling debate over new law

[Inthemiddle]

No, i dont think so Care. It is still voluntary.... yes, they have a choice. The don't have to apply for the assistance. No one is forcing them to take the assistance.

This is the thing, the fact that they are "voluntarily" applying does not magically make the REQUIRED search constitutionally permissible. That would be like saying that since you choose to drive a car, the government can stop you any time they want and search you and your car. Yes, you choose to drive. But that does not mean the government can simply adopt requirements attached to it that will force you to forsake your constitutionally protected privacy.

 

[manifold]

False.

As an overall percentage, very few companies do pre-employment drug tests. And of those, even fewer do random drug tests.

You just make shit up, doncha?

{Drug testing, legally required for many public employers, has become widespread in the private sector over the past two decades. A 2006 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 84 percent of employers required new hires to pass drug screenings, and 39 percent randomly tested employees after they were hired. In addition, 73 percent tested workers when drug use was suspected and 58 percent required testing after accidents on the job.}

Job Applicant? Expect a Drug Test | TheLedger.com

Interesting claim to be sure. But I wish they would've given more detail about the actual survey since it conflicts with everything I've ever read. I've yet to be given an employment drug test, nor do I know anyone personally that has ever had to take one.

 

[Care4all]

they have to take the assistance or starve or let their children starve...

Or they could, you know, like not use their money to buy drugs.....

they wouldn't be there if they had the means to support themselves...it has a cap of 2 years only.

Before being transferred to SSI for a substantial raise.

and yes, there may be SOME, or a FEW that are not in that kind of bind and are trying to game the system....but they will be there whether you drug test the innocent or you don't.


if you choose to drug test this one small group just because they are getting a drip of your taxes paid, then you will need to drug test every single soul that receives gvt subsidies, gvt bailouts, gvt EICredits, gvt child tax credits, gvt grants for college....etc etc etc etc etc....all of those things above can then be drug tested based on this precedence and that will never happen, or you hope that will never happen....more of our taxes will be going towards drug testing than the subsidies or assistance itself....it is ridiculous! And wasteful. I don't want my tax dollars going towards drug tests on the innocent....nor should you, again, imho.

Your alleged logic is beyond faulty.

no it is not faulty, it is realistic...

AND AS THE RESULTS SHOW, you are not drug testing just drug users, you are drug testing thousands of innocent people.....

are you willing to allow the gvt to drug test you, just because you are taking a $1000 dollar child tax credit?

Are you willing to allow the gvt to have you submit to a drug test because you are receiving a college grant?

Are you willing to have the gvt force corporate ceos to a drug test that received bail out money?

Where will it end?

Or are you just concerned with the poorest among us?

what's the purpose of the drug test? if you say they are getting your tax money...then so are alot of other people and entities, are you really willing to have our gvt drug test all of them monthly and pay for it?

it's bullcrud uncensored! It really is..

 

[syrenn]

No, i dont think so Care. It is still voluntary.... yes, they have a choice. The don't have to apply for the assistance. No one is forcing them to take the assistance.

This is the thing, the fact that they are "voluntarily" applying does not magically make the REQUIRED search constitutionally permissible. That would be like saying that since you choose to drive a car, the government can stop you any time they want and search you and your car. Yes, you choose to drive. But that does not mean the government can simply adopt requirements attached to it that will force you to forsake your constitutionally protected privacy.

I take it you have never heard of a field sobriety test. You want to drive... they have the right to test you. However you have a good point... drug testing should be required for all drivers licenses.

Sure it it permissible. The requirements of receiving a check are a clean drug test... no one is forcing them to test.

 

[The T]

No, i dont think so Care. It is still voluntary.... yes, they have a choice. The don't have to apply for the assistance. No one is forcing them to take the assistance.

I am not in any way saying that any of the people are on drugs. If they have nothing to hide...they also have nothing to worry about. It will however, winnow out the ones who ARE on drugs and do NOT deserve government money to help them continue on drugs.

Getting rid of welfare is not a good idea. Getting rid of the ones who don't deserve it or are abusing the system is a good idea.

they have to take the assistance or starve or let their children starve...they wouldn't be there if they had the means to support themselves...it has a cap of 2 years only.

and yes, there may be SOME, or a FEW that are not in that kind of bind and are trying to game the system....but they will be there whether you drug test the innocent or you don't.


if you choose to drug test this one small group just because they are getting a drip of your taxes paid, then you will need to drug test every single soul that receives gvt subsidies, gvt bailouts, gvt EICredits, gvt child tax credits, gvt grants for college....etc etc etc etc etc....all of those things above can then be drug tested based on this precedence and that will never happen, or you hope that will never happen....more of our taxes will be going towards drug testing than the subsidies or assistance itself....it is ridiculous! And wasteful. I don't want my tax dollars going towards drug tests on the innocent....nor should you, again, imho.

And for all of that Care... Welfare is still voluntary, it is a choice to apply for the assistance. They are not forced.

If they refuse to test they dont get a check. The rules are clearly stated before they apply. Just as with any job, you want a job that requires a drug test, you take the drug test....or you dont get the job. If you dont want to test ....don't apply. Personal choice.

And personal responsibility.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Amazing the hurdles repubs advocate for (welfare drug testing, voter picture ID's) while screaming for less government. The fact that Florida wasted a Ron of money on drug testing since very few were users, and still claim fiscal conservatism as well.

 

[WatertheTree]

I worked nearly 30 years before I retired....I never had to take a drug test for any job that I held.

Upper management NEVER has to take drug tests, and the corps that I worked for did not test their corporate office or field workers either. they only drug tested the employees that worked in the distribution center, because a lot of dangerous equipment to move the goods were present and needed to be operated.

No one in an office setting was drug tested. If they did not performed their job, then they were fired after the proper amount of write ups. they were not fired for doing drugs on their time off....they were fired if they could not perform the job they were paid to do...period.

As upper management, not once did I ever fire a person because of drugs....and I fired 11 out of the 12 employees I inherited at a new managers job once....leaving me and the 1 employee running the show until I could hire more...but again, not one of these people were fired for doing drugs, but for not doing their job and a few for stealing.

I hold a Director level position, I was drug tested. Everyone on my staff was drug tested (IT.) Our facilities manager was injured, he was tested. Our current president was hired as a production manager, HE was tested, I know, I filled out his clinic slip.

Most companies drug test, at every level. A company that tested line workers and not management is setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

True, insurance is cheaper. Any injury on the job requires it.

Doesnt change the fact that anyone that wanted to pass a piss test could for less then 20$. Same with a hair folical test.

Just more false sense of security.

 

[The T]

Society has every right to demand limits be set when they are footing the bill. The moochers should be thankful.

This is ASSUMING, of course, that the MOOCHERS are not already serving some purpose toward society. What of community service and volunteers? What of the farming facts? What of the many young and beautiful girls that come from such grounded bases?

Calm yerself. The responsible ones that lost thier jobs for no fault of thier own for whatever reason and are still being responsible and looking aren't really the ones that I'm speaking of.

I speak to the ones squirting out babies just to get a check...subjecting themselves to inept and absent fathers...using the funds for other than the purposes they are meant...you know? Irresponsibility.

But if anyone takes the public dole...they should also be subject to the same thing. Those paying the bill have every right to demand it.

Lady justice wears a blind for a reason.

 

[Jackson]

I had a few sticking points before answering this important question about drug testing for entitlement checks. What if they didn't take the test because a) the testing facility was not convenient for them, b they had no transportation or c) they didn't have money to pay for the test.

Any one of those situations does not make them poor candidates for the funds. I would suggest that those without transportation get in touch with a DTD Drug Testing Driver, a van who could pick up those and take them to a the drug testing facility and retun them home. If they were unable to pay for the test, $35.00 would be deducted for the test and the could have the remainder in a check form. The DTD would not be costly considering there would be fewer people taking the drug test and fewer people taking the checks.

This is tax payer money intended to help people in need to feed, clothes and provide shelter for themselves and their children. If the money is used for other purposes, drugs for example, it violates the purpose of the law. If the person tests positive for drugs, either recipient isn't using entitlemnt money and they have enough funds to provide for their family or they are using tax payer funds. No check.

Grow up and get clean. It's time society stops enabling.

 

[The T]

I had a few sticking points before answering this important question about drug testing for entitlement checks. What if they didn't take the test because a) the testing facility was not convenient for them, b they had no transportation or c) they didn't have money to pay for the test.

Any one of those situations does not make them poor candidates for the funds. I would suggest that those without transportation get in touch with a DTD Drug Testing Driver, a van who could pick up those and take them to a the drug testing facility and retun them home. If they were unable to pay for the test, $35.00 would be deducted for the test and the could have the remainder in a check form. The DTD would not be costly considering there would be fewer people taking the drug test and fewer people taking the checks.

This is tax payer money intended to help people in need to feed, clothes and provide shelter for themselves and their children. If the money is used for other purposes, drugs for example, it violates the purpose of the law. If the person tests positive for drugs, either recipient isn't using entitlemnt money and they have enough funds to provide for their family or they are using tax payer funds. No check.

Grow up and get clean. It's time society stops enabling.

There ya go!

 

[Care4all]

False.

As an overall percentage, very few companies do pre-employment drug tests. And of those, even fewer do random drug tests.

You just make shit up, doncha?

{Drug testing, legally required for many public employers, has become widespread in the private sector over the past two decades. A 2006 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 84 percent of employers required new hires to pass drug screenings, and 39 percent randomly tested employees after they were hired. In addition, 73 percent tested workers when drug use was suspected and 58 percent required testing after accidents on the job.}

Job Applicant? Expect a Drug Test | TheLedger.com

Interesting claim to be sure. But I wish they would've given more detail about the actual survey since it conflicts with everything I've ever read. I've yet to be given an employment drug test, nor do I know anyone personally that has ever had to take one.

workplace drug testing laws are governed by each state. I have never been drug tested, nor my husband, in massachusetts or maine.

here is my state laws now on it

Maine State Law--Drug Testing
Contact Information: Law and Legislative Reference Library

Augusta, ME
207-287-1600
SAID Item No.: 715 Topic(s):Laws and RegulationsSub-topic(s): State Laws and Regulations Summary of Law(s) and Regulation(s):
There is a comprehensive statute which governs workplace drug testing in Maine. There are restrictions on all types of testing and specific requirements that must be met with regard to drug testing procedures. All substance abuse programs must be approved by the Maine Department of Labor. Prior to conducting any type of drug testing, the employer must provide an employee assistance program or participate in an EAP consortium. Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 26, 681-690 (Supp. 2005) [note: to see sequential sections of the Code, change the number at the end of the URL in your browser address field] Title 26, §681: Purpose; applicability The State Employment Practices Law regarding testing for substance abuse among temporary workers was amended. The use of consent forms is prohibited. An employer may not require, request, or suggest that any employee or applicant for employment sign or agree to any form or agreement that attempts to (1) absolve the employer from any liability that may arise out of the imposition of the substance abuse test or (2) waive an employee's or applicant's rights, or eliminate or diminish an employer's obligation, under the State Revised Statutes Annotated, except as provided by State statute. An employment agency, as defined by State statute, may request a written waiver for a temporary placement from an individual already in its employ or on a roster of eligibility, as long as the client company has an approved substance abuse testing policy and the individual has not been assigned work at the client company in the 30 days previous to the request. The test must otherwise comply with both State standards and the employment agency's approved policy regarding applicant testing. The agency may not take adverse action against the individual for refusal to sign a waiver.

every state varies, several states do not permit workplace drug testing under their own constitution's right to privacy of the individual....Mass might be one of them....?

 

[lilbug]

This law is designed not to punish, but weed out the users and abusers of the system. The theory being, if you have money to support a drug habit, you have money to pay your bills and feed your children, and the tax payers don't wanna support your lazy stoned behind.

The flaw in the law is that it is not mandatory and they expect recipients to pay for it. Make it mandatory and free if the idea is to truly weed out the slackers. Make it as impossible as feasible for them to get around the test, even if it means having a medical attendant watch them piss. Make it as uncomfortable as possible for them to get over on the system. Anyone who truly needs the assistance, does not have a drug habit, has an ounce of self respect for him/herself, and wants better for his/her family, would not mind taking the test.

 

[Moonglow]

nothing like proving ur innocent before trying u to be found guilty. Love that totalanistic viewpoint u freedom loving, smaller government intrusionist people

 

[Care4all]

This law is designed not to punish, but weed out the users and abusers of the system. The theory being, if you have money to support a drug habit, you have money to pay your bills and feed your children, and the tax payers don't wanna support your lazy stoned behind.

The flaw in the law is that it is not mandatory and they expect recipients to pay for it. Make it mandatory and free if the idea is to truly weed out the slackers. Make it as impossible as feasible for them to get around the test, even if it means having a medical attendant watch them piss. Make it as uncomfortable as possible for them to get over on the system. Anyone who truly needs the assistance, does not have a drug habit, has an ounce of self respect for him/herself, and wants better for his/her family, would not mind taking the test.

and who's gonna pay for all that big gvt?

and if the idea is that it is your money paying for their welfare and the illegal drugs makes them scummy lazy bastards then why aren't you testing them for alcohol or the pharmaceuticals they could be taking in mass?

and it's simply untrue that the innocent people don't mind doing this kind of testing....i don't do drugs but i have always been against workplace drug testing, and the states i have lived in as of late, don't support the privacy invasion either. of drug testing.

 

[Jackson]

This law is designed not to punish, but weed out the users and abusers of the system. The theory being, if you have money to support a drug habit, you have money to pay your bills and feed your children, and the tax payers don't wanna support your lazy stoned behind.

The flaw in the law is that it is not mandatory and they expect recipients to pay for it. Make it mandatory and free if the idea is to truly weed out the slackers. Make it as impossible as feasible for them to get around the test, even if it means having a medical attendant watch them piss. Make it as uncomfortable as possible for them to get over on the system. Anyone who truly needs the assistance, does not have a drug habit, has an ounce of self respect for him/herself, and wants better for his/her family, would not mind taking the test.

and who's gonna pay for all that big gvt?

and if the idea is that it is your money paying for their welfare and the illegal drugs makes them scummy lazy bastards then why aren't you testing them for alcohol or the pharmaceuticals they could be taking in mass?

and it's simply untrue that the innocent people don't mind doing this kind of testing....i don't do drugs but i have always been against workplace drug testing, and the states i have lived in as of late, don't support the privacy invasion either. of drug testing.

If the first month is any sign, 16,000 people did not pick up $300.00 checks. If that continued for the year, and they found that they did not want those checks, Florida just decreased their entitlement outlay $57 million annually.

Did I recall accurately that almost 50% of our citizens are on some kind of entitlement?

ENTITLEMENT NATION: NOW 50% OF AMERICANS RECEIVE GOVERNMENT BENEFITS
Published 09/17/2010 - 11:54 a.m. CST

The Wall Street Journal today is reporting that for the first time in history nearly half of all Americans receive some form of government benefits.The percentage of U.S. households that do not pay into federal income taxes has also grown to 45% this year. That number is up from 39% just five year ago, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan organization.

The WSJ reports that Keith Hennessey an economic advisor to President George W. Bush said, "We have a very large share of the American population that is getting checks from the government and an increasingly smaller portion of the population that's paying for it."

The article goes on to report, “The dimensions of the budget hole were underscored Monday, when the Treasury reported that the government ran a $1.26 trillion deficit for the first 11 months of the fiscal year, on pace to be the second-biggest on record.”

http://thecypresstimes.com/article/...F_AMERICANS_RECEIVE_GOVERNMENT_BENEFITS/33611

 

[Dr Grump]

It's amusing to see day after day, month after month, year after year, post after post, thread after thread, by the right wing nuts about freedom....

...yet in this instance, they want testing.

Funny thing is, I agree with the premise...if you have enough money to buy drugs or alcohol, why are my tax dollars supporting you?

 

[ClosedCaption]

No alcohol and prescription drugs are cool to abuse because if you have money for those but no food, you deserve the help.

If this was about being lazy, or spending money on drugs instead of food, you'd hear repubs push for those tests too.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I take it you have never heard of a field sobriety test. You want to drive... they have the right to test you. However you have a good point... drug testing should be required for all drivers licenses.

Sure it it permissible. The requirements of receiving a check are a clean drug test... no one is forcing them to test. [/COLOR]

I take it you missed the part of the constitution that requires reasonable cause for a search to be permissible. Field sobriety tests cannot be administered at any time for any reason. And officer must develop a reasonable suspicion that a person is driving intoxicated in order to administer one. And even then, the person has the right to refuse the test.

But this drug testing is entirely different from that. It requires the test absent any reasonable cause to suspect that the person is going to use their benefits to buy drugs. Simply applying for government assistance is not sufficient to presume a person is going to use the assistance for illegal activity. Furthermore, the requirement does not actually serve a legitimate government interest, which is a necessary element to justify an infringement upon a person's 4th amendment rights.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's amusing to see day after day, month after month, year after year, post after post, thread after thread, by the right wing nuts about freedom....

...yet in this instance, they want testing.

Funny thing is, I agree with the premise...if you have enough money to buy drugs or alcohol, why are my tax dollars supporting you?

I, too, agree that it's reasonable to want entitlement funding to be used responsibly. This scenario just goes to show the danger of taking extreme stances over otherwise good ideas. By holding onto the extreme, the right only invites backlash and partisan bickering that slows progress.

 

[SFC Ollie]

So 1500+ refused testing? You can bet your last welfare dollar that less than 10% of them refused so on principal. And anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that to be true.

It is not unconstitutional, nor is it an invasion of privacy, I've pissed in more bottles than I can remember. Especially in the military. But I also filled a few as terms of civilian employment.

If you truly need assistance, you will take the test or clean up and take the test. If you refuse you must not need the offered assistance. Move along and find someplace else to run your scam.

If you are an addict there are hundreds of programs you can enroll in voluntarily. I'll bet if you really needed assistance for food, shelter, or clothing, then you would register and dry out in order to get it. I bet the state will even assist you........

Of course many simply do not want to stop taking their drugs. The real world scares the piss out of them....