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

[Skull Pilot]

The searches are voluntary.

People consent to the search as part of the process of applying for government hand outs.

No one is being forced against their will to apply for a hand out.

And as we've already addressed, that's as good as saying that the police have a right to require you to take a drug test before you can report a crime. Nobody is forcing you to report the crime.

Not the same at all.

Using government service is not at all the same as receiving a government check

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one wants to address who the welfare benefits?

Drug users are bad but a drug users kid has nothing to do with it.

Then the kids can be removed from the drug addicts care as they should be anyway.

who's gonna fund that? and shouldn't that be up to a social worker whether a child gets removed from the family?

the point is that you want to treat many many many many innocent, drug free people as if they were criminals, just because some of your taxes, very very very very little of those taxes btw, goes towards welfare for them.

that's bull crud from the get go.

Funding it isn't the issue. I have no problem with the government removing kids from an unsafe household.

We get treated like criminals by the ******* government all the time when we don't want a tax payer funded hand out and I don't care how little of my taxes go to welfare as long as what taxes do aren't used for some losers drug habit.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It sound's like some people presume that if you apply for public assistance for your family you are a "mooch, criminal, drug user"....etc etc etc.

Some of you want to punish the poor for being poor. What else is new?

Not at all by screening out the druggies there will be more money for those that are law abiding.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one wants to address who the welfare benefits?

Drug users are bad but a drug users kid has nothing to do with it.

Then the kids can be removed from the drug addicts care as they should be anyway.

Removed by who? Big Government?

So it's better to leave kids in the care of drug addicts who use public money to get high?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Not the same at all.

Using government service is not at all the same as receiving a government check

Wow, that was stupid!! They're they exact same thing!!!

 

[Mr.Nick]

A welfare **** refusing to take a drug test is like a person refusing to pay for their cheeseburger at burger king...

The cheeseburger ISNT a right and neither is welfare - especially when you're a 3rd generation welfare recipient...

They want the taxpayers to fund them for free yet they think it's out of line if the taxpayers have expectations of them????

I'm a libertarian to boot....

You want the taxpayers to fund you - guess what? prove you're not a crack head and we can talk...

You know what this proves tho??? most welfare ***** are on drugs and use taxpayer money to BUY DRUGS...

I have no problem with drugs or those who like to smoke a little weed as a sleep sedative - but these motherfuckers are expecting taxpayers to fund their drug habit and when questioned they're telling the taxpayers to fuckoff..... It's your responsibility to buy them their crack rocks, their heroin and their ice...

Of course progressives are like "yes we will, yes we will, yes we will, yes we will"

Of course they will deny it but yet it's happening right in front of their faces..

Let me guess liberals will respond with nothing more than a 4 line sentence regarding their support for such evildoing.

 

[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.

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.

Well, if a one-time payment for a drug test turns up positive for one being on drugs, then it is a lot more cost effective than continued taxpayer support of their drug habit. I believe pharmaceuticals, at least some of them, would also turn up in the test. As far alcohol...that may come next next, but this is a good place to start.

Work place drug testing keeps folks safe, not only the employees themselves, but fellow employees, and consumers of their products as well, if it is service industry, and insures that the products or services they produce met quality standards and are not being performed/provided by someone who is impaired. Somewhere along the line, folks on the job have proven that drug testing is a necessity and the honor system no longer is effective.

Interesting how folks parade out 'their rights' to justify wrong doing. I'm sick to death of folks pulling this crap and stretching the true meaning of their rights all out of proportion to justify moronic acts, that in this case, are just a drain on the entire society.

I know of what I speak. I know for certain there are folks receiving this assistance who do nothing to better their situation except come up with more creative ways to get over on the system. I'm all for folks receiving this assistance who truy need it, but one must also be held accountable for their own situation and move toward getting off the assistance.

Aside from that, drug usage is illegal. I don't know how folks reason with themselves that it is okay to rape the system to enable their illegal activities. What kind of example are they to their kids?

 

[Jarhead]

Not the same at all.

Using government service is not at all the same as receiving a government check

Wow, that was stupid!! They're they exact same thing!!!

i think that is your problem.
You dont see a difference.

Using a government service is done as you live your life.
Receiving a government check is a way of life.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Then the kids can be removed from the drug addicts care as they should be anyway.

Removed by who? Big Government?

So it's better to leave kids in the care of drug addicts who use public money to get high?

You first.

 

[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.

Well, if a one-time payment for a drug test turns up positive for one being on drugs, then it is a lot more cost effective than continued taxpayer support of their drug habit. I believe pharmaceuticals, at least some of them, would also turn up in the test. As far alcohol...that may come next next, but this is a good place to start.

Work place drug testing keeps folks safe, not only the employees themselves, but fellow employees, and consumers of their products as well, if it is service industry, and insures that the products or services they produce met quality standards and are not being performed/provided by someone who is impaired. Somewhere along the line, folks on the job have proven that drug testing is a necessity and the honor system no longer is effective.

Interesting how folks parade out 'their rights' to justify wrong doing. I'm sick to death of folks pulling this crap and stretching the true meaning of their rights all out of proportion to justify moronic acts, that in this case, are just a drain on the entire society.

I know of what I speak. I know for certain there are folks receiving this assistance who do nothing to better their situation except come up with more creative ways to get over on the system. I'm all for folks receiving this assistance who truy need it, but one must also be held accountable for their own situation and move toward getting off the assistance.

Aside from that, drug usage is illegal. I don't know how folks reason with themselves that it is okay to rape the system to enable their illegal activities. What kind of example are they to their kids?

Well, I have hired and fired hundreds of people over my career, and not once did I ever have to or need to have them drug tested to keep them under my hire or to fire them. All that was done under my direction/management, was done due to their quality of work.

It's naive to believe that drug testing only, can make your workplace safe.

Good on hand management, makes your workplace safe...with or without drug testing.

It's an invasion of privacy....and I will never, ever change my mind on this....

there are exceptions to my rule of not drug testing in the workplace and that is when employees are doing a dangerous job....and or if there has been an accident in the workplace.....

as I had mentioned earlier, in the corporations that I have worked for, there was no drug testing for any of our employees except the employees that worked in our distribution center, where heavy lifting and machinery to move the goods was or could be, dangerous.

In Maine, workplace drug testing is very, very limited and very controlled with rules and regs that restrict this practice by the gvt if they do.....because my state believes it breaks the constitutions right to privacy.

Florida, has their own rules and obviously does not believe it breaks privacy rights.....

welfare drug testing WILL have its day in court.....we will see how it comes out.

 

[lilbug]

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.

Well, if a one-time payment for a drug test turns up positive for one being on drugs, then it is a lot more cost effective than continued taxpayer support of their drug habit. I believe pharmaceuticals, at least some of them, would also turn up in the test. As far alcohol...that may come next next, but this is a good place to start.

Work place drug testing keeps folks safe, not only the employees themselves, but fellow employees, and consumers of their products as well, if it is service industry, and insures that the products or services they produce met quality standards and are not being performed/provided by someone who is impaired. Somewhere along the line, folks on the job have proven that drug testing is a necessity and the honor system no longer is effective.

Interesting how folks parade out 'their rights' to justify wrong doing. I'm sick to death of folks pulling this crap and stretching the true meaning of their rights all out of proportion to justify moronic acts, that in this case, are just a drain on the entire society.

I know of what I speak. I know for certain there are folks receiving this assistance who do nothing to better their situation except come up with more creative ways to get over on the system. I'm all for folks receiving this assistance who truy need it, but one must also be held accountable for their own situation and move toward getting off the assistance.

Aside from that, drug usage is illegal. I don't know how folks reason with themselves that it is okay to rape the system to enable their illegal activities. What kind of example are they to their kids?

Well, I have hired and fired hundreds of people over my career, and not once did I ever have to or need to have them drug tested to keep them under my hire or to fire them. All that was done under my direction/management, was done due to their quality of work.

It's naive to believe that drug testing only, can make your workplace safe.

Good on hand management, makes your workplace safe...with or without drug testing.

It's an invasion of privacy....and I will never, ever change my mind on this....

there are exceptions to my rule of not drug testing in the workplace and that is when employees are doing a dangerous job....and or if there has been an accident in the workplace.....

as I had mentioned earlier, in the corporations that I have worked for, there was no drug testing for any of our employees except the employees that worked in our distribution center, where heavy lifting and machinery to move the goods was or could be, dangerous.

In Maine, workplace drug testing is very, very limited and very controlled with rules and regs that restrict this practice by the gvt if they do.....because my state believes it breaks the constitutions right to privacy.

Florida, has their own rules and obviously does not believe it breaks privacy rights.....

welfare drugtesting WILL have its day in court.....we will see how it comes out.

Yeppers, reckon we will have to agree to disagree with this issue. I never contended that drug testing alone will insure a safe workplace, but obviously employees themselves proved there was a need for some kind of accountability. You are citing specific instances...I'm speaking about the system as a whole and how it effects all of our lives. I do not think anyone's right to privacy was meant to emcompass enabling them to rape taxpayers and engage in illegal activities, and they are not only taking advantage of the system, but their rights as well, are fully aware of it, and counting on folks like you to plead their case for them.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Well, if a one-time payment for a drug test turns up positive for one being on drugs, then it is a lot more cost effective than continued taxpayer support of their drug habit. I believe pharmaceuticals, at least some of them, would also turn up in the test. As far alcohol...that may come next next, but this is a good place to start.

Work place drug testing keeps folks safe, not only the employees themselves, but fellow employees, and consumers of their products as well, if it is service industry, and insures that the products or services they produce met quality standards and are not being performed/provided by someone who is impaired. Somewhere along the line, folks on the job have proven that drug testing is a necessity and the honor system no longer is effective.

Interesting how folks parade out 'their rights' to justify wrong doing. I'm sick to death of folks pulling this crap and stretching the true meaning of their rights all out of proportion to justify moronic acts, that in this case, are just a drain on the entire society.

I know of what I speak. I know for certain there are folks receiving this assistance who do nothing to better their situation except come up with more creative ways to get over on the system. I'm all for folks receiving this assistance who truy need it, but one must also be held accountable for their own situation and move toward getting off the assistance.

Aside from that, drug usage is illegal. I don't know how folks reason with themselves that it is okay to rape the system to enable their illegal activities. What kind of example are they to their kids?

Well, I have hired and fired hundreds of people over my career, and not once did I ever have to or need to have them drug tested to keep them under my hire or to fire them. All that was done under my direction/management, was done due to their quality of work.

It's naive to believe that drug testing only, can make your workplace safe.

Good on hand management, makes your workplace safe...with or without drug testing.

It's an invasion of privacy....and I will never, ever change my mind on this....

there are exceptions to my rule of not drug testing in the workplace and that is when employees are doing a dangerous job....and or if there has been an accident in the workplace.....

as I had mentioned earlier, in the corporations that I have worked for, there was no drug testing for any of our employees except the employees that worked in our distribution center, where heavy lifting and machinery to move the goods was or could be, dangerous.

In Maine, workplace drug testing is very, very limited and very controlled with rules and regs that restrict this practice by the gvt if they do.....because my state believes it breaks the constitutions right to privacy.

Florida, has their own rules and obviously does not believe it breaks privacy rights.....

welfare drug testing WILL have its day in court.....we will see how it comes out.

I am not sure why you see drug testing for welfare as anm invasion of privacy.
No one is making them take welfare and thus no one is making them take a drug test.

Is it invasion of privacy when an automobile insurer seeks out your driving record?
Is it invasion of privacy when a lending institution wants to see your w-2's?

No....as it is necessary information for those two entities to efficiently service you.

Likewise, the government has the respoinsibility to service the taxpayer and ensure the tax money is being spent wisely.

Let me ask you this....if you donated money to a charity and you found out that charity was not what they claimed, but instead was using the money to enable drug users to purchase drugs....would you continue donating to that charity?

Well...doesnt the taxpayer have the right to knowing where their money is actually going?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Well, if a one-time payment for a drug test turns up positive for one being on drugs, then it is a lot more cost effective than continued taxpayer support of their drug habit. I believe pharmaceuticals, at least some of them, would also turn up in the test. As far alcohol...that may come next next, but this is a good place to start.

Work place drug testing keeps folks safe, not only the employees themselves, but fellow employees, and consumers of their products as well, if it is service industry, and insures that the products or services they produce met quality standards and are not being performed/provided by someone who is impaired. Somewhere along the line, folks on the job have proven that drug testing is a necessity and the honor system no longer is effective.

Interesting how folks parade out 'their rights' to justify wrong doing. I'm sick to death of folks pulling this crap and stretching the true meaning of their rights all out of proportion to justify moronic acts, that in this case, are just a drain on the entire society.

I know of what I speak. I know for certain there are folks receiving this assistance who do nothing to better their situation except come up with more creative ways to get over on the system. I'm all for folks receiving this assistance who truy need it, but one must also be held accountable for their own situation and move toward getting off the assistance.

Aside from that, drug usage is illegal. I don't know how folks reason with themselves that it is okay to rape the system to enable their illegal activities. What kind of example are they to their kids?

Well, I have hired and fired hundreds of people over my career, and not once did I ever have to or need to have them drug tested to keep them under my hire or to fire them. All that was done under my direction/management, was done due to their quality of work.

It's naive to believe that drug testing only, can make your workplace safe.

Good on hand management, makes your workplace safe...with or without drug testing.

It's an invasion of privacy....and I will never, ever change my mind on this....

there are exceptions to my rule of not drug testing in the workplace and that is when employees are doing a dangerous job....and or if there has been an accident in the workplace.....

as I had mentioned earlier, in the corporations that I have worked for, there was no drug testing for any of our employees except the employees that worked in our distribution center, where heavy lifting and machinery to move the goods was or could be, dangerous.

In Maine, workplace drug testing is very, very limited and very controlled with rules and regs that restrict this practice by the gvt if they do.....because my state believes it breaks the constitutions right to privacy.

Florida, has their own rules and obviously does not believe it breaks privacy rights.....

welfare drug testing WILL have its day in court.....we will see how it comes out.

you speak of safety in the workplace as a viable reason and I agree...

But that is referring to just physical safety.

What about safety as it pertains to the company?

What if an employee is so strung out he/she deos something that costs the company its licensee to operate?
Or costs the company thousands of dollars putting them under...and the employees out of jobs?
Or steals from the company to support his/her habit?

No one forces an employee to take a drug test. The person has a right to not take the job.

And companies that initiated drug testing here in NY?

All of my clients grandfathered existing employees as that would have been inappropriate....they are simply tests for those that opt to take a job there.

 

[Gadawg73]

The politicians steal more $$ than the welfare cheats. Local patronage in your county and municipality wastes more cash. Does anyone believe they will ever drug test all of those folks?
Drug testing is a joke. Drugs are A HEALTH PROBLEM.
Smokers cause more damage to society than dope heads. Will they test for tobacco use?
Add on the unreliability of 95% of these drug tests as you can mask weed and other dope and they are about useless. Hair follicle tests are expensive as hell. State and Fed crime labs are backed up as it is now so who will do these tests and where is the $$$?
As usual, a well intentioned idea that has no basis in reality.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well, if a one-time payment for a drug test turns up positive for one being on drugs, then it is a lot more cost effective than continued taxpayer support of their drug habit. I believe pharmaceuticals, at least some of them, would also turn up in the test. As far alcohol...that may come next next, but this is a good place to start.

Work place drug testing keeps folks safe, not only the employees themselves, but fellow employees, and consumers of their products as well, if it is service industry, and insures that the products or services they produce met quality standards and are not being performed/provided by someone who is impaired. Somewhere along the line, folks on the job have proven that drug testing is a necessity and the honor system no longer is effective.

Interesting how folks parade out 'their rights' to justify wrong doing. I'm sick to death of folks pulling this crap and stretching the true meaning of their rights all out of proportion to justify moronic acts, that in this case, are just a drain on the entire society.

I know of what I speak. I know for certain there are folks receiving this assistance who do nothing to better their situation except come up with more creative ways to get over on the system. I'm all for folks receiving this assistance who truy need it, but one must also be held accountable for their own situation and move toward getting off the assistance.

Aside from that, drug usage is illegal. I don't know how folks reason with themselves that it is okay to rape the system to enable their illegal activities. What kind of example are they to their kids?

Well, I have hired and fired hundreds of people over my career, and not once did I ever have to or need to have them drug tested to keep them under my hire or to fire them. All that was done under my direction/management, was done due to their quality of work.

It's naive to believe that drug testing only, can make your workplace safe.

Good on hand management, makes your workplace safe...with or without drug testing.

It's an invasion of privacy....and I will never, ever change my mind on this....

there are exceptions to my rule of not drug testing in the workplace and that is when employees are doing a dangerous job....and or if there has been an accident in the workplace.....

as I had mentioned earlier, in the corporations that I have worked for, there was no drug testing for any of our employees except the employees that worked in our distribution center, where heavy lifting and machinery to move the goods was or could be, dangerous.

In Maine, workplace drug testing is very, very limited and very controlled with rules and regs that restrict this practice by the gvt if they do.....because my state believes it breaks the constitutions right to privacy.

Florida, has their own rules and obviously does not believe it breaks privacy rights.....

welfare drug testing WILL have its day in court.....we will see how it comes out.

you speak of safety in the workplace as a viable reason and I agree...

But that is referring to just physical safety.

What about safety as it pertains to the company?

What if an employee is so strung out he/she deos something that costs the company its licensee to operate?
Or costs the company thousands of dollars putting them under...and the employees out of jobs?
Or steals from the company to support his/her habit?

No one forces an employee to take a drug test. The person has a right to not take the job.

And companies that initiated drug testing here in NY?

All of my clients grandfathered existing employees as that would have been inappropriate....they are simply tests for those that opt to take a job there.

I agree. But as I pointed out earlier the top gun sales guy or top exec will be allowed to snort all the dope he wants in most cases. They will be advised to hide it and get them help, not test them or fire them.
OK with me to allow businesses to make what ever requirements they want.
But if the idea is to equally apply a drug testing requirement in most companies, believe me as I have seen it first hand for 30 years, it is never done with the big boys. Profits come first. Not saying that is wrong.

 

[Jarhead]

Well, I have hired and fired hundreds of people over my career, and not once did I ever have to or need to have them drug tested to keep them under my hire or to fire them. All that was done under my direction/management, was done due to their quality of work.

It's naive to believe that drug testing only, can make your workplace safe.

Good on hand management, makes your workplace safe...with or without drug testing.

It's an invasion of privacy....and I will never, ever change my mind on this....

there are exceptions to my rule of not drug testing in the workplace and that is when employees are doing a dangerous job....and or if there has been an accident in the workplace.....

as I had mentioned earlier, in the corporations that I have worked for, there was no drug testing for any of our employees except the employees that worked in our distribution center, where heavy lifting and machinery to move the goods was or could be, dangerous.

In Maine, workplace drug testing is very, very limited and very controlled with rules and regs that restrict this practice by the gvt if they do.....because my state believes it breaks the constitutions right to privacy.

Florida, has their own rules and obviously does not believe it breaks privacy rights.....

welfare drug testing WILL have its day in court.....we will see how it comes out.

you speak of safety in the workplace as a viable reason and I agree...

But that is referring to just physical safety.

What about safety as it pertains to the company?

What if an employee is so strung out he/she deos something that costs the company its licensee to operate?
Or costs the company thousands of dollars putting them under...and the employees out of jobs?
Or steals from the company to support his/her habit?

No one forces an employee to take a drug test. The person has a right to not take the job.

And companies that initiated drug testing here in NY?

All of my clients grandfathered existing employees as that would have been inappropriate....they are simply tests for those that opt to take a job there.

I agree. But as I pointed out earlier the top gun sales guy or top exec will be allowed to snort all the dope he wants in most cases. They will be advised to hide it and get them help, not test them or fire them.
OK with me to allow businesses to make what ever requirements they want.
But if the idea is to equally apply a drug testing requirement in most companies, believe me as I have seen it first hand for 30 years, it is never done with the big boys. Profits come first. Not saying that is wrong.

I must disagree.

Anyone at any level that I have hired through my recruiting efforts must have a drug test to get hired if the company (my client) drug tests.

As for intermitent drug testing once you are employed.......HR laws make it very difficult to do as you say. All you need is one disgruntled employee who leaves to whistle blow and it could put you out of business.

 

[Care4all]

Well, if a one-time payment for a drug test turns up positive for one being on drugs, then it is a lot more cost effective than continued taxpayer support of their drug habit. I believe pharmaceuticals, at least some of them, would also turn up in the test. As far alcohol...that may come next next, but this is a good place to start.

Work place drug testing keeps folks safe, not only the employees themselves, but fellow employees, and consumers of their products as well, if it is service industry, and insures that the products or services they produce met quality standards and are not being performed/provided by someone who is impaired. Somewhere along the line, folks on the job have proven that drug testing is a necessity and the honor system no longer is effective.

Interesting how folks parade out 'their rights' to justify wrong doing. I'm sick to death of folks pulling this crap and stretching the true meaning of their rights all out of proportion to justify moronic acts, that in this case, are just a drain on the entire society.

I know of what I speak. I know for certain there are folks receiving this assistance who do nothing to better their situation except come up with more creative ways to get over on the system. I'm all for folks receiving this assistance who truy need it, but one must also be held accountable for their own situation and move toward getting off the assistance.

Aside from that, drug usage is illegal. I don't know how folks reason with themselves that it is okay to rape the system to enable their illegal activities. What kind of example are they to their kids?

Well, I have hired and fired hundreds of people over my career, and not once did I ever have to or need to have them drug tested to keep them under my hire or to fire them. All that was done under my direction/management, was done due to their quality of work.

It's naive to believe that drug testing only, can make your workplace safe.

Good on hand management, makes your workplace safe...with or without drug testing.

It's an invasion of privacy....and I will never, ever change my mind on this....

there are exceptions to my rule of not drug testing in the workplace and that is when employees are doing a dangerous job....and or if there has been an accident in the workplace.....

as I had mentioned earlier, in the corporations that I have worked for, there was no drug testing for any of our employees except the employees that worked in our distribution center, where heavy lifting and machinery to move the goods was or could be, dangerous.

In Maine, workplace drug testing is very, very limited and very controlled with rules and regs that restrict this practice by the gvt if they do.....because my state believes it breaks the constitutions right to privacy.

Florida, has their own rules and obviously does not believe it breaks privacy rights.....

welfare drug testing WILL have its day in court.....we will see how it comes out.

you speak of safety in the workplace as a viable reason and I agree...

But that is referring to just physical safety.

What about safety as it pertains to the company?

What if an employee is so strung out he/she deos something that costs the company its licensee to operate?
Or costs the company thousands of dollars putting them under...and the employees out of jobs?
Or steals from the company to support his/her habit?

No one forces an employee to take a drug test. The person has a right to not take the job.

And companies that initiated drug testing here in NY?

All of my clients grandfathered existing employees as that would have been inappropriate....they are simply tests for those that opt to take a job there.

good management solves all of those problems Jarhead...if there was an employee that was so strung out that they could not do their job without harming the company, SURELY this can be spotted by the Director or Manager before it gets out of hand, and the employee would be let go....

Hello? What in the world did us business people do before drug tests were even available?????? We managed our staffs.

this is how I feel:

If you don’t use drugs, you have nothing to hide — so why object to testing?

Drug testing allows employers to intrude upon the private lives of their employees. The “right to be left alone” is, in the words of the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Both the actual taking of urine samples and the analysis of the sample, which may disclose private information, violate this right to be left alone.

As stated by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, “there are few activities in our society more personal or private than the passing of urine.”4 The drug testing process subjects individuals to an offensive and degrading process. Some employers even require the employee to strip and urinate into a cup in the presence of an observer in order to prevent cheating.

In addition, analysis of a person’s urine can disclose many details about that person’s private life other than drug use, including personal medical information. It can tell an employer whether an employee or job applicant is being treated for a heart condition, depression, epilepsy or diabetes. It can also reveal whether an employee is pregnant. Drug testing may “provide employers with a periscope through which they can peer into an individual’s behavior in her private life, even in her own home. . . .”5 For all of these reasons, the Supreme Court has found that urine testing, like blood testing, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.6

please read this link, it expresses many of my concerns.....

DRUG TESTING IN THE WORKPLACE

in addition to this, the gvt has high guidelines that they must follow on testing an employee, more so than a private sector employer....it is the GVT that is drug testing recipients of welfare....there is no workplace hazard risk.....

as i said, we will see what happens in the court on this..

 

[Inthemiddle]

A welfare **** refusing to take a drug test is like a person refusing to pay for their cheeseburger at burger king...

That is, by far, the dumbest thing yet said in this entire thread. There is absolutely no logical compatibility to the two situations, other than the fact that you just don't like either one.

The cheeseburger ISNT a right and neither is welfare

Until you can show me a statute that says that people qualify for free Burger King cheeseburgers based on low income, leave the fast food out of this.

especially when you're a 3rd generation welfare recipient...

So what you're saying is that we should condemn people for the inadequacies of society. Well, at least we're not engaging in class warfare.

They want the taxpayers to fund them for free yet they think it's out of line if the taxpayers have expectations of them????

You know, when I was a kid I expected my parents to provide me with food, housing, clothing, and pretty much all my needs and a great many of my wants. I expected to pay nothing for this. But never once would I, or anyone of a sane mind, think that this would give my parents a right to invade the privacy and sanctity of my body.

I'm a libertarian to boot....

You say that as if it were a good thing. But really, it ranks right up there with saying "I'm a socialist to boot."

You want the taxpayers to fund you - guess what? prove you're not a crack head and we can talk.

Why do you hate the constitution so much? The constitution clearly protects a person from baseless searches by the government. The simple fact that you dislike entitlement programs, and you hate poor people, and are completely biased against anyone who doesn't make at least a certain amount of money, and want to engage in class warfare, does not give you grounds to simply dismiss people's constitutional rights just because you want it to.

You know what this proves tho??? most welfare ***** are on drugs and use taxpayer money to BUY DRUGS...

This proves that you are irrationally prejudiced, a class warfare participant, and are devoid of any logical basis for your arguments here. There is nothing here that proves anything more than a small minority of FLORIDA (and only Florida) welfare recipients did use some kind of drug relatively recently before applying (32 out of 7028 = 0.005%). Nothing proves that their use was part of a repetitive or regular habit, that they spent any money on those drugs, or that they spent any welfare funds on those drugs. Nothing here proves even a single instance of drug usage occurred among those who did not take the test. Nothing here definitively establishes a reason why those people declined to take the test, though the article did suggest that many of them may have had difficulties paying for the test or obtaining travel.

Thus, based on all available information, 0.005% of Floridians applying for welfare seem to be potential drug users, though we don't know how they finance those drugs. And from this, you conclude that "most" recipients are habitual drug users and that they are using welfare funds.

I have no problem with drugs or those who like to smoke a little weed as a sleep sedative - but these motherfuckers are expecting taxpayers to fund their drug habit and when questioned they're telling the taxpayers to fuckoff

What is with your blatant hostility toward the poor? What's the problem, are you jealous that they have something you don't?

It's your responsibility to buy them their crack rocks, their heroin and their ice.

Citation needed. Unless you can prove what drugs those 32 people tested positive for, stop saying this shit.

Of course progressives are like "yes we will, yes we will, yes we will, yes we will"

And wing-nut conservatives like you are saying "yes we will....engage in class warfare without regret, but then ***** that anyone who disagrees with us is committing an evil of engaging in class warfare. It's this kind of idiocy that got Obama elected and will keep him in office.

Of course they will deny it but yet it's happening right in front of their faces.

Again, prove it. The only thing that we have here is that 0.005% percent of Floridians who APPLY for benefits use drugs recently before applying. This is an incredibly small amount as it is, and there is nothing to suggest that they used welfare funds to pay for those drugs. After all, they didn't have welfare funds at the time because they're applying now.

Let me guess liberals will respond with nothing more than a 4 line sentence regarding their support for such evildoing.

I think that I'd prefer their 4 lines to your irrational, angry tirade. But whatever they do, maybe you can chew on this reply for a while. But let me guess, you're going to respond with noting more than a 10 page spewing of hate and ignorance that basically amounts to "I want things a certain way so give it to me now, dammit!"

 

[Inthemiddle]

Using a government service is done as you live your life.
Receiving a government check is a way of life.

In other words, because YOU don't like entitlement spending, you're going to label it negatively and engage in class warfare, and expect people to embrace your emotionally drawn lines of distinction based on a need and desire to distinguish between the services you deem acceptable to receive and the services you deem unacceptable to receive.

 

[Jarhead]

Using a government service is done as you live your life.
Receiving a government check is a way of life.

In other words, because YOU don't like entitlement spending, you're going to label it negatively and engage in class warfare, and expect people to embrace your emotionally drawn lines of distinction based on a need and desire to distinguish between the services you deem acceptable to receive and the services you deem unacceptable to receive.

Nice try but you dont know me nor my sentiments or you would not have...well....ranted as you did.

There are three different people in my eyes.

Those that can and do
Those that can but dont
Those that cant

Those that can and do get to live their lives as they please and in return pay taxes so those that cant get to enjoy as much of life as possible. They are forced into a way of life that is not necessarily the way they prefer, but they are happy to be able to move forward and I am glad that we, as Americans, have systems in place to help them oput. I see drug testing as an inconvenience for them, but a necessary one to weed out the next group...

.....Those that can but dont.
They have opted to have the way they live their lives dictated to them..and thus why I have no issue making them take drug tests to get their free stuff. If anything, we should blame this group for the instiutution of drug testing for welfare assistance.