Sure, first couple of times. You don’t believe people who become addicts really think its likely to happen, do you?
And the insistence that addiction is some moral failing and not a medical problem doesn’t help matters at all. After all, most people realize they aren’t invulnerable, but they do think of themselves as good people. So surely they won’t get addicted, since only bad people get addicted.
Reminds me of those who, when asked if they have ever smoked pot, say that they did but that it either had no effect on them or that it only made them sleepy, as if that proved that they better and/or stronger than those who got high when they smoked.
So what role does the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure play in all this? Does it not apply to people being looked down on by all the better-thans as well, or are constitutional rights conditional on good behaviour as defined by . . . well, someone qualified, I’m sure.
What does that have to do with submitting to a mandatory drug test?
My favorite is the people who say they “experimented” with drugs.
A little reality test. Were you wearing a white coat? Were you inside a lab? Were you taking notes on a clipboard? Were the drugs being consumed by mice? If the answer to these questions is no, then you were not experimenting with drugs.
How about due process and probably cause? What’s your opinion on those?
Sir, you are misinformed and incorrect - it is entirely possible to qualify for section 8 or other housing aid and NOT be qualified for any other form of aid.
Jack shit, from my perspective.
Well, I never did drugs, and gave up what little alcohol I drink (about 1 or 2 beers a month) when I became poor because it’s a luxury, but I sure as hell can use some job training. But I’m told I don’t qualify because, first of all, I already have a degree (never mind that my current job skills are apparently now as obsolete as a manual typewriter) and second, for many programs I’m deemed to be too old - quite a few apprenticeship programs around here have an age limit of 35 to enter, nevermind I am already doing similar work right now, just getting paid a pittance since I can’t get certified or into the union.
The only thing I can do is take out tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, with no guarantee I’ll be able to pay it back - is that really a good move for me to make?
We need programs that not only help the teens and the never-been-to-college but also retrains older workers whose skills are now no longer needed, but who are young and healthy enough to be retrained and work another few decades.
That only works if we actually fund the assistance programs. Back in the 1990’s I worked at such a rehab facility. We had only so many slots because we had only so much income, which resulted in a 8-12 months waiting to start with. On top of that, the State of Illinois used to take months to pay us for services already rendered. Like, 8 months delay in paying us what they owed us. Until this is sort of thing is fixed - sufficient funding so addicts have minimal wait times, paying for the services, and so on - referring addicts to treatment is useless.
Hear, hear - but the devil is in the details of how to achieve that goal.
The most addictive drugs out there are available with a prescription. So if I’m looked down upon by getting addicted to painkillers that were prescribed for a legit reason, is that my fault too?
People who have never faced an addiction are so damn judgmental. Is it that hard to believe that no one ever sets out to become a drug addict? Do you think it’s fun?
They have no bearing here.
If you want to get on welfare, don’t do drugs. Seems reasonable enough, especially since people are held to a similar standard when it comes to employment or even being a government contractor.
I think anytime we erode the liberties for any of our fellow citizens, we damage those liberties as a whole for everyone. The right to be free of unreasonable searches is not something we should be playing political football with, be it welfare recipients or the TSA. Anyone who says otherwise and considers themselves a patriot needs to remember what the founders of our country said and fought for.
Bri2k
(not understanding at all the “hate” on the poor)
Your constitution doesn’t mention anything about only employed people (or people conservatives approve of) enjoying the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure.
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with “people conservatives approve of” or whatever other strawman you want to throw out. Take myself, for example. Number one, a condition of me being hired was that I submitted to a drug test. Number two, a condition of my continued employment is that I submit to and pass random drug tests. That’s hardly unreasonable and, indeed, most private/public sector companies employ such a policy, and even the government employs such a policy when hiring contractors.
I see no reason why welfare recipients shouldn’t be held to a similar standard when it comes to receiving and continuing to receive welfare.
Funny, though - I’ve had 30 years in the work force and only ONCE have I have been asked to submit to a drug test to either obtain or keep a job. A LOT of the work force is not subjected to this.
Aside from occupations where it really is a safety concern (truck driver, pilot, etc.) I really don’t think drug testing is appropriate, outside of actual signs of a drug/alcohol problem in an employee. In other words, I think it’s stupid to require it of someone stocking toilet paper at Wal-Mart.
I agree, Broomstick.
I work for a government agency and I wasn’t drug tested.
I’m glad because if I had been, I’d have been forced to tell them that I would definitely test positive for speed because I take medication for ADHD … not something I should be forced to tell a potential employer when they’re trying to decide whether or not to hire me. I would imagine those who are taking narcotics or benzos for some legitimate reason would feel the same way.
Well, I didn’t have to pee in a cup. I see no reasons why welfare recipients should be held to a stricter standard, so there. Also, since there’s no reason to suspect any of these people of using drugs it seems to me that this would be a violation of their privacy as per your constitution. That turned out to be the case when Michigan tried this a few years ago, it’s no less an invasion of privacy now.
As for my straw man, it isn’t one. It’s pretty clearly a value judgement on the OP’s part. There doesn’t seem to be much call for auditing welfare recipients to see they aren’t taking welfare money and blowing it all on lottery tickets or the ponies or movies or the 700 Club.
I have no wish to get into a weeks-long back and forth with you; I remember watching the abortion thread. I’ve said my piece, take it or leave it.
So, I have to take a drug test before I get my SS check every month?
Bob
I’m a sysadmin/ITSO for a defense contractor, and I have never been ordered to take a drug test. Only time it’s ever happened to me was when I was working IT for a factory while still an undergrad.
Should the people who give the drug tests be subjected to drug tests? How about the bosses?