E
Eggnotz
Guest
If the government gives you money do you owe it to society to stay drug free?
- Status
R
RobHom
Guest
I don’t see drug & alcohol testing as being a serious problem where welfare recipients are concerned. It could serve to make sure that the money is being used for what it is intended. I’m not sure that the ACLU would agree with me though, in fact I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t!
But one issue at hand is the who/what/when/where. This is a cumbersome project. I know this for a fact as I am one of those people who carries a CDL-A w/XT endorsements…and I am involved directly in the movement of hazardous materials on a daily basis. I am covered under the auspices of 49CFR and other rules. I am subject to testing at any time, for cause, for suspicion, and if there is an accident involving injuries or damages above a $ amount or if a vehicle is towed from the scene.
There are specific requirements as to where, when and how the testing is done. It involves solely certified personnel and requires a very sound and set chain of evidence. It is not an inexpensive operation…and it generally requires the “over-nighting” of the samples by air express to a limited number of laboratories that are certified.
A simple violation of the chain of evidence or a mixing of the samples can cause false positives or false negatives. It is far more cumbersome and expensive than one might imagine.
I think that if you were to invoke this type of testing…you would create both a financial and logistical nightmare. The time involved and the personnel requirements would be staggering, not to mention the court battles over “privacy” and so on. It is one thing to levy the requirements on people who understand that their livelihood and even careers depend on compliance, but you would be dealing with persons who are not likely to be amenable to the testing…and who even if clean as a whistle…would resent being forced to report to be tested and wait in a clinic…
I wouldn’t suggest it.
But one issue at hand is the who/what/when/where. This is a cumbersome project. I know this for a fact as I am one of those people who carries a CDL-A w/XT endorsements…and I am involved directly in the movement of hazardous materials on a daily basis. I am covered under the auspices of 49CFR and other rules. I am subject to testing at any time, for cause, for suspicion, and if there is an accident involving injuries or damages above a $ amount or if a vehicle is towed from the scene.
There are specific requirements as to where, when and how the testing is done. It involves solely certified personnel and requires a very sound and set chain of evidence. It is not an inexpensive operation…and it generally requires the “over-nighting” of the samples by air express to a limited number of laboratories that are certified.
A simple violation of the chain of evidence or a mixing of the samples can cause false positives or false negatives. It is far more cumbersome and expensive than one might imagine.
I think that if you were to invoke this type of testing…you would create both a financial and logistical nightmare. The time involved and the personnel requirements would be staggering, not to mention the court battles over “privacy” and so on. It is one thing to levy the requirements on people who understand that their livelihood and even careers depend on compliance, but you would be dealing with persons who are not likely to be amenable to the testing…and who even if clean as a whistle…would resent being forced to report to be tested and wait in a clinic…
I wouldn’t suggest it.
A
absolutebelieve
Guest
Ignoring your horrifying suggestion that people on welfare MUST be doing drugs, it’s not the government’s business to drug test ANYONE, unless they have violated the law. Collecting welfare is not a criminal act, and therefore, a gross invasion such as drug testing recipients for nothing more than being recipients is appalling.
T
That_one_guy
Guest
Only the drug addict has to worry about it. Drug testing is relatively easy nowadays. There isn’t as much shipping around as there was before. You can even get kits for home use!
As long as the testee can provide proof of prescription for whatever is in their system there should be nothing to worry about.
The only people who would oppose mandatory drug testing would be people who condone recreational drug use.
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
i couldnt agree more. someone who is clean just pees in the cup once a month or so= no problem.
people on drugs are probably wasting that money, and not out trying to improve their situation or society, so why should they get a free ride.
A
absolutebelieve
Guest
You obviously don’t understand what a government enforced drug test represents, do you? Have you heard of the fourth amendment?
The only people who would oppose mandatory drug testing are the smart ones who value our civil liberties, privacy, and constitutional rights.
E
estesbob
Guest
Holding a job is not a criminal act yet most companies drug test people before hiring them. Having said that I don’t think that drug testing welfare recipients is a good idea. If they test positive what are we going to do? Let them starve to death?
E
Eggnotz
Guest
Please. Let’s not confuse “suggestion” with “question”, horrifying or otherwise.
A
absolutebelieve
Guest
A job is not the government. Private drug testing (as is done by employers, like Rob Horn’s) and government drug testing aren’t remotely the same thing. The government cannot invade your body or home for any reason, unless they have some form of evidence that you are doing drugs. They cannot simply get you to take a pee test because you’re on welfare. It’s a gross invasion of privacy, and illegal search and seizure, violating your fourth amendment right. If you’re willing to give up some of your rights, you need to give them all up, that’s just my opinion.
G
ggaulin
Guest
Personally, I find welfare problematic unless there is a component getting folks off of welfare. God didn’t create people to sponge off the taxpayers. He wants us to be productive, loving members of society.
If you must rely on taxpayer dollars to live, then you can’t afford to use drugs both in the sense of monetary cost and in the sense of human cost. To make drug testing conditional to the use of public funds seems entirely reasonable.
If they don’t like it, get off of welfare. Maybe that’s the incentive they need…
If you must rely on taxpayer dollars to live, then you can’t afford to use drugs both in the sense of monetary cost and in the sense of human cost. To make drug testing conditional to the use of public funds seems entirely reasonable.
If they don’t like it, get off of welfare. Maybe that’s the incentive they need…
A
absolutebelieve
Guest
Your opinion of people (some, at least, if not most) on welfare, is pretty apparent. You’re right, it wasn’t that suggesting
A
ALLGIRLS
Guest
Well, as a former welfare recipient, I answered no. As for the charge that only “pro recreational drug use” people would oppose testing, that’s simply not true. I am totally opposed to recreational drug use (as well as drug legalization), I don’t think anyone should use drugs, ever. I’ve seen the devastating effects of it in my own family, as well as in my former job as a probation and parole officer.
That being said, the reason I don’t believe in mandatory testing is, why single out welfare recipients? I’m a mother. I have 4 small (6 and under) children in my care. Why shouldn’t the government test me? Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of my family? If I’m doing drugs, I’m most likely neglecting and endangering my kids. That costly for society, if left unchecked. Why not test all people who have a driver’s license? Driving while under the influence is dangerous for everyone on the road. Why wait until someone is obvioulsy impaired to pull them over and test them? Nip it in in the bud before they can hurt somebody! Should every woman who gets pregnant be tested at every prenatal appointment? That could help a lot of babies and save a lot of money on neo-natal care later on. Hmmm. The possiblities are endless. How about anyone who takes out a mortgage gets tested. If someone’s doing drugs, he may lose his job, and not be able to pay his mortgage. Look at what a mess our economy is in because of people unable to pay their mortgages! Heck, taking out any type of loan should require testing, gotta make sure these people are being responsible. Ditto for insurance policies. And enrolling your kids in school (public school parents need to be clean and sober to support their children’s education; private school parents for that, and to make sure they keep their jobs so they can pay tuition). And if you homeschool, you should get tested to make sure you’re not high while teaching your kids.
Ok, that’s enough. But you see that you can justify drug testing just about everybody in country. Our “nanny state” is bad enough now, do you really want to go there? Or, are you just picking on welfare recipients because they have the nerve to sit at home “sucking up our tax dollars”, so they need to be inconvenienced?
Think about it.
In Christ,
Ellen
That being said, the reason I don’t believe in mandatory testing is, why single out welfare recipients? I’m a mother. I have 4 small (6 and under) children in my care. Why shouldn’t the government test me? Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of my family? If I’m doing drugs, I’m most likely neglecting and endangering my kids. That costly for society, if left unchecked. Why not test all people who have a driver’s license? Driving while under the influence is dangerous for everyone on the road. Why wait until someone is obvioulsy impaired to pull them over and test them? Nip it in in the bud before they can hurt somebody! Should every woman who gets pregnant be tested at every prenatal appointment? That could help a lot of babies and save a lot of money on neo-natal care later on. Hmmm. The possiblities are endless. How about anyone who takes out a mortgage gets tested. If someone’s doing drugs, he may lose his job, and not be able to pay his mortgage. Look at what a mess our economy is in because of people unable to pay their mortgages! Heck, taking out any type of loan should require testing, gotta make sure these people are being responsible. Ditto for insurance policies. And enrolling your kids in school (public school parents need to be clean and sober to support their children’s education; private school parents for that, and to make sure they keep their jobs so they can pay tuition). And if you homeschool, you should get tested to make sure you’re not high while teaching your kids.
Ok, that’s enough. But you see that you can justify drug testing just about everybody in country. Our “nanny state” is bad enough now, do you really want to go there? Or, are you just picking on welfare recipients because they have the nerve to sit at home “sucking up our tax dollars”, so they need to be inconvenienced?
Think about it.
In Christ,
Ellen
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
so soldiers and other government employees can’t be subject to random drug testing? i dont think the argument that its part of their job and thats different is insufficent. welfare is basically a job, in exchange for the form filing and being law abiding(people in jail cant collect it) the boss(government) gives out a check.
i think requiring the test at regular or random intervals is completely compatible with our civil liberties and freedoms since noone is forced to collect welfare. anyone objecting is free to do something else. now if you were forced to be on welfare and submit to the tests id agree, but since we are free i see no problem with my employees(people collecting my tax dollars) being made to be drug free to keep collecting money.
A
absolutebelieve
Guest
No, welfare is not a job, it’s a government resource that all taxpayers fund, and a majority of those on welfare have paid taxes at some point. And if you think random drug testing recipients of a public resouce doesn’t conflict with your fourth amendment, or has anything to do with invading your privacy, then you should read up on the fourth amendment. People who are so cavalier with their rights is pretty scary, even moreso when it’s OTHER people’s rights they’re willing to throw away. And you do realize that once you’re no longer valuable as a worker, when you collect social security, you’ll be collecting MY tax dollars, so i certainly hope you’re worth it.
G
ggaulin
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
So if someone on welfare is using drugs we should remove the welfare and let them starve to death? Not in my country.
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
i didnt say it was a job. that was a metaphor to show the similarties between drug testing welfare recipents and other acceptable drug testing situations.
i never said they hadnt ever paid taxes or ment to imply that most werent worth it. however someone on welfare actively taking illegal drugs is worth their human diginity and all but that doesnt mean we have to keep enabling their habit.
i still see no constitional problem as it is a voluntary program. dont like the test dont take the check.
i’d have no problem with drug testing for social security. however im 26 do you really think i will ever see 1 penny of the money i put into that back?
T
That_one_guy
Guest
They should be referred to counseling and/or rehab to continue qualifying.
E
estesbob
Guest
And if they refuse and or it doesn’t work?
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
i think this sums it up very well. nicely put
- Status