Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hey, that was exactly the case when Rick Scott did it in FL. Seems he had a large interest in drug testing companies.
The company I worked for required a drug test to get hired and periodic random drug tests thereafter. When someone flunked the test they were given the choice of a attending a drug rehab program on their own time or quitting. It seemed fair to me since I wasn't interested in working around someone that was stoned.
The flaw in that, as was pointed out before, is that such a test does not tell who is "stoned". It tells at best who has X amount of level of Chemical Y in their body, which is not the same thing at all.
If such workplaces were actually interested in screening as such, they could run simple dexterity/reflex tests which could show if somebody's motor skills or alertness was insufficient for the job -- regardless whether that insufficiency was a result of a substance, lack of sleep, a creeping illness or injury, alcohol, mental preoccupation with something personal, etc etc.
But obviously that's not what they're screening for -- they're screening for evidence of private behaviour in the past.
When authority figures are screening for personal behaviour it should set off massive alarms.
In most cases, the personal behaviour you refer too was taking something that is against the law.
So you agree they're screening for personal behavior. That's progress.
Whether the substance is against the law is irrelevant. Employers are not law enforcement -- and doing so based on circumstantial evidence is even shakier. Social welfare administrations, same thing.
Back to the original point -- screening for private personal behavior. You OK with that?
Ever heard of the Fourth Amendment?
Where was the Fourth Amendment when I had to pass a drug test to get hired? I do not have a problem with someone being drug tested before they get a pay check and you do. Nobody made you apply for welfare and if you don't meet the requirements to get a check, too bad.
We know you're not the sharpest tack, being a bit of a thug and all. when they start screening Joe Sixpack for drugs, get back to me. Until then, stop the stupid stuff.Is it now?
We've already established that they're screening for "approved" personal behaviour. That ship has already sailed. Now it's just a matter of what kind of seedy ports it's gonna stop in.
We know you're not the sharpest tack, being a bit of a thug and all. when they start screening Joe Sixpack for drugs, get back to me. Until then, stop the stupid stuff.Is it now?
We've already established that they're screening for "approved" personal behaviour. That ship has already sailed. Now it's just a matter of what kind of seedy ports it's gonna stop in.
The company I worked for required a drug test to get hired and periodic random drug tests thereafter. When someone flunked the test they were given the choice of a attending a drug rehab program on their own time or quitting. It seemed fair to me since I wasn't interested in working around someone that was stoned.
The flaw in that, as was pointed out before, is that such a test does not tell who is "stoned". It tells at best who has X amount of level of Chemical Y in their body, which is not the same thing at all.
If such workplaces were actually interested in screening as such, they could run simple dexterity/reflex tests which could show if somebody's motor skills or alertness was insufficient for the job -- regardless whether that insufficiency was a result of a substance, lack of sleep, a creeping illness or injury, alcohol, mental preoccupation with something personal, etc etc.
But obviously that's not what they're screening for -- they're screening for evidence of private behaviour in the past.
When authority figures are screening for personal behaviour it should set off massive alarms.
In most cases, the personal behaviour you refer too was taking something that is against the law.
So you agree they're screening for personal behavior. That's progress.
Whether the substance is against the law is irrelevant. Employers are not law enforcement -- and doing so based on circumstantial evidence is even shakier. Social welfare administrations, same thing.
Back to the original point -- screening for private personal behavior. You OK with that?
Ever heard of the Fourth Amendment?
Where was the Fourth Amendment when I had to pass a drug test to get hired? I do not have a problem with someone being drug tested before they get a pay check and you do. Nobody made you apply for welfare and if you don't meet the requirements to get a check, too bad.
It was sitting right there in the Constitution where it's always been. If somebody told you you "had to" do this to get hired, and you put up no resistance, then you enabled them.
They told me that too. I said take a hike. They blinked. If you don't stand up for your own rights, somebody will pick your pocket.
I could care less what kind of homo you are. You're just stupid.Yanno this ad homo shit is the exact same turd two other posters started flinging when I pointed out the same logical flaw. Then they ran away.
Remarkably consistent response.
The flaw in that, as was pointed out before, is that such a test does not tell who is "stoned". It tells at best who has X amount of level of Chemical Y in their body, which is not the same thing at all.
If such workplaces were actually interested in screening as such, they could run simple dexterity/reflex tests which could show if somebody's motor skills or alertness was insufficient for the job -- regardless whether that insufficiency was a result of a substance, lack of sleep, a creeping illness or injury, alcohol, mental preoccupation with something personal, etc etc.
But obviously that's not what they're screening for -- they're screening for evidence of private behaviour in the past.
When authority figures are screening for personal behaviour it should set off massive alarms.
In most cases, the personal behaviour you refer too was taking something that is against the law.
So you agree they're screening for personal behavior. That's progress.
Whether the substance is against the law is irrelevant. Employers are not law enforcement -- and doing so based on circumstantial evidence is even shakier. Social welfare administrations, same thing.
Back to the original point -- screening for private personal behavior. You OK with that?
Ever heard of the Fourth Amendment?
Where was the Fourth Amendment when I had to pass a drug test to get hired? I do not have a problem with someone being drug tested before they get a pay check and you do. Nobody made you apply for welfare and if you don't meet the requirements to get a check, too bad.
It was sitting right there in the Constitution where it's always been. If somebody told you you "had to" do this to get hired, and you put up no resistance, then you enabled them.
They told me that too. I said take a hike. They blinked. If you don't stand up for your own rights, somebody will pick your pocket.
I suggest that it was you that blinked and they told you to take a hike. I didn't mind taking a drug test as a requirement for employment, but then, I didn't and still don't use any illegal drugs.
I could care less what kind of homo you are. You're just stupid.Yanno this ad homo shit is the exact same turd two other posters started flinging when I pointed out the same logical flaw. Then they ran away.
Remarkably consistent response.
I'd like to see them randomly select 7600 individuals NOT on welfare, screen out a small sample based on the same criteria they used to screen likely drug users out of the welfare group,
test them, and see what percentage test positive.
I believe the article had a link to the results of drug tests given to gainfully employed people, and IIRC the percentage of people testing positive was three times higher. And so much safer for the general public too.
Are you completely oblivious to the reticence on the part of the tax payer to subsidize drug addictions? I and most other tax payers are not that concerned about what people do with their own money.I'd like to see them randomly select 7600 individuals NOT on welfare, screen out a small sample based on the same criteria they used to screen likely drug users out of the welfare group,
test them, and see what percentage test positive.
I believe the article had a link to the results of drug tests given to gainfully employed people, and IIRC the percentage of people testing positive was three times higher. And so much safer for the general public too.
I've read something to that effect.
Are you completely oblivious to the reticence on the part of the tax payer to subsidize drug addictions? I and most other tax payers are not that concerned about what people do with their own money.I'd like to see them randomly select 7600 individuals NOT on welfare, screen out a small sample based on the same criteria they used to screen likely drug users out of the welfare group,
test them, and see what percentage test positive.
I believe the article had a link to the results of drug tests given to gainfully employed people, and IIRC the percentage of people testing positive was three times higher. And so much safer for the general public too.
I've read something to that effect.
There is nothing magical about drug testing. It is a science. I doubt any of it would come back to your pocket, but some of it might to the pockets of those who actually pay taxes. Nice scam, but way too obvious.If all the drug addicts in America who get cash assistance from welfare were to magically lose that benefit,
tell me how much more in real dollars that would put in my pocket, due to my paying lower taxes.
There is nothing magical about drug testing. It is a science. I doubt any of it would come back to your pocket, but some of it might to the pockets of those who actually pay taxes. Nice scam, but way too obvious.If all the drug addicts in America who get cash assistance from welfare were to magically lose that benefit,
tell me how much more in real dollars that would put in my pocket, due to my paying lower taxes.
And you're bitching about it because you're scared they're going to take your free stuff away, right?There is nothing magical about drug testing. It is a science. I doubt any of it would come back to your pocket, but some of it might to the pockets of those who actually pay taxes. Nice scam, but way too obvious.If all the drug addicts in America who get cash assistance from welfare were to magically lose that benefit,
tell me how much more in real dollars that would put in my pocket, due to my paying lower taxes.
So you have no idea how much it's costing you, but you're bitching about it as if you do.
And you're bitching about it because you're scared they're going to take your free stuff away, right?There is nothing magical about drug testing. It is a science. I doubt any of it would come back to your pocket, but some of it might to the pockets of those who actually pay taxes. Nice scam, but way too obvious.If all the drug addicts in America who get cash assistance from welfare were to magically lose that benefit,
tell me how much more in real dollars that would put in my pocket, due to my paying lower taxes.
So you have no idea how much it's costing you, but you're bitching about it as if you do.
Soldiers are tested for drugs while serving their country, and you're upset that a bunch of thugs who do nothing but kill each other and sell drugs might get tested for the same, could lose the free stuff they're getting?! You are one sick puppy.And you're bitching about it because you're scared they're going to take your free stuff away, right?There is nothing magical about drug testing. It is a science. I doubt any of it would come back to your pocket, but some of it might to the pockets of those who actually pay taxes. Nice scam, but way too obvious.If all the drug addicts in America who get cash assistance from welfare were to magically lose that benefit,
tell me how much more in real dollars that would put in my pocket, due to my paying lower taxes.
So you have no idea how much it's costing you, but you're bitching about it as if you do.
Is that all you got? Grow up.
You have no idea how many pennies of taxes it's costing you, and yet you're crying about it as if it were a disaster like the Iraq war,
oh right, you were happy to send Americans to their needless deaths in that disaster.
Soldiers are tested for drugs while serving their country, and you're upset that a bunch of thugs who do nothing but kill each other and sell drugs might get tested for the same, could lose the free stuff they're getting?! You are one sick puppy.And you're bitching about it because you're scared they're going to take your free stuff away, right?There is nothing magical about drug testing. It is a science. I doubt any of it would come back to your pocket, but some of it might to the pockets of those who actually pay taxes. Nice scam, but way too obvious.If all the drug addicts in America who get cash assistance from welfare were to magically lose that benefit,
tell me how much more in real dollars that would put in my pocket, due to my paying lower taxes.
So you have no idea how much it's costing you, but you're bitching about it as if you do.
Is that all you got? Grow up.
You have no idea how many pennies of taxes it's costing you, and yet you're crying about it as if it were a disaster like the Iraq war,
oh right, you were happy to send Americans to their needless deaths in that disaster.
Soldiers are tested for drugs while serving their country, and you're upset that a bunch of thugs who do nothing but kill each other and sell drugs might get tested for the same, could lose the free stuff they're getting?! You are one sick puppy.And you're bitching about it because you're scared they're going to take your free stuff away, right?There is nothing magical about drug testing. It is a science. I doubt any of it would come back to your pocket, but some of it might to the pockets of those who actually pay taxes. Nice scam, but way too obvious.If all the drug addicts in America who get cash assistance from welfare were to magically lose that benefit,
tell me how much more in real dollars that would put in my pocket, due to my paying lower taxes.
So you have no idea how much it's costing you, but you're bitching about it as if you do.
Is that all you got? Grow up.
You have no idea how many pennies of taxes it's costing you, and yet you're crying about it as if it were a disaster like the Iraq war,
oh right, you were happy to send Americans to their needless deaths in that disaster.
MANY more defraud the government on their taxes?Nope. It's pointing out a non sequitur.
Prove me wrong. Essplain to the class how the presence of Substance X means that some transaction took place. How much money? Where? When? With who?
Really? If you have no income other than public assistance, where do you think the money came from? The money fairy?
To begin with, that's a big "IF". I'd wager that nearly everyone on public assistance has other sources of money. Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, etc. Second, you have no evidence that money was involved at all. Lastly, you have no evidence, period, that any illegal drug use has occurred, and that's the real problem. If the police tried going on a fishing expedition like this, the courts would rightfully slap them down. There's no reason such a violation of basic rights should be allowed simply because they're taking advantage of a government service you don't like.
I don't like? So, you'd be OK taking in a friend in who is down on their luck, they contribute nothing, then every time they get a few bucks, they get drunk or high? How long would you allow that to continue?
Again, you have no evidence this is happening. If there is evidence that warrants a legitimate investigation, according to the rules of due process that protect all of us, go for it. Prosecute them, put them in jail and knock them off the welfare roles. Otherwise leave them alone.efra
As I've stated here previously, I'm fundamentally opposed to the welfare state. It creates dependancy that invites just the kind of abuse of individual rights you're advocating.
Of course we have AMPLE evidence that MANY people are defrauding the government in many ways in terms of welfare.
MANY more defraud the government on their taxes
We need more drug testing
How many studies would you need in order to drop this bullshit? This has been done......and evaluated....many times. The fact is that there is no benefit to requiring drug testing before approving public assistance. It's a scam.
Not only that, but when FL tried to do this same thing a couple of years back, they compared the results of people who were on welfare to drug tests ran by companies, and found that people on assistance were less than half as likely to pop positive than those who had jobs.
Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.
