NC New Welfare Drug Test Law: 1/3rd Tested Positive from Sample.

[dblack]

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.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raise the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

How dare you! Every personal anecdote that any nutbag posts here is the absolute truth. Check yourself!!

 

[Papageorgio]

Your solution is to impose

MANY more defraud the government on their taxes

We need more drug testing

Drug testing is an enormous waste of both time and money, for both employers and the government.

Unless public safety is involved, the costs of drug testing are a total waste of money. The testing accomplishes next to nothing. There is no point or purpose. The number of people who test positive means that you would have to pay for dozens of tests to disqualify one candidate. To what purpose?

What the employees do with their time and money when they are not at work, is none of my business. If they aren't performing their duties, for whatever reasons, they will be fired. They're not flying planes, driving buses or operating bulldozers, they're sitting at their desks, doing paperwork.

American employers seem to be all hyped up on drug testing. Employers in other parts of the world, not so much. There's almost no benefit to that cost. The fear and paranoia that runs rampant in American society is driving drug testing.

I'd rather give a drug addict the pittance that is welfare, then have addicts broke and desperate, robbing and stealing to support their habits, putting the public at risk, and involving the criminal justice system. It's much cheaper than police, courts, and jail.

The government is more focused on it than American employers. Those that own businesses in the trucking industry follow the rules of the FMCSA and the FTA. Not only are drivers tested but mechanics and management that work in what they deem as safety sensitive positions.

Enabling a drug addict is the worst thing you can do for them. I know you want the easy way out but that is when you fail as a society. Enabling an addict continue to spiral downward out of control is cruel and it takes longer for them to hit bottom and rebound.

You have to be strong and hold them accountable, that is a first step in helping them to recover.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

You can't stop welfare at all. Seriously. The minute you want to cut welfare by just a little or cut it off to people who will never find jobs then the left cries like a little bitch. I don't see what is wrong with this considering that welfare recipients are required to look for work and when they do they will be drug tested. If they can't pass an employers drug test then they can't get employed and if they can't get employed they can't ever get a job. It kind of defeats the purpose of forcing them to look for work so they can get off of welfare.

 

[Moonglow]

You can't stop welfare at all. Seriously. The minute you want to cut welfare by just a little or cut it off to people who will never find jobs then the left cries like a little bitch. I don't see what is wrong with this considering that welfare recipients are required to look for work and when they do they will be drug tested. If they can't pass an employers drug test then they can't get employed and if they can't get employed they can't ever get a job. It kind of defeats the purpose of forcing them to look for work so they can get off of welfare.

Welfare has been reduced compared to the last decade...

 

[Papageorgio]

You can't stop welfare at all. Seriously. The minute you want to cut welfare by just a little or cut it off to people who will never find jobs then the left cries like a little bitch. I don't see what is wrong with this considering that welfare recipients are required to look for work and when they do they will be drug tested. If they can't pass an employers drug test then they can't get employed and if they can't get employed they can't ever get a job. It kind of defeats the purpose of forcing them to look for work so they can get off of welfare.

Welfare has been reduced compared to the last decade...

Are you sure?
Welfare Hits Record Levels After 50 Years of War on Poverty

Sanders: Welfare reform more than doubled 'extreme poverty'

Welfare spending jumps 32% during Obama’s presidency

Welfare Spending By President And Congress From 1959 To 2014

 

[dblack]

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.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.

I do to a degree but the addiction is the most important need in their life. Not family, not morals, not the job, addiction can lead to costly mistakes, embezzlement and so on, it is whatever it takes to feed the addiction. Also consider illness, time off for hangovers, the danger of it spinning out of control. Taking drugs are a risk, employers with drug addicts in their work place face greater liabilities.

 

[dblack]

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.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.

I do to a degree but the addiction is the most important need in their life.

How do you know that though, from a chemical test? I don't want to dismiss the debilitating effects of real addiction, but one thing that the "War on Drugs" tends to gloss over is that most people who use (recreational) drugs aren't addicts.

 

[Papageorgio]

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.

I do to a degree but the addiction is the most important need in their life.

How do you know that though, from a chemical test? I don't want to dismiss the debilitating effects of real addiction, but one thing that the "War on Drugs" tends to gloss over is that most people who use (recreational) drugs aren't addicts.

Not sure why you need to do recreational drugs. The side effects, short and long term are pretty bad. I'm not talking pot, I'm talking coke, meth, opiates and so on, then combine them with alcohol or other drugs and it is very dangerous.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.

I do to a degree but the addiction is the most important need in their life.

How do you know that though, from a chemical test? I don't want to dismiss the debilitating effects of real addiction, but one thing that the "War on Drugs" tends to gloss over is that most people who use (recreational) drugs aren't addicts.

I would say most people who use marijuana are not addicts, maybe even users of club drugs like extasy considering most club drugs aren't addictive and you can't really do a drug such as extasy every single day and still get high on it.

 

[dblack]

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.

I do to a degree but the addiction is the most important need in their life.

How do you know that though, from a chemical test? I don't want to dismiss the debilitating effects of real addiction, but one thing that the "War on Drugs" tends to gloss over is that most people who use (recreational) drugs aren't addicts.

I would say most people who use marijuana are not addicts, maybe even users of club drugs like extasy considering most club drugs aren't addictive and you can't really do a drug such as extasy every single day and still get high on it.

I don't have the stats handy, and it's not important enough to me to go digging for it, but I've read several studies that show that even most people who use really hard-core drugs like heroin aren't addicts. In any case, a drug test doesn't tell you whether someone is an addict - only if they've use in the last month or so.

 

[dblack]

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.

I do to a degree but the addiction is the most important need in their life.

How do you know that though, from a chemical test? I don't want to dismiss the debilitating effects of real addiction, but one thing that the "War on Drugs" tends to gloss over is that most people who use (recreational) drugs aren't addicts.

Not sure why you need to do recreational drugs.

Heh, sure. I don't think 'need' enters into it.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

Good, and excellent news for your wife. Hope she got promoted.

 

[Pogo]

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.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.

 

[Pogo]

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.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

And we're right back to this again -- if they're good workers, what's the point of going on a drug-fishing expedition?
The only answer is institutional control of private behaviour. It's all there is left.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

You can't stop welfare at all. Seriously. The minute you want to cut welfare by just a little or cut it off to people who will never find jobs then the left cries like a little bitch. I don't see what is wrong with this considering that welfare recipients are required to look for work and when they do they will be drug tested. If they can't pass an employers drug test then they can't get employed and if they can't get employed they can't ever get a job. It kind of defeats the purpose of forcing them to look for work so they can get off of welfare.

Welfare has been reduced compared to the last decade...

LOL.

 

[Pogo]

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.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.

I do to a degree but the addiction is the most important need in their life. Not family, not morals, not the job, addiction can lead to costly mistakes, embezzlement and so on, it is whatever it takes to feed the addiction. Also consider illness, time off for hangovers, the danger of it spinning out of control. Taking drugs are a risk, employers with drug addicts in their work place face greater liabilities.

Now you're contradicting your own assessment of "they were good workers". You're also extending the status of substance flags in these tests to "addiction". Again, there's no bridge to get there.

Exactly what "drugs" are we talking about here? Because there are substances called "drugs" that are commonly screened that are also not addictive.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

And we're right back to this again -- if they're good workers, what's the point of going on a drug-fishing expedition?
The only answer is institutional control of private behaviour. It's all there is left.

If they are on drugs then they can't be good workers. Decision making skills are reduced and there is a character issue involved. A lot of workers like to be around people of good character. We know they won't hall off and whack someone (workplace violence), they won't steal from the company (workplace theft), and they tend to be easier to get along with. I'm surprised more companies are not realizing that they should hire for good character as well as good work skills since both are a postive to them.