States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[aka520]

Oh, c'mon Gib:"...I was assured other drug abuse was detectable, regardless of your nonchalant disregard. Although, I have been retired from business for a number of years, I would think the testing professionals would have modern safeguards in place to prevent tampering sophisticated enough to foil even the most clever deceiver."

Of course you were given assurances...these are SALESMEN, Gib, intent on selling YOU their product-in this case, their testing services.
Did you take the time to research it independently? If you had, you would find that there's no shortage of websites devoted to telling people exactly how to beat drug tests, for a variety of substances...and you would see for yourself that it's quite feasible to do so, especially with drugs that pass through your system quicker than marijuana does.

Random employment screening can be somewhat more effective, IF you are able to just walk up to an employee at random and request a sample...there's little if any opportunity for them to prepare for such a test.

But people on public assistance are another story. What would you propose? Have government caseworkers roving around knocking on the doors of welfare recipients at random and demanding samples on the spot? Good luck with that...AND, consider the cost.

I'm not arguing the fact that there are people out there who collect benefits who abuse drugs, some with serious addictive diseases...what I am saying is that drug testing would be a costly exercise in futility to attempt to combat it.
The hardcore users and addicts will generally be the ones who are most savvy on how to beat the tests-and there are plenty among those who are doing more than just smoking an occasional joint.
And there are many who have problems with alcohol abuse-but that's legal, and good luck catching them unless you can somehow catch them drinking and check their BAC on the spot.

As enormous as the costs of testing would be, and as ineffective as it would be in the bigger picture, it would make better sense to put that kind of money into more available and aggressive subsidized rehabilitation for those who have bottomed out and who are truly trying to beat an addiction.

So what you are suggesting Dud, is to just give up because these druggies are just too smart to be caught. However, I would submit these druggies are not the sharpest tool in the shed or they wouldn't be doing the drugs to start with. What you say about all the clever methods to mask detection is true. However, you fail to mention the use of masking agents is detectable in urine. The most common being the myth of drinking a lot of water. Yes, drinking a lot of water will dilute the test, negating the results. But it will also change the specific gravity of the urine and is easily detectable as being aberrant. All other supposed remedies are also detectable. The presence of aberrant urine is a red flag. Those showing masking agents in urine are then subject to further testing. Samples of hair is the final word in drug use. This cannot be beaten even by death.

The financial aspect is a moot point. I can't think of any instance enforcing the law being cost effective.
gb

When I am talking about "beating the drug test" I am NOT talking about "masking" it...I am talking about abstaining just long enough to flush out your system, and also you can dilute your urine to further confound the test without it being detected...unless you are proposing tests to test the results of the tests, and further tests to test for other potential indicators that someone "prepped" for the test...wow, you sure are getting free and easy with my tax dollars, Gib...

Hair testing is tougher, granted, BUT hair testing can also be beaten nowadays, hate to tell ya...the "shaved" look is "in" currently, so that could be limiting...and again, it's cost prohibitive.


And if we have all this money to throw around on drug testing, why bitch about who's getting public assistance in the first place?

Your grasping at straws Dud. If one can be convinced to lay off drugs for a few weeks, maybe the objective has been accomplished. However, my feeling is those who habitually do drugs will not have the will power to lay off long enough. As far as the hair, you are asking for someone to shave their entire body only hours before testing. That's quite a feat. Then there are skin scrapings and saliva swabs, not to mention blood samples.

As I posted, the financial aspect is a moot point. The government is known to spend millions to chase after a small amount.

The WHY is easy. It would be the law.
gb

 

[Care4all]

It's not about fairness. These two groups you mentioned have direct contact with the public, and/or handle equipment which could cause injury to the public. Seems to be a well directed effort to me. But about being unconsitutional; would that be right to privacy, or equal treatment under the law? I say test'em all. But there are economic issues there; how to direct a company's economic resources. Random testing might be best, after initial, hire-in testing.

What happened to this being the responsibility of the person that has the final say on the hiring of the individual?

WHAT happened to the "old days" when you could tell who you were hiring and whether they were going to be a good, productive employee for you and the "company" through the hiring "process"???

When the boss had to intervue the potential employee and also the human resource director and also, maybe your boss if possible and from this and the background check with references and previous employers, you...the boss...made a decision to hire someone that you thought would be the best person for the position?

Does no one take responsibility for their own judgements anymore? Not even the "boss"?
And have to rely on a drug test, via invading the intervuee's right to privacy, to make a quick decision on elimination?

I can tell you, that i have hired people, that were some of my greatest employees of all time, that i later found out were mj smokers....after I was no longer their boss and there was no way that I would have known such, by what they produced for me and the 'company'. It was NONE of my business to know what these fellas did on their spare time if they were producing on the job, never late, never over used or abused their sicktime.

And I am no pushover as some of you may think....i came in to one position with 15 existing employees, and when i was done firing, there were 4 left standing and the rest got their pink slips. Not because I knew what they were doing in their spare time or their personal time, which i didn't....but because I knew hands on what they were not doing "on the job".

Care

I can see some of the arguments in favor of employment-related drug testing...certainly jobs that affect the safety and well-being of others have to be considered...there's also the fact that in today's litigious society you will have some applicants who seem GREAT initially and then turn into the "employee from hell" once they're in the door-and if you terminate them based on "suspicion" you may find yourself being sued.
I can't disagree with a business owner who reserves the right to request a test in the event that they feel they have an employee who is abusing drugs on the job...I've dealt with employees with drug problems, and it can indeed impact the workplace, and the well-being and even the safety of other employees.
The problem with drug testing, in my humble opinion, is that it's become more of a sword to wield than a tool to use when neccessary.

You rid yoursef of them as you do with any other employee that is not meeting your standard for the job....you give them writen warnings and verbal back up warnings...3 times for the same transgression and then you terminate them....you then have a stand to fight unemployment payments and vet off being sued....this is how it was handled.

Most companies with dangerous positions have policies that no drinking is allowed on the job or during lunch hour or immediately before the job...as with pilots. I am uncertain how these policies really work, but if they allowed you to take a breathalizer test of the intoxicated employee, then I would suppose it would be only fair to be allowed to treat illegal drugs in the same manner and test for such, if given true cause?

Care

 

[Ravi]

so, lets say it is the former....and they test sales people and dock workers but NOT the executives....is that fair?

For the record, I am not a drug user, but I too....as with Ravi, do not support drug testing by our gvt or the private sector for hiring purposes.....I believe it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in premise...regardless of higher court decisions on it.

care

It's not about fairness. These two groups you mentioned have direct contact with the public, and/or handle equipment which could cause injury to the public. Seems to be a well directed effort to me. But about being unconsitutional; would that be right to privacy, or equal treatment under the law? I say test'em all. But there are economic issues there; how to direct a company's economic resources. Random testing might be best, after initial, hire-in testing.

What happened to this being the responsibility of the person that has the final say on the hiring of the individual?

WHAT happened to the "old days" when you could tell who you were hiring and whether they were going to be a good, productive employee for you and the "company" through the hiring "process"???

When the boss had to intervue the potential employee and also the human resource director and also, maybe your boss if possible and from this and the background check with references and previous employers, you...the boss...made a decision to hire someone that you thought would be the best person for the position?

Does no one take responsibility for their own judgements anymore? Not even the "boss"?
And have to rely on a drug test, via invading the intervuee's right to privacy, to make a quick decision on elimination?

I can tell you, that i have hired people, that were some of my greatest employees of all time, that i later found out were mj smokers....after I was no longer their boss and there was no way that I would have known such, by what they produced for me and the 'company'. It was NONE of my business to know what these fellas did on their spare time if they were producing on the job, never late, never over used or abused their sicktime.

And I am no pushover as some of you may think....i came in to one position with 15 existing employees, and when i was done firing, there were 4 left standing and the rest got their pink slips. Not because I knew what they were doing in their spare time or their personal time, which i didn't....but because I knew hands on what they were not doing "on the job"....producing positive results.

Care

Good points, Care. I maintain that I am smart enough to know if my employees are abusers. And if they turn out to have fooled me, then that is my responsibility for hiring them to begin with. It's pretty amusing watching so called "conservatives" advocating for government interference and control.

 

[Red Dawn]

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.



My Way News - States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

Here's the deal. When politicians want to look tough and effective, they always pick on poor people. Poor people are easy to kick around.

You think the halliburton contractors who's shoddy work killed american soldiers, or the Wall Street pigs who took taxpayer money and went on carribean vacation are being treated like subhuman scumbags?

Here's some math for the clueless: the amount of taxpayer money being forked over to corrupt contractors and wall street pigs, dwarfs by MANY orders of magnitude the amount given to some single mom on AFDC, who smokes a joint or two.

In short, these are some fucked up priorities.

 

[AllieBaba]

In industries where you have dangerous equipment and risky jobs (construction, manufacturing, welding, etc.) drug tests are generally mandatory upon hiring. Some do use random drug testing, but the one thing you can count on is if there is an accident, everyone involved has to submit to a drug test. It's required by the insurance companies.

 

[DvDud1]

So what you are suggesting Dud, is to just give up because these druggies are just too smart to be caught. However, I would submit these druggies are not the sharpest tool in the shed or they wouldn't be doing the drugs to start with. What you say about all the clever methods to mask detection is true. However, you fail to mention the use of masking agents is detectable in urine. The most common being the myth of drinking a lot of water. Yes, drinking a lot of water will dilute the test, negating the results. But it will also change the specific gravity of the urine and is easily detectable as being aberrant. All other supposed remedies are also detectable. The presence of aberrant urine is a red flag. Those showing masking agents in urine are then subject to further testing. Samples of hair is the final word in drug use. This cannot be beaten even by death.

The financial aspect is a moot point. I can't think of any instance enforcing the law being cost effective.
gb

When I am talking about "beating the drug test" I am NOT talking about "masking" it...I am talking about abstaining just long enough to flush out your system, and also you can dilute your urine to further confound the test without it being detected...unless you are proposing tests to test the results of the tests, and further tests to test for other potential indicators that someone "prepped" for the test...wow, you sure are getting free and easy with my tax dollars, Gib...

Hair testing is tougher, granted, BUT hair testing can also be beaten nowadays, hate to tell ya...the "shaved" look is "in" currently, so that could be limiting...and again, it's cost prohibitive.


And if we have all this money to throw around on drug testing, why bitch about who's getting public assistance in the first place?

Your grasping at straws Dud. If one can be convinced to lay off drugs for a few weeks, maybe the objective has been accomplished. However, my feeling is those who habitually do drugs will not have the will power to lay off long enough. As far as the hair, you are asking for someone to shave their entire body only hours before testing. That's quite a feat. Then there are skin scrapings and saliva swabs, not to mention blood samples.

As I posted, the financial aspect is a moot point. The government is known to spend millions to chase after a small amount.

The WHY is easy. It would be the law.
gb

Actually, hair testing has been challenged and isn't widely used...it is an invasion of privacy and person, to say the least.
And shaving isn't the only way to beat hair testing, Gib. Do some research.
The bill that is being discussed doesn't propose doing all THAT anyway-hair, saliva, skin, etc.-if it did and the taxpayers got wind of the potential costs it would lose all support...except maybe for one or two people like yourself.

The type of testing you are discussing is just TOO expensive...why do you think probation and parole supervisors still predominately use urinalysis as opposed to other, more accurate, methods? It isn't because they don't want to use more diligent methods to ensure that the offenders they're supervising aren't violating the terms of their supervision, it's about what the budget will bear..."the law" notwithstanding.

 

[DiamondDave]

In industries where you have dangerous equipment and risky jobs (construction, manufacturing, welding, etc.) drug tests are generally mandatory upon hiring. Some do use random drug testing, but the one thing you can count on is if there is an accident, everyone involved has to submit to a drug test. It's required by the insurance companies.

Not to mention jobs where security secrecy is a must... things like illegal drugs are something in a person's life that can be blackmailed and compromised

IMHO... it is constitutional.... and more than that, it is right... for if a shop owner or business does not want a moronic druggie working for them, so be it

As for welfare recipients... test the living fuck out of them for anything illegal... you want public money, you go under public scrutiny... you don't want the scrutiny?.. choose a job that does not scrutinize and work however many of them that you need to to take care of your own personal needs

Better yet.... yank welfare down to much smaller levels.. MUCH smaller... bringing back the incentive to actually fucking work..

 

[Peejay]

In industries where you have dangerous equipment and risky jobs (construction, manufacturing, welding, etc.) drug tests are generally mandatory upon hiring. Some do use random drug testing, but the one thing you can count on is if there is an accident, everyone involved has to submit to a drug test. It's required by the insurance companies.

Not to mention jobs where security secrecy is a must... things like illegal drugs are something in a person's life that can be blackmailed and compromised

IMHO... it is constitutional.... and more than that, it is right... for if a shop owner or business does not want a moronic druggie working for them, so be it

As for welfare recipients... test the living fuck out of them for anything illegal... you want public money, you go under public scrutiny... you don't want the scrutiny?.. choose a job that does not scrutinize and work however many of them that you need to to take care of your own personal needs

Better yet.... yank welfare down to much smaller levels.. MUCH smaller... bringing back the incentive to actually fucking work..

This is, at least, an honest position to take. If your rationale isn't saving money but spending more money to enforce repercussions, you are at least being honest with yourself. I'm not in favor of testing because it will cost us more. Again, these types of arguments go to abolishment rather than simply attempts at exclusion.

And in keeping with uniform thought, I would suppose the "you want public money..." line of thought would go towards the current public money being sent to tne banks and GM. Scrutinize the fuck out of 'em. Fire the CEOs. Limit pay. They take public funds, they get the same treatment, as it is a form of welfare. Right?

 

[Shogun]

Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen, for participating in another Epic Thread brought to you by The Shogun of USMB.


Remember.. No One stomps a mudhole like a Shogun!

 

[DiamondDave]

In industries where you have dangerous equipment and risky jobs (construction, manufacturing, welding, etc.) drug tests are generally mandatory upon hiring. Some do use random drug testing, but the one thing you can count on is if there is an accident, everyone involved has to submit to a drug test. It's required by the insurance companies.

Not to mention jobs where security secrecy is a must... things like illegal drugs are something in a person's life that can be blackmailed and compromised

IMHO... it is constitutional.... and more than that, it is right... for if a shop owner or business does not want a moronic druggie working for them, so be it

As for welfare recipients... test the living fuck out of them for anything illegal... you want public money, you go under public scrutiny... you don't want the scrutiny?.. choose a job that does not scrutinize and work however many of them that you need to to take care of your own personal needs

Better yet.... yank welfare down to much smaller levels.. MUCH smaller... bringing back the incentive to actually fucking work..

This is, at least, an honest position to take. If your rationale isn't saving money but spending more money to enforce repercussions, you are at least being honest with yourself. I'm not in favor of testing because it will cost us more. Again, these types of arguments go to abolishment rather than simply attempts at exclusion.

And in keeping with uniform thought, I would suppose the "you want public money..." line of thought would go towards the current public money being sent to tne banks and GM. Scrutinize the fuck out of 'em. Fire the CEOs. Limit pay. They take public funds, they get the same treatment, as it is a form of welfare. Right?

Actually... I think that if these companies receiving the bailouts want the money, they have to abide by whatever stipulations the government would put down... just as if they would go thru bankruptcy, they would have to follow stipulations in bankruptcy law...

Now what I did not agree with was congress changing things as punishment... like trying to pass it that 90% of bonuses would be taken in taxation... though those bonuses were contractual (no matter how much I think that bonus structure was bullshit)....

But if the government said you are not receiving this money unless costs are reduced X percent.. your company agrees to this repayment schedule... you company must follow federal employment guidelines and requirements (drug testing, background checks, etc)... your company will cooperate with the federal government in any investigation against executives for fraud, etc...

Though a company is a little different.. being a group of people/investors and not 1 individual receiving something....

And if the company don't like the stipulations, just like the welfare recipient, they can choose to take care of their own needs and their own situation






Not that I thought that it was he place of the government to actually bail out these companies though

 

[DvDud1]

In industries where you have dangerous equipment and risky jobs (construction, manufacturing, welding, etc.) drug tests are generally mandatory upon hiring. Some do use random drug testing, but the one thing you can count on is if there is an accident, everyone involved has to submit to a drug test. It's required by the insurance companies.

Not to mention jobs where security secrecy is a must... things like illegal drugs are something in a person's life that can be blackmailed and compromised

IMHO... it is constitutional.... and more than that, it is right... for if a shop owner or business does not want a moronic druggie working for them, so be it

As for welfare recipients... test the living fuck out of them for anything illegal... you want public money, you go under public scrutiny... you don't want the scrutiny?.. choose a job that does not scrutinize and work however many of them that you need to to take care of your own personal needs

Better yet.... yank welfare down to much smaller levels.. MUCH smaller... bringing back the incentive to actually fucking work..

This is, at least, an honest position to take. If your rationale isn't saving money but spending more money to enforce repercussions, you are at least being honest with yourself. I'm not in favor of testing because it will cost us more. Again, these types of arguments go to abolishment rather than simply attempts at exclusion.

And in keeping with uniform thought, I would suppose the "you want public money..." line of thought would go towards the current public money being sent to tne banks and GM. Scrutinize the fuck out of 'em. Fire the CEOs. Limit pay. They take public funds, they get the same treatment, as it is a form of welfare. Right?

It certainly is a form of welfare, and that's an interesting idea...
It would be more cost effective to test groups of people at random at their workplaces then it would to try to chase down recipients of welfare benefits all over the place.
It's certainly justifiable...we have to wonder, how many bad and impulsive decision that contributed to our economic crisis were made under the influence of multi-martini luncheons, lines of coke for "energy", etc.

I wonder how many Wall Street types would stand for it if We The People demanded they start pissing in a cup, and that they lose their jobs with no severance packages if their tests come back dirty?

I wonder how many politicians would support it?

For that matter...our elected officials are recieveing "public money"...AND they have grave responsibilities and are involved in making decisions that affect millions of people...isn't it way past time we started asking THEM to pee in a cup?

 

[aka520]

When I am talking about "beating the drug test" I am NOT talking about "masking" it...I am talking about abstaining just long enough to flush out your system, and also you can dilute your urine to further confound the test without it being detected...unless you are proposing tests to test the results of the tests, and further tests to test for other potential indicators that someone "prepped" for the test...wow, you sure are getting free and easy with my tax dollars, Gib...

Hair testing is tougher, granted, BUT hair testing can also be beaten nowadays, hate to tell ya...the "shaved" look is "in" currently, so that could be limiting...and again, it's cost prohibitive.


And if we have all this money to throw around on drug testing, why bitch about who's getting public assistance in the first place?

Your grasping at straws Dud. If one can be convinced to lay off drugs for a few weeks, maybe the objective has been accomplished. However, my feeling is those who habitually do drugs will not have the will power to lay off long enough. As far as the hair, you are asking for someone to shave their entire body only hours before testing. That's quite a feat. Then there are skin scrapings and saliva swabs, not to mention blood samples.

As I posted, the financial aspect is a moot point. The government is known to spend millions to chase after a small amount.

The WHY is easy. It would be the law.
gb

Actually, hair testing has been challenged and isn't widely used...it is an invasion of privacy and person, to say the least.
And shaving isn't the only way to beat hair testing, Gib. Do some research.
The bill that is being discussed doesn't propose doing all THAT anyway-hair, saliva, skin, etc.-if it did and the taxpayers got wind of the potential costs it would lose all support...except maybe for one or two people like yourself.

The type of testing you are discussing is just TOO expensive...why do you think probation and parole supervisors still predominately use urinalysis as opposed to other, more accurate, methods? It isn't because they don't want to use more diligent methods to ensure that the offenders they're supervising aren't violating the terms of their supervision, it's about what the budget will bear..."the law" notwithstanding.

Dud, you are presenting a straw man defense. I have shown that in unusual circumstances the average druggie would be powerless disguising their drug use. Extreme testing would be used only as a final resort. However, few tests would ever progress to these extremes. Better than 90% would be addressed by standard testing. The resulting 10% would normally be solved without the necessity of in depth screening.

As to a taxpayer revolt, you have to be kidding. These turd's in Washington just spent a trillion dollars with even reading the bill. Do you think the cost of drug testing for a minuscule number of druggies would even raise a peep?

The invasion of privacy issue is negated the same as implied consent for blood or breathalyzer testing is used with issuing a drivers license. i.e., If you want your check, sign here.
gb

 

[Care4all]

Your grasping at straws Dud. If one can be convinced to lay off drugs for a few weeks, maybe the objective has been accomplished. However, my feeling is those who habitually do drugs will not have the will power to lay off long enough. As far as the hair, you are asking for someone to shave their entire body only hours before testing. That's quite a feat. Then there are skin scrapings and saliva swabs, not to mention blood samples.

As I posted, the financial aspect is a moot point. The government is known to spend millions to chase after a small amount.

The WHY is easy. It would be the law.
gb

Actually, hair testing has been challenged and isn't widely used...it is an invasion of privacy and person, to say the least.
And shaving isn't the only way to beat hair testing, Gib. Do some research.
The bill that is being discussed doesn't propose doing all THAT anyway-hair, saliva, skin, etc.-if it did and the taxpayers got wind of the potential costs it would lose all support...except maybe for one or two people like yourself.

The type of testing you are discussing is just TOO expensive...why do you think probation and parole supervisors still predominately use urinalysis as opposed to other, more accurate, methods? It isn't because they don't want to use more diligent methods to ensure that the offenders they're supervising aren't violating the terms of their supervision, it's about what the budget will bear..."the law" notwithstanding.

Dud, you are presenting a straw man defense. I have shown that in unusual circumstances the average druggie would be powerless disguising their drug use. Extreme testing would be used only as a final resort. However, few tests would ever progress to these extremes. Better than 90% would be addressed by standard testing. The resulting 10% would normally be solved without the necessity of in depth screening.

As to a taxpayer revolt, you have to be kidding. These turd's in Washington just spent a trillion dollars with even reading the bill. Do you think the cost of drug testing for a minuscule number of druggies would even raise a peep?

The invasion of privacy issue is negated the same as implied consent for blood or breathalyzer testing is used with issuing a drivers license. i.e., If you want your check, sign here.
gb

only those that had a violation or extreme suspect of driving under the influence are subject to a breathalizor and even then, you have the right to refuse taking it.

All the innocent drivers ARE NOT subject to being forced to take a breathalizor test, so you are wrong on your last point, imo.

 

[Peejay]

I wonder where the line is for some people. Maybe we should just submit to the cost and intrusion of big brother cameras in the bathroom, the bedroom, etc. Afterall, if you have nothing to hide....

These things come in small increments. Years ago, the thought of your employer or some kind of police poking around in human waste would have been a laughable subject. Still is for me. I still hold the policy that if you want a urine sample, you get a paper bag full of shit too. Let's do this human waste testing right.

I've said it before, as much as some think a person that uses drugs is sick, the person willing to root around in his waste to find out is fucking deranged.

 

[AllieBaba]

BTW, the Republicans did put all sorts of reforms into welfare, which included programs that got rid of some of the more idiotic aspects of welfare, and which at the same time provided incentives to work.

Obama's busy repealing all those reforms as we speak.

 

[Peejay]

BTW, the Republicans did put all sorts of reforms into welfare, which included programs that got rid of some of the more idiotic aspects of welfare, and which at the same time provided incentives to work.

Obama's busy repealing all those reforms as we speak.

Sure thing. You have anything to back up that statement ? I've already been a couple rounds with Kitty about this. Obama hasn't moved on welfare. How about we hold our partisan piss-in-the-pants until something happens.

 

[AllieBaba]

Repealing Welfare Reform
By Michael Barone

Feb 17, 2009
By Michael Barone, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

That's what the stimulus bill has done, to a considerable extent, argues Mickey Kaus, in high dudgeon. I think he's right and that this should be a big issue as time goes on. Welfare reform, starting in the states, culminating with Bill Clinton's signing of the federal bill in 1996, was one of the great policy successes of the last generation. It improved the lives of welfare's intended beneficiaries just as the welfare system as it came to be in the late 1960s and early 1970s degraded them.
Repealing Welfare Reform - CBS News


"What I am talking about? I am talking about the reports from Benjamin E. Sasse and Kerry N. Weems, Mickey Kaus and from Robert Rector that your stimulus bill is repealing welfare reform.

All reports agree that the provisions in the bill that remove incentives to the states to reduce welfare caseloads will result in expansion of welfare programs. The bill will result in a return to the status quo ante 1996. And that is wrong.

I think it is fair to say that nowhere, Mr. President, did you say that you would be turning back the clock on welfare reform. I am talking about the rotted, dysfunctional welfare system that had been a national scandal for 30 years before President Bill Clinton signed off on the landmark reform bill in 1996.

The Obama administration has no mandate to roll back welfare reform. None at all.

This is wrong, Mr. President. It is cruel, corrupt, wasteful, unjust, and it is deluded. Let us count how this is so."
The Stealth Repeal Of Welfare Reform - Road to the Middle Class - by Christopher Chantrill

 

[Cecilie1200]

BTW, the Republicans did put all sorts of reforms into welfare, which included programs that got rid of some of the more idiotic aspects of welfare, and which at the same time provided incentives to work.

Obama's busy repealing all those reforms as we speak.

I believe one of their reforms was a lifetime cap on welfare benefits, necessitating that people get a job and start providing for themselves . . . which would then cover getting them drug-tested, now wouldn't it?

 

[Peejay]

Utter, partisan horseshit.

Welfare hasn't been touched.

the interesting thing about how blinded you are by your partisanship, is that on one hand, we are discussing a fairly large movement by states to drug test, in an effort to reduce welfare claims.

In the face of this, you produce some opinion that states somehow are moving away from welfafare reform and actually looking at increasing roles.

You look pretty stupid at this point.

 

[aka520]

Actually, hair testing has been challenged and isn't widely used...it is an invasion of privacy and person, to say the least.
And shaving isn't the only way to beat hair testing, Gib. Do some research.
The bill that is being discussed doesn't propose doing all THAT anyway-hair, saliva, skin, etc.-if it did and the taxpayers got wind of the potential costs it would lose all support...except maybe for one or two people like yourself.

The type of testing you are discussing is just TOO expensive...why do you think probation and parole supervisors still predominately use urinalysis as opposed to other, more accurate, methods? It isn't because they don't want to use more diligent methods to ensure that the offenders they're supervising aren't violating the terms of their supervision, it's about what the budget will bear..."the law" notwithstanding.

Dud, you are presenting a straw man defense. I have shown that in unusual circumstances the average druggie would be powerless disguising their drug use. Extreme testing would be used only as a final resort. However, few tests would ever progress to these extremes. Better than 90% would be addressed by standard testing. The resulting 10% would normally be solved without the necessity of in depth screening.

As to a taxpayer revolt, you have to be kidding. These turd's in Washington just spent a trillion dollars with even reading the bill. Do you think the cost of drug testing for a minuscule number of druggies would even raise a peep?

The invasion of privacy issue is negated the same as implied consent for blood or breathalyzer testing is used with issuing a drivers license. i.e., If you want your check, sign here.
gb

only those that had a violation or extreme suspect of driving under the influence are subject to a breathalizor and even then, you have the right to refuse taking it.

All the innocent drivers ARE NOT subject to being forced to take a breathalizor test, so you are wrong on your last point, imo.

Implied consent pal, means you will take the breathalyzer test if requested or you will voluntarily surrender your drivers license. Yes, you do have the right to refuse but try driving with a suspended license. I am not even going to talk about what happens to your insurance for years to come
gb