• Welfare Drug Test Law Ruled Unconstitutional
    103 replies, posted
I can understand why they wanted to drug test people on welfare. People who hold jobs are submitted to random drug tests, high school students who do extra-curricular activities are submitted to random drug tests, etc. There are tons of people who have to go through it, and the thought behind the people on welfare being tested was just to make it fair to those who aren't on welfare who are tested.
[QUOTE=Jedi_Rayne;33010746]People who hold jobs are submitted to random drug tests, high school students who do extra-curricular activities are submitted to random drug tests, etc.[/QUOTE] One of the arguments is that that should not be legal either. The justification for making it illegal in Canada cites sections of the charter similar to what you have in your bill of rights
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33010735]You can also fail a drug test by being around someone else smoking marijuana.[/QUOTE] I have passed all of mine and I often hang out with people who smoke weed, like I said if you only test those with poor work performance it should be fine. Being around marijuana should not affect your performance on the job.
[QUOTE=imptastick;33010763]I have passed all of mine and I often hang out with people who smoke weed, like I said [b]if you only test those with poor work performance[/b] it should be fine. Being around marijuana should not affect your performance on the job.[/QUOTE] Should only test people when the employer has reasonable suspicion that the person is high or drunk on the job
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33010776]Should only test people when the employer has reasonable suspicion that the person is high or drunk on the job[/QUOTE] That is what I am saying, I agree that it should not be administered without a good reason; I have no problem if some who is supporting themselves gets high on their own time that is none of my business. My workplace had an unwritten rule that if they call you in without notice and you are high they just look the other way, but if you are scheduled and know ahead of time then you have to be sober when you come in.
[QUOTE=imptastick;33010812] My workplace had an unwritten rule that if they call you in without notice and you are high they just look the other way[/QUOTE] What was your workplace? God I hope it wasn't construction
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33010864]What was your workplace? God I hope it wasn't construction[/QUOTE] No, I worked at a store, mostly stocking/blocking product and cashier stuff, we did have one guy come in high and slice his hand open in the deli. (Never eat at an in-store deli, it is fucking disgusting what goes on back there)
[QUOTE=Homez;33009031]Here is what the National Poverty Center has to say: [release] "Our estimates using data from the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (NHSDA) indicate that 9 percent of welfare recipients in 1994 and 1995 were alcohol dependent and that 21 percent had used an illegal drug in the past year (mostly marijuana). (Figure 1) Excluding marijuana, 10 percent of recipients had used some other illegal drug during the past year, with 6 percent having used cocaine or crack.7 Only a small minority of recipients (about 4 percent) satisfied the diagnostic screening criteria for illicit drug dependence (i.e., their drug use impairs their functioning in significant ways).8 Our analyses also document that psychiatric disorders, especially major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, are more prevalent than drug and alcohol dependence among welfare recipients. About 19 percent of recipients had at least one of the four psychiatric disorders measured in the NHSDA." [/release] Here is Figure 1, a graphical representation of the previous information: "Substance Abuse, Mental Health, and Welfare Receipt (authors' estimates, from NHSDA data)" [img]http://www.npc.umich.edu/images/brief2.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief02/[/url] Basically, only 4%, according to the survey, fall under the "illicit drug dependence" category. For all intents and purposes, only 4% of welfare recipients are impaired by their drug use ("impaired" being relative). Be that as it may, I feel that the Urinalysis supporters have a very practical point. The drug test should be mandatory, but if they fail they should have the option of rehab/continued welfare. If a poor man is spending money on counterproductive substances like alcohol, he has distorted priorities. I'm not against a little benign entertainment, but drugs, for me, don't fall under that category. Or maybe there should be an appellate process, where you can attempt to justify your actions. Here is a related article from the LA Times titled "[B]Controlling how people spend their welfare money? Easier said than done.[/B]" The two issue are closely related. [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/13/local/me-banks13-20100713[/url] Summary: Should welfare recipients be able to gamble, etc, with taxpayer money? "[B]I think people whose taxes pay for these grants do not intend for the poor and destitute to purchase cigarettes and liquor, massages and gambling.[/B]" -Ron Haskins, Welfare expert at the Brookings Institution[/QUOTE] That's absolutely nothing, I'm actually quite surprised. [editline]29th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;33010712]It absolutely is. Drug tests show if you have used, for example, marijuana at any time in the past three to six WEEKS. A failed drug test is not indicative of being high.[/QUOTE] Cannabis has a far shorter window for drug testing. Unless it's done via hair analysis, which is rather expensive. [editline]29th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;33010864]What was your workplace? God I hope it wasn't construction[/QUOTE] All the tradies and construction workers start getting drunk at lunchtime, it's not that abnormal.
[QUOTE=Contag;33011230] All the tradies and construction workers start getting drunk at lunchtime, it's not that abnormal.[/QUOTE] I know where I am if a foreman even caught a hint of alcohol on a worker's breath he'd have him doing paperwork for the rest of the day I heard a story about some drunk guy working at a mine who wanted to play a prank on a welder working below him by knocking a bucket of water over the edge to mess him up, except it turned out the bucket had turpentine and when it hit the hot metal it practically exploded Most trades up here have very little tolerance for people who aren't 100% on their game
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33004789]Even in this solution there'd obviously be drug testing happening to determine who should be going to rehab. And that's been found unconstitutional, rightly so So let's let people make their own choices while at the same time doing at the very least the minimum necessary to ensure they aren't dying in the streets[/QUOTE] I understand what you mean with not wanting to give them the drug tests in the first place, but I just cant justify giving them free money if any amount of it is going to furthering their problems. While Im usually all for personal freedom, if you are completely relying on welfare (which Im not looking down upon, most people have hard times at some point or another) you should be making an effort to better yourself so that you can get [I]off[/I] welfare. It should be something that helps you get back on your feet, not something that furthers or worsens your situation. Maybe only do tests for hard drugs?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33010459]Oh no, my bottom line! This is definitely a very good reason to violate people's privacy rights.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure why if you think you're going to be an agent of a company the company doesn't have a right to know about you. Personally I can't give a shit about a lot of things (my caring-about-drugs meter doesn't register under well into coke fiend territory- it's amazing the quality of work some people can do while stoned or lightly fucked up) but pretending you acting on behalf of another person or group of people doesn't entitle them to know a few things about you is asinine.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33012578]I'm not sure why if you think you're going to be an agent of a company the company doesn't have a right to know about you.[/QUOTE] Because the rights of a company do not override that of an employee? Otherwise corporations should be allowed to surveil their employees when they are not at work, much like drug testing for periods when not working.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33010459]Oh no, my bottom line! This is definitely a very good reason to violate people's privacy rights. By the way for anyone interested about my post saying that drug screening for employment is illegal in Canada, read this PDF: [url]http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/poldrgalceng.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] A private company is just that, a [B]private[/B] company. If you want their god damn money follow their policies and show that you can follow their policies, it is as simple as that. EDIT: Oh and don't make some far-fetched, outlandish comparison to companies explicitly stating they won't hire minorities or something
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33012634]A private company is just that, a [B]private[/B] company. If you want their god damn money follow their policies and show that you can follow their policies, it is as simple as that.[/QUOTE] No wonder your country is fucked. ~land of the free corporation~
[video=youtube;nGsEt-qtOqs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGsEt-qtOqs[/video]
[QUOTE=Contag;33012669]No wonder your country is fucked. ~land of the free corporation~[/QUOTE] So, by that logic, I guess companies shouldn't be allowed to perform background checks either. It doesn't matter if Betty Lou moonlights as a stripper or John Doe is a convicted child molester. Despite the fact that it compromises the public image of a company such as, say, Disney, it shouldn't be allowed. Who cares if Betty Lou is a stripper in her free time, I'm sure the families who go to Disney won't mind. Who cares if Bessy Sanders is a prostitute on weekends, that shouldn't matter. Science forbid we require that prospective employees reveal a little about themselves when they want to work for someone and receive their money.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33012808]So, by that logic, I guess companies shouldn't be allowed to perform background checks either. It doesn't matter if Betty Lou moonlights as a stripper or John Doe is a convicted child molester. Despite the fact that it compromises the public image of a company such as, say, Disney, it shouldn't be allowed. Who cares if Betty Lou is a stripper in her free time, I'm sure the families who go to Disney won't mind. Who cares if Bessy Sanders is a prostitute on weekends, that shouldn't matter. Science forbid we require that prospective employees reveal a little about themselves when they want to work for someone and receive their money.[/QUOTE] Unless they're in a highly public position, that is, it's directly related to their job performance, it shouldn't matter. Why the fuck would the families mind? She's not stripping at Disney.
Fuuuuck that. It's no different than drug testing for a job. Why do jobs do it? They don't want idiots working for them. Why should welfare do it? I don't want to pay for the habits that got you fired.
[QUOTE=MR-X;33004100] the people that need it don't get it and the people who are on it are so lazy they don't bother getting a job. It is pretty sad that I can make more money on welfare then actually working and put in 40 hours a week.[/QUOTE] What job is that? You wouldn't be payed that much unless you really couldn't work (mental/physical problems or have to take care of children while single) while on workers comp you only get paid unless you have showed that you are looking for a job. It definitely isn't easy money or something more preferable then a job. [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=tinos;33013719]Fuuuuck that. It's no different than drug testing for a job. Why do jobs do it? They don't want idiots working for them.[/QUOTE] Smoking weed makes you stupid apparently. If I hired someone I wouldn't care what they took as long as they were able to work hard and there drug didn't put them in risk of having me pay there healthcare for them.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33012578]I'm not sure why if you think you're going to be an agent of a company the company doesn't have a right to know about you.[/QUOTE] They have no business knowing about what you do on your own time outside of the company. Like I said, if they have reason to believe you're stoned or drunk AT WORK, then yes, a drug test is completely acceptable as long as it is a comprehensive one able to tell when the drug was ingested. Because the piss tests and stuff they do now will have you fail if you've used drugs at all in the past month, and your employer has no business knowing that. [QUOTE=Timebomb575;33012254] Maybe only do tests for hard drugs?[/QUOTE] That isn't a concession at all
[QUOTE=Contag;33012621]Otherwise corporations should be allowed to surveil their employees when they are not at work, much like drug testing for periods when not working.[/QUOTE] Some do already. This is where the Facebook stalking horror stories come from. And I'm not sure why if they want to say "we'll only hire you if you wear a GPS tracker and camera 24/7" they shouldn't be allowed to. If you don't like it, don't work for that company. Moving away from the land of the absurd, knowing whether or not you're on certain drugs is a pretty basic piece of information that doesn't require any real surveillance or any other violation of a person's privacy (if you pee in public restrooms, you've got no expectation of having your urine be private- it's a bit like the fact that you've got no right to privacy for phone calls you make within listening distance of another person.) Drug tests are just an upfront way of finding out. [QUOTE=Zeke129;33014428]They have no business knowing about what you do on your own time outside of the company.[/QUOTE] Why don't they have any business knowing it? You don't think if a person is willing to break the law for personal satisfaction it doesn't tell you a bit about their character?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;33004249]how will putting thousands upon thousands of drug addicts out on the streets be beneficial for this country? [editline]27th October 2011[/editline] ed: continuation of previous post[/QUOTE] Why is giving free money to crack addicts a good idea when you know they'll just buy more crack I know only like 1% of people on welfare do drugs and even fewer are addicts, but why reward the ones that are for their lifestyle when they're probably not going to try to fix it
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33012808]It doesn't matter if Betty Lou moonlights as a stripper or John Doe is a convicted child molester.[/QUOTE] Unless it's directly relevant to them competently doing their job or puts John in a position of authority over children then no it doesn't.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33014448] Why don't they have any business knowing it? You don't think if a person is willing to break the law for personal satisfaction it doesn't tell you a bit about their character?[/QUOTE] They don't have any business knowing it for the same reason they don't have any business knowing which political party I'm registered with, what religion I am, what medications I take and what disabilities I have, the country I was born in and my ethnicity, my sexuality, or any other personal belief, association, or activity that isn't relevant to work. There's a reason all of those are illegal to ask about in a job interview [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tacosheller;33014605]Why is giving free money to crack addicts a good idea when you know they'll just buy more crack I know only like 1% of people on welfare do drugs and even fewer are addicts, but why reward the ones that are for their lifestyle when they're probably not going to try to fix it[/QUOTE] Your know your country (and your attitude) is a fucking mess when you think the ability to not freeze to death in an alleyway is a "reward"
This is straight up racist. They basically exempted everyone but those below the poverty line looking for assistance (guess which groups most represent this group? I'm not saying that in a way to hate on minorities, what I mean is they're getting fucked over. Have you seen their unemployment rate?). Who do you think these honkeys are talking about when they say they are fed up with freeloading drug users?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33015022]They don't have any business knowing it for the same reason they don't have any business knowing which political party I'm registered with[/QUOTE] Registering with a political party isn't illegal. [QUOTE=Zeke129;33015022]what religion I am[/QUOTE] Nor is being a member of a religion. [QUOTE=Zeke129;33015022]what medications I take and what disabilities I have,[/QUOTE] Nor is taking medication of having a disability. [QUOTE=Zeke129;33015022]the country I was born in and my ethnicity,[/QUOTE] Nor is being born in a country nor having an ethnicity. [QUOTE=Zeke129;33015022]my sexuality,[/QUOTE] Nor is having a sexuality. [QUOTE=Zeke129;33015022]or any other personal belief, association, or activity that isn't relevant to work.[/QUOTE] Yadda yadda. [QUOTE=Zeke129;33015022]There's a reason all of those are illegal to ask about in a job interview[/QUOTE] Well, sure, because they're all legal, and most are something you have no control over. You can't up and decide to be a repulican jewish insulin-taking paraplegic lesbian berber woman from Afghanistan. You [I]can[/I] decide to smoke marajuana.
Xenocidebot, that was beside the point. You stated why businesses have a right to pry into our privacy, I simply said that they shouldn't and listed a plethora of other things they're not allowed to ask about. And not all drug use is illegal, by the way. Medicinal marijuana, for example. (Many prescription drugs can show up on drug tests, but they won't all fail you so I'll use this for an example) Nobody should have to reveal to their employer what [b]legal[/b] drugs they take, but unfortunately any tests for illegal drugs will reveal this.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33015252]Registering with a political party isn't illegal. Nor is being a member of a religion. Nor is taking medication of having a disability. Nor is being born in a country nor having an ethnicity. Nor is having a sexuality. Yadda yadda. Well, sure, because they're all legal, and most are something you have no control over. You can't up and decide to be a repulican jewish insulin-taking paraplegic lesbian berber woman from Afghanistan. You [I]can[/I] decide to smoke marajuana.[/QUOTE] You can decide to be a Jewish Republican, or not.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33015281]And not all drug use is illegal, by the way. Medicinal marijuana, for example. (Many prescription drugs can show up on drug tests, but they won't all fail you so I'll use this for an example) Nobody should have to reveal to their employer what [b]legal[/b] drugs they take, but unfortunately any tests for illegal drugs will reveal this.[/QUOTE] So you shouldn't be allowed to look at an applicant with a false eye because, holy shit, it will reveal they have a false eye? Are you [I]trying[/I] to be dense? Seriously, you're normally so reasonable and here you've presented not a god damn piece of rationality for anything. You just keep parroting that businesses shouldn't be allowed to know. Tell me [I]why.[/I] [QUOTE=Jawalt;33015291]You can decide to be a Jewish Republican, or not.[/QUOTE] If your morals are so mutable that you're one religion or political party today and another tomorrow I think most folk would tell you you're really none of them. Those things change, but they're not normally things one changes on a whim.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33015281]Xenocidebot, that was beside the point. You stated why businesses have a right to pry into our privacy, I simply said that they shouldn't and listed a plethora of other things they're not allowed to ask about. And not all drug use is illegal, by the way. Medicinal marijuana, for example. (Many prescription drugs can show up on drug tests, but they won't all fail you so I'll use this for an example) Nobody should have to reveal to their employer what [b]legal[/b] drugs they take, but unfortunately any tests for illegal drugs will reveal this.[/QUOTE] drug tests are specific, atleast as far as piss is concerned. They can't look at your piss and see oh this guy takes alot of antidepressants, drinks alot, smokes weed, takes alot of ibuprofen etc etc. They are screening for specifics.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.