urine test

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!
G

Guest

Guest
I received this the other day and thought I would pass this along.

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck some of us are required to pass a random drug test, which I have no problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass the urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt using my taxes to get high.

Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Your thoughts?
 
Karl,
Great idea.
 
Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
Click to expand...

Probably zero.

Urine tests are too easy to fake/falsify/compromise, and they don't stand up in court very well, due to their history of false positives.

I am of the opinion, that no one should have to take any sort of test to have a job, other than related to the ability to do the job itself.

If people are to be tested for drugs, they should be tested for ALL drugs, not just illegal ones. Many regularly prescribed drugs (and over the counter), are capable of impairing people much more than street stuff.

It is illogical, to only test for illegal drugs, just because they are illegal...
 
My representative lives in my town. I actually know her very well. I ran into her at walmart the other day. SHe is a sponsor of the MN Vikings games on the radio in our area.

I sent her this message to get her input.
 
Karl Langford said:
Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Imagine how much the state would save if they stopped chasing people that smoke a little weed and help solve some of the problems that get people on welfare in the first place
 
Rick,
You are also correct. The best way to implement this would be a complete drug screening both legal and illegal. Fortunately with prescription drugs you can look at what the doctor ordered and look into blood concentration of the drugs the patient is using. There are drugs that are producing certain side effects which may show up on some people and not in another group.

But basically you could plot the concentrations and compare that to the Tx the doctor prescribed this would let you know the patient is using the drug as it's supposed to be used.

If the concentrations don't match with the Tx drug therapy then we can rule that the drugs are being misused.
 
First of all, I received this from someone else, these are not my words. I agree with them but I did not write them. I copy and pasted.

I think if someone had a positive test, it would be up to them to show proof they have a Rx for it. If they don't, they don't get assistance.

Jeff, no offense but if people would stop using weed, it is illegal you know, then there wouldn't be a problem with it.

If they do something illegal, then they should be punished. No matter how little or much they use. Being a little impaired and killing someone is the same as being trashed and killing someone, don't you think?

I for one would love to see some of the bums who ride the system to get cut off. If they can't make it on their own, but are at least trying, then they need help. But those who take the assistance, use it for drugs, cigarettes, don't try to get a job need to be cut off.
 
Karl Langford said:
Jeff, no offense but if people would stop using weed, it is illegal you know, then there wouldn't be a problem with it.
Click to expand...

If by some miracle of fate the made weed legal tomorrow would it make eveything OK. Read the stats Alchohol kills more that weed maybe that should be criminalized


Karl Langford said:
I for one would love to see some of the bums who ride the system to get cut off. If they can't make it on their own, but are at least trying, then they need help. But those who take the assistance, use it for drugs, cigarettes, don't try to get a job need to be cut off.
Click to expand...

I cant say we disagree here
 
I have not looked at the stats but I don't disagree with you but the things is, alcohol is legal. It is what happens when people abuse it that the problems occur.

If they made pot legal, then it would be a different story yes. It would be the same a cigarettes. They should not be able to use their assistance to buy it but they could not get declined because of it.

I live in a town of 3000. Half of my son's kindergarden class is hispanic. The majority of their parents are illegal and or on assistance. We have been having more and more drug busts in our small town the last few years. The majority have been the illegals and most were riding the system while selling meth and other drugs.

I think we agree on more than we know. It is just hard to explain all of it.
 
I feel the whole issue has to do with the testing itself...

Legal or illegal is of no relevance, if someone gets killed.


I've seen people PMS'ing or hungover, that can pass a drug test, but I wouldn't want to work with them!

I've seen people (one recently working for a contractor, who was working for me), who was sooo stoned on prescription Xanax, that he couldn't do his job -- I had to finish it.

I've seen many people who don't drink, don't take any drugs, or anything, and I still wouldn't work with them (stupid people shouldn't breed).


My point is, the tests are not only fallible, but are of no real indication of what the person is, or isn't capable of on a given day.


For example, let's say for S&G, that I smoked a joint two weeks ago at a Saturday night party (this is hypothetical of course :)). If I went and took a urine test today, it would come back positive more than likely.

Hardly an indicator of where my head is at today...


The whole drug testing thing is ludicrous, IMHO!
 
I agree with Karl, crack heads shouldn't be getting food stamps if they're still crack heads.

On the other hand recovering crack heads shouldn't get special treatment either. My mother works for a women's drug rehab. Everyone of the girls there are on Medicaid, food stamps, PLUS a monthly cash allowance, those that have babies get WIC. Medicaid pays over $700/mo for each girl to be there plus food stamps which go into the pot for the whole house, plus a monthly cash stipend that goes in to their accounts for when they leave.

On top of that they abuse the system, they go to the doctor for every little thing. Things that I wouldn't even go to the doctor for if I had top notch medical coverage. Stupid things like playing Tennis and hitting the ball the wrong way spraining their pinky. Docs cannot do nothing for a sprain, have the round the clock nurse at the rehab (the state pays for that too) put a splint on it and get back rehabbing.

I commend these girls for getting their life back on track. This program is no joke it's over seen by nuns and has one of the highest success rates in the state many of them are court mandated basically it's either rehab or jail.. But they shouldn't get preferential treatment for screwing up their lives. At some point they screwed up and decided to take drugs now their on our tax rolls sucking money out of our systems and getting top notch medical care whilst those of us that do work and pay taxes don't get anywhere near that coverage.

/rant

I also agree with Rick. Drugs tests are easy to fool and shouldn't even be legal. If I'm not doing a task that could jeopardize other people's lives (driving, operating heaving machinery, doctor, nurse, cop, etc) a drug test shouldn't be required. What I do when I punch out for the day is none of my employers business. If I were to spark one up Friday night after work, what's it to my job when I go back to work on Monday?
 
Similar story,

Beaumont/Houston area was founded on oil. Beaumont started due to the 1901 Oil Gusher. Likewise our industry pretty much boils all down to that. I have an oppritunity to do some video and audio installations in a plant with another fella. My land lord sells equipment for refineries. He once told me a story of how he has to do random drug test on himself. Put three names in a cap, if he draws his name, go get drug tested.

Awkward eh? Refineries are requiring it... As well as Background Checks, Beefy Insurance, etc.
 
Karl Langford said:
My representative lives in my town. I actually know her very well. I ran into her at walmart the other day. SHe is a sponsor of the MN Vikings games on the radio in our area.

I sent her this message to get her input.
Click to expand...

Good for you............ that's how a representative type Govt. is suppose to work. it's nice you know your representative personally. Most don't. I was also fortunate that I knew my representative personally.....

It saved my mother from being deported, when my Dad passed away. My mom was a Canadian citizen, here on a visa when She crossed the border in 1946 after the war, with my father.
 
All welfare should be stopped immediately. It does not help anyone, and if you truly have family or friends that have problems, you can help them (with the $$ you didnt have to pay extra taxes with). If they truly can work, or do not need the assistance, you can have the option not to give it to them. Charity starts at home, and welfare (including social security) is too easy to take advantage of. There needs to be incentive in this country to get off the system....easy enough, no more welfare!
 
ou812 said:
All welfare should be stopped immediately. It does not help anyone, and if you truly have family or friends that have problems, you can help them (with the $$ you didnt have to pay extra taxes with). If they truly can work, or do not need the assistance, you can have the option not to give it to them. Charity starts at home, and welfare (including social security) is too easy to take advantage of. There needs to be incentive in this country to get off the system....easy enough, no more welfare!
Click to expand...

Ummmmm, where to start... this is not directed at you ou812 just using your post....

My wife is on Social Security for Disability... she physically and mentally can not work.... believe me she has tried but it just never works out. She lacks the stamina due to a degenerative back problem, chronic broncitus brought on by COPD and emphasima, she has a learning disablity (which is what got her on SSD in the first place) that makes it difficult for her to understand, read, write, and do math.

To look at her you'd think she's being lazy or milking the system... I'm here to tell you that there are people out there like my wife who want to work but due to disabilities be they physical or mental can not.

She complains to me constantly that she feels like a burden to me because she can't get a job or when she does she can't seem to keep it.

To say we need to get rid of social security is like imposing a death sentence to those who truely need and deserve assistance...

She don't get much and it's just enough to cover our house payment and medications that she needs.

Now I do agree that there are people out there that are milking the system and don't really need it they just know how to work it.... did you know that our school systems teach people how to apply for assistance... yeah they do because there are those students that the teachers know wont make it any other way... sad really.
 
There is just way to much stuff all over this thread to quote, so I am not even going to try, I am just going to try to hit on everything I wanted to.

First off, I have ZERO problem with companies testing anyone, and feel that if you refuse to take the test, that should be a grounds for dismissal.

In regards to testing welfare recipients, this should be started immediately in every state. Everyone saying they are too easy to fake and what not, that is completely not a valid excuse to do it. There is fraud in every facet of life and society, but that does not mean you don't put rules in place just because of that fraud. States government have an obligation to protect its citizens, and part of that protection is to provide due diligence for where its money is going. If its money is going to something illegal, that money should be cut off instantly.

Finally, for everyone throwing the "they should not worry about a small amount of weed" argument, I ask you this: what is the cut off line? I mean, you can't get a little bit pregnant right? I leaf of an illegal substance is illegal right?

I can just see this defense now "Well judge, he only shot him with one bullet instead of ten, so we really should just let him go, right?".

If you break the law, you pay the consequences. Period. No discussion. There is no "well, he only had a little bit weed" argument, because the last time I check, weed is illegal. Law enforcement enforces laws.
 
The thing with urinalises (or other types of drug testing): they cost money. Remember, it's always about the money. :)

Larger companies can afford to require a pre-employment pee test. Most smaller companies cannot. I have worked for both. The smaller a company is, the more you can get away with. The pee testing wouldn't happen at all if not for the insurance carriers.

Insurance carriers are a different lot. They won't tell you you must do pre-employment pee testing ~ they'll tell you that you'll get a better premium rate if you do. Your homeowner's insurance carrier won't tell you that you cannot keep pit bulls on the property. They can refuse to insure you if you do.

I haven't seen "random" testing occur since the mid-'80s. The superintendent or shift super would walk out with a clipboard and point. "You, you and... you. Go take a pee test." Not many companies do that anymore because of the cost and the false positives. Now it's only done if someone gets injured on the job or exhibits behavior that could be viewed as under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

And ya can't fire someone for flunking the first pee test. There's the rehab classes and further tests. All that costs money, too. If they flunk the next one, then you can fire 'em.

But I digress. This thread is about public assistance recipients. State assistance is a whole nother world. Getting mandatory pee tests in place would require legislation. To pass muster with the senate, the program must be funded. Also, it would create yet another layer of bureaucracy. I'm no pol but I'd be the first to stand and ask "Who's going to pay for it?" :eek:

Then I'd wanna know who's gonna pay for the lawsuits from recipients who fail the tests. I think we all know who'll end up with the marker.

I agree that people who are down on their luck need a hand up, not a handout. And I concur with the idea that there should be oversight and accountability throughout. My issue is with the ability to pay for it all. Saying you're gonna drug test everyone who's on relief may buy you votes but it may not work out in reality.

People want more but they don't want to pay more for it.

Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back