Requirement? Pass a Urine Test Before Getting Public Assistance?

Reba said:
So, they behavior profiling? What if an addict doesn't have blatant symptoms, or others are afraid to report them?


Until the treatment is completed, are they put on suspension with pay? Certainly they aren't allowed to continue working with the public.
Click to expand...

No, they don't do behavior profiling. But a mental health agency is very well versed on the symptomology of drug abuse and addiction. The symtoms of addiction are usually not blantant, and what the vast majority of society would not even recognize as an issue with addiction. I don't know of anyone who is not willing to become involved in an intervention regarding someone at work who is having a problem with drugs or alcohol. We see it as an illness, not a comment on their morality.

Yes, they are suspended with pay until treatment is completed. But seriously, you would be amazed at the number of people who work with others on a daily basis is responsible postions that have issues with drug/alcohol abuse and addiction. Check the medical professionals, the legal system, or anyone you would least suspect to be involved. That is usually the place you find a great deal of unrecognized and untreated addiction.
 
I think the nation's schools are grossly neglected when it comes to drug testing. Teacher's unions appear to have the attitude that "Us?? We are above that. Just doesn't happen." While the rumor mill runs rampant. At least the victim of a malicious rumor mill should have the option of posting his/her drug test results on the teacher's lounge bulletin board.:devil:With a threat to sue.

The option of proving oneself innocent is not beyond my understanding.

Sorry for the bitterness.
 
Reba said:
The military does test its members for drugs. I don't know about law enforcement officers.
Click to expand...

Law enforcement, Correctional officers... etc... have to take a drug test prior to hiring.
 
If I get hired on for food safety inspection - I have to take a hair follicle test. I'm thinking I would want my food safety inspectors to be sober and in their right mind when inspecting food that may very well end up on mine or my DD's plate. I don't want to buy boneless, skinless chicken meat, only to take it home and find out it's got a serious case of IP all on the underside of the meat because the inspector totally missed it because he/she was higher than a kite when the bird passed by their inspection station.

My thinking is - in certain lines of work - you better bet your bottom dollar that I think drug testing should be mandatory. 99% of all employers test for drug use for ALL new hires and some go so far as random testing for ALL employees. Walmart uses third party drug testing, the tester is no way shape or form affiliated with Walmart - their paycheck does not come from Walmart, Inc. of Bentonville, AR.

However - my further thoughts say that if I have to take a test to get a job to pay the taxes to support the welfare programs in my state and on the federal level - the recipients of welfare benefits should also at least get drug tested. It should be a two-way street, not a one way street.

Also when I have to be drug tested to get a job - I'm considered guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the company. It's just part of their screening and weeding out process. I'm not flailing and flapping my arms over it, I just consider it to be a part of the process and get on with it. The welfare department in many states is already cash-strapped because of the economy and people who didn't need welfare before, now find themselves having to get on it just to survive. A little give before you take won't hurt. Besides, if your drug free, you have nothing to worry about as you will be reimbursed for the cost of the test. If you're not drug free, you better get clean at least long enough to pass the test. I don't think they can test you again unless they have reasonable suspicion that you are in fact abusing drugs. Most drug tests can be bought for around $30, the urinalysis ones anyways. I am sure this is the kind they will be using. Surely, you can bum $30 from a friend or relative to pay for the test if your circumstances are dire enough.
 
hellos245 said:
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?
YES!! I agree with you 100%!
Click to expand...
depend on welfare strict, because alchol is very serious! not allow! It is very law rule!
 
As a person actually receiving CPP/OAS/RRIF. I didn't have to "pass/take" a urine test to receive. I live in Canada. No comment on what other countries do! More up to date info: Seniors.ga.ca OR servicecanada.gc.ca

CPP_ Canada Pension plan-one pays into from age 18 based on employment-. tracked throughout's one "employment life" on- one's tax return.
OAS: Old Age Security- based on residence in Canada- 40 years- given to those over 65 , special variation from those over 60 with not much income.No special tax paid as such.
RRIF: One's private pension plan which is tax deductible as paid and one must withdraw after 69/71.All withdrawals are taxable in the year received. The rules have been changed a number of times- over the last 25 years.

Books in the public library if one wants to read more.

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
No one I hire has to take a drug test. It is total, complete nonsense.
 
Beowulf said:
Imagine if those with Concealed Weapons Permits are required to submit to random drug tests. Oh, the outrage!
Click to expand...

I can hear it now! They don't even want to answer questions at a doctor's office. I can't see them willingly agreeing to peeing in a cup.:laugh2:
 
Reba said:
If they are applying for welfare benefits, they would be tested, too. If they fail the test, they don't get the benefits.
Click to expand...

But wealthy people -don't- apply. That's -the point-. Poor people apply for welfare because they need it to live, and they are targeted for these drug tests.

Your reasoning system deeply confuses me, and presumably many other people. "Rich people would be tested if they just applied" is, well, NOT APPLICABLE because rich people wouldn't starve to death without food stamps.
 
jillio said:
Routinely?
Click to expand...

Pretty much once at MEPS, and you can admit to a certain amount of using certain drugs without any punishment, even.

I can't even tell you how many people I've known to spend weeks flushing drugs out of their system before they knew they were going to MEPS. They certainly didn't go out of their way to stop using drugs, just to pass.

The whole military entry process is one big test of how well you can lie to get in, in the eyes of most of the young people trying to get in. Who is going to admit to smoking a joint last month when it might get them DQd?
 
Aleser said:
But wealthy people -don't- apply. That's -the point-. Poor people apply for welfare because they need it to live, and they are targeted for these drug tests.

Your reasoning system deeply confuses me, and presumably many other people. "Rich people would be tested if they just applied" is, well, NOT APPLICABLE because rich people wouldn't starve to death without food stamps.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Is this an issue about doing something to assist those with substance abuse problems get into treatment and receive help? If so, then focusing on the poor population will not be a drop in the bucket.

Or is this an issue of making it even more difficult than it currently is for those who are most needy to receive assistance? That is what it appears to be to me. It isn't about substance abuse at all...it is about further social control over the poor and needy population in this country.

The attitude would seem to be that if you are middle America or wealthier, drug use is okay. It is only punishable if you have committed the crime of being poor.
 
jillio said:
Agreed. Is this an issue about doing something to assist those with substance abuse problems get into treatment and receive help? If so, then focusing on the poor population will not be a drop in the bucket.

Or is this an issue of making it even more difficult than it currently is for those who are most needy to receive assistance? That is what it appears to be to me. It isn't about substance abuse at all...it is about further social control over the poor and needy population in this country.

The attitude would seem to be that if you are middle America or wealthier, drug use is okay. It is only punishable if you have committed the crime of being poor.
Click to expand...

But, you don't -have to be poor- to apply for welfare, okay. Some rich person somewhere might get bored one day and decide to spend 5 hours waiting in line at a welfare office and they'd have to pee in a cup, too!

Thus it isn't discriminating against poor people, just people who choose to apply for welfare. :giggle:
 
Aleser said:
But, you don't -have to be poor- to apply for welfare, okay. Some rich person somewhere might get bored one day and decide to spend 5 hours waiting in line at a welfare office and they'd have to pee in a cup, too!

Thus it isn't discriminating against poor people, just people who choose to apply for welfare. :giggle:
Click to expand...

:laugh2:

Thanks for explaining that convoluted thinking to me!:giggle:
 
Aleser said:
Pretty much once at MEPS, and you can admit to a certain amount of using certain drugs without any punishment, even.
Click to expand...
Since someone applying at MEPS isn't even in the military, obviously the military would have no authority to punish someone for anything. Until the contract is signed, the person isn't under the UCMJ.

The whole military entry process is one big test of how well you can lie to get in, in the eyes of most of the young people trying to get in. Who is going to admit to smoking a joint last month when it might get them DQd?
Click to expand...
No, it isn't "one big test of how well you can lie." :roll:

The person volunteering has to provide various documents, take a battery of written tests, get physically examined, have a urinalysis done, and have a background check done.
 
Back
Top