Another one of those drug test, before you get benifits thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Babyblue

New Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
12,187
Reaction score
5
Congressman wants unemployed drug screened | Georgia News - Home

WASHINGTON -
U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Savannah, says hearing stories about unemployment insurance abuse from southeast Georgia businessmen prompted him to draft a bill that would require applicants for unemployment compensation pass a drug use assessment that might include a drug test.


“I had an employer tell me of an overwhelming response for job openings,” Kingston said. “There was just one problem: half the people who applied could not even pass a drug test."

Kingston's bill, the Ensuring Quality in the Unemployment Insurance Program Act, would require applicants for unemployment compensation to complete a drug screening assessment as a condition for benefits.

The screening assessments, already used in some states and approved by the National Institutes of Health, are currently used in several states.

Those identified as having a high probability of drug use would be required to pass a drug test and would be subject to random screenings as long as they receive unemployment benefits. Applicants who fail would be responsible for the cost of the test and may take one additional retest at their own expense.

"While we need a safety net, taxpayers should not be on the hook to pay someone who renders themselves ineligible for work," Kingston said. "My proposal further incentivizes beneficiaries to ensure they are preparing themselves to re-enter the workforce.”

Kingston said screening applicants have survived legal challenges by state courts in Indiana, Texas and New Jersey. A Federal court in West Virginia also upheld that state’s practice of screening Social Security Disability Insurance recipients.

“My proposal strengthens the safety net and ensures it will be available to those who use it as a stepping stone back into the workforce,” Kingston said. “It does so without increasing federal spending or placing new, unfunded mandates on the states.”

A billed filed in the Georgia Legislature last year by Georgia state Rep. Michael Harden, R-Taccoa, that would have required random drug testing of those who receive unemployment benefits as well as other government assistance died after a second reading.

The American Civil Liberties Union campaigned against that bill, citing a National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism study finding that drug use among recipients of public assistance is no higher than that of the general public.

How do they identify the ones as having a high probability of drug use?? :roll:
 
I'm against this. Using drugs shouldn't even be a criminal activity. You can't legislate stupidity, it's too expensive given the amount of stupid people.
 
Until drug laws are reorganized and changed (i.e., decriminalize pot/elevate penalties for prescription drug abuse), these "you must get tested if you want benefits" laws are a sham.

There's some logic to this bill however. Why should some guy receive unemployment benefits if he disqualifies himself from working due to drug use? The whole point of unemployment is to help you find a job. Many jobs require drug testing. Put 2 and 2 together. This makes sense.

But arbitrarily deciding who needs to be drug tested based on appearance or some other stupid criteria like that is not fair. This idea deserves some attention, but the bill cannot pass right now.
 
I've mixed feelings over the bill....some people go to apply for a job, but have done drugs....they go through all the orientation, paperwork, etc., job duties....(costing the employer time and $$) to do so...then asked to take a drug test. The applicant agrees....then purchases those drug-cleansing potions that they use, thinking they will pass the test with no problem.....

My nephew failed it, and was shocked!...He already had his name tag and uniform, all his paperwork in order, even got his TB testing (which was required for that job)....all at the company's expense.....
 
FWIW, I think it's a fact that unemployment is abused and taken advantage of MUCH more than welfare/SSI/food stamps, etc.
 
FWIW, I think it's a fact that unemployment is abused and taken advantage of MUCH more than welfare/SSI/food stamps, etc.


You don't have to be a drug user to take advantage of unemployment, it's not a solution to that particular problem. It's just a cover for legislating a particular view or morality.

Drug use is a choice, a dumb one perhaps, but still a choice.
 
You don't have to be a drug user to take advantage of unemployment, it's not a solution to that particular problem. It's just a cover for legislating a particular view or morality.

Drug use is a choice, a dumb one perhaps, but still a choice.

Oh believe me, I am all for legalizing all drugs and focusing on rehabilitation and prevention, as opposed to criminalization and law enforcement. At the same time, I believe taxpayer money should not go to paying for drugs.

Like I said, there is logic in the bill, but as it exists, it's not feasible.
 
I do not disagree that the unemployment benifits is being abused.

My question was how will they identify a probability of drug use?? Will it be the honest dude with Tattoos and scrubby jeans on, or the well dressed junkie??
 
Until drug laws are reorganized and changed (i.e., decriminalize pot/elevate penalties for prescription drug abuse), these "you must get tested if you want benefits" laws are a sham.

There's some logic to this bill however. Why should some guy receive unemployment benefits if he disqualifies himself from working due to drug use? The whole point of unemployment is to help you find a job. Many jobs require drug testing. Put 2 and 2 together. This makes sense.

But arbitrarily deciding who needs to be drug tested based on appearance or some other stupid criteria like that is not fair. This idea deserves some attention, but the bill cannot pass right now.

What's funny in all these cases: Drug addicts are protected by the ADA. :cool2:
 
Oh believe me, I am all for legalizing all drugs and focusing on rehabilitation and prevention, as opposed to criminalization and law enforcement. At the same time, I believe taxpayer money should not go to paying for drugs.

Like I said, there is logic in the bill, but as it exists, it's not feasible.

Right. Until we put our efforts into harm reduction models and actually have treatment made available we cannot take solutions such as this seriously. Criminalization and law enforcement do nothing to alleviate drug use, and in fact, in many ways, create an environment that makes it justifiable to continue. After all these years, you'd think people would realize it isn't working. But most aren't concerned if it is working or not; they just want that false sense of security they seem to get by involving law enforcement.
 
For real? Drug addiction counts as a disability?

:hmm: Not without a fast talking attorney. SSI used to be available for drug addiction. It no longer is. I'd say someone would be hard pressed to invoke the ADA for protection, especially given the general public's misperceptions of who abuses drugs.
 
:hmm: Not without a fast talking attorney. SSI used to be available for drug addiction. It no longer is. I'd say someone would be hard pressed to invoke the ADA for protection, especially given the general public's misperceptions of who abuses drugs.

It's usually invoked in cases where the addict loses a job because the person is a drug user.

The ADA more or less says that the employer should provide treatment instead of firing.
 
Right. Until we put our efforts into harm reduction models and actually have treatment made available we cannot take solutions such as this seriously. Criminalization and law enforcement do nothing to alleviate drug use, and in fact, in many ways, create an environment that makes it justifiable to continue. After all these years, you'd think people would realize it isn't working. But most aren't concerned if it is working or not; they just want that false sense of security they seem to get by involving law enforcement.

The irony is that enforced increased security makes me feel more unsafe. I was considering moving to rural BC until my research showed that one out of every 100 people has a grow op in BC. This means a lot of arrests, a lot of helicopters, a lot of guys in black bullet proof vests, a lot of RCMP officers, a lot of police cars. I don't want to live in that kind of environment.
 
The irony is that enforced increased security makes me feel more unsafe. I was considering moving to rural BC until my research showed that one out of every 100 people has a grow op in BC. This means a lot of arrests, a lot of helicopters, a lot of guys in black bullet proof vests, a lot of RCMP officers, a lot of police cars. I don't want to live in that kind of environment.

I completely understand your reaction. Enforced increased security is often the cause of increased violence and death.
 
It's usually invoked in cases where the addict loses a job because the person is a drug user.

The ADA more or less says that the employer should provide treatment instead of firing.

I think that is absolutely ridiculous. The employer can fire whomever the want for drug addiction if it is interfering with their work. Let the state/insurance take care of the treatment and the task of finding them a new job. They made poor choices. They need to deal with the consequences.
 
I think that is absolutely ridiculous. The employer can fire whomever the want for drug addiction if it is interfering with their work. Let the state/insurance take care of the treatment and the task of finding them a new job. They made poor choices. They need to deal with the consequences.

The larger employers all have a peer assistance program available that would mandate treatment if they want to continue working at that company. Many licensing boards have the same option.
 
It's usually invoked in cases where the addict loses a job because the person is a drug user.

The ADA more or less says that the employer should provide treatment instead of firing.

That is correct, and have the job ready when the patient finishes drug rehab.
It bothers me that people steam it is the addict's fault for having a medical disease.
 
The larger employers all have a peer assistance program available that would mandate treatment if they want to continue working at that company. Many licensing boards have the same option.

This what's wrong with out healthcare system. Why in the world should employers pay for healthcare and stuff like this? Healthcare and treatment are HUMAN RIGHTS. Everyone should have them. They should not be dangled as incentives to increase competition in the workplace. Disgusting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top