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

[Beowulf]

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.

What healthcare system? A couple days ago I gave a ride to a friend who wanted to be seen at a cancer hospital. I told her she is wasting her time since she didn't have insurance. She was weeping from pain, and it was heartbreaking when they turned her away and I brought her to an emergency room.

 

[deafskeptic]

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 wouldn't either!

 

[airportcop]

Congressman wants unemployed drug screened | Georgia News - Home



How do they identify the ones as having a high probability of drug use?? :roll:

There are really only two ways to identify the drug users.
1-By doing a criminal history check to look for past convictions or
2-Drug testing every applicant to see who been using drugs

I don't see a problem with random drug testing of any and all applicants. This is common in some occupations. I understand that testing them all may be expensive but why should the taxpayers have to pay the known abusers benefits?

 

[kokonut]

Hey! Welcome back!

 

[jillio]

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.

I agree with you completely. Generally, however, peer assistance programs don't pay for the treatment. That is up to the individual. Some will have insurance that will cover a portion, some will not. Peer assistance is really kind of misnomer, because they just mandate treatment in order to keep the job.

But yes, health care is a fundamental human right. One that is ignored a good deal of the time in this country.

 

[jillio]

There are really only two ways to identify the drug users.
1-By doing a criminal history check to look for past convictions or
2-Drug testing every applicant to see who been using drugs

I don't see a problem with random drug testing of any and all applicants. This is common in some occupations. I understand that testing them all may be expensive but why should the taxpayers have to pay the known abusers benefits?

Past convictions do not support what may be happening today. That is a rather discriminatory way to decide who will be tested and who won't. Random testing of all applicants is more fair than testing based on drug convictions. In fact, most users will not even have a criminal history. Especially those that are abusing the drugs that are prescribed to them.

Would you object to someone with schizophrenia receiving benefits?

 

[Beowulf]

There are really only two ways to identify the drug users.
1-By doing a criminal history check to look for past convictions or
2-Drug testing every applicant to see who been using drugs

I don't see a problem with random drug testing of any and all applicants. This is common in some occupations. I understand that testing them all may be expensive but why should the taxpayers have to pay the known abusers benefits?

What a person does with his free time is none of my business. I do not care if a person does drugs, as long as it doesn't affect his work performance.

 

[jillio]

What a person does with his free time is none of my business. I do not care if a person does drugs, as long as it doesn't affect his work performance.

I think the majority of those of us who pay taxes are opposed to singling out people who are receiving assistance for drug testing. And that is the objection, isn't it: that our tax money should not be going to pay assistance to someone who is using drugs?

That whole line of thinking is messed up. First, it assumes that everyone who receives assistance, or at least a large proportion of them, are drug users. It also fails to take into account the huge number of working professionals that are users, and the working class that are users. They form the bulk of the drug using population. This old myth that drug abuse is limited to the poor, urban population needs to go. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yet it is just that myth on which propositions such as this are built.

 

[Beowulf]

I think the majority of those of us who pay taxes are opposed to singling out people who are receiving assistance for drug testing. And that is the objection, isn't it: that our tax money should not be going to pay assistance to someone who is using drugs?

That whole line of thinking is messed up. First, it assumes that everyone who receives assistance, or at least a large proportion of them, are drug users. It also fails to take into account the huge number of working professionals that are users, and the working class that are users. They form the bulk of the drug using population. This old myth that drug abuse is limited to the poor, urban population needs to go. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yet it is just that myth on which propositions such as this are built.

I know. The whole premise of those on welfare being on drugs is so patently absurd. It seems that those who squawk about it wouldn't mind having SWAT teams going house to house to root out the lawbreakers. Oh yeah, riiiiiight.

 

[airportcop]

Past convictions do not support what may be happening today. That is a rather discriminatory way to decide who will be tested and who won't. Random testing of all applicants is more fair than testing based on drug convictions. In fact, most users will not even have a criminal history. Especially those that are abusing the drugs that are prescribed to them.

Would you object to someone with schizophrenia receiving benefits?

It may be but that is generally how the probation system works. Those who have been busted for drug use are tested while on probation or parole. You are correct in that the only way to be fair is to test them all. I am for testing everyone initially and then doing random tests or if suspicion arises but that is my opinion. I have no opposition to someone who has schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder receiving benefits. I also have no problem with those physically disabled to where they are not able to work or those that are mentally ill or mentally retarded getting benefits. I am not assuming that all people on welfare are drug users but unfortunately some are and some take advantage of the system. Not all but some. I do realize that the middle and upper classes are also responsible for a great deal of drug use and abuse of prescription meds as well.

 

[Beowulf]

It may be but that is generally how the probation system works. Those who have been busted for drug use are tested while on probation or parole. You are correct in that the only way to be fair is to test them all. I am for testing everyone initially and then doing random tests or if suspicion arises but that is my opinion. I have no opposition to someone who has schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder receiving benefits. I also have no problem with those physically disabled to where they are not able to work or those that are mentally ill or mentally retarded getting benefits. I am not assuming that all people on welfare are drug users but unfortunately some are and some take advantage of the system. Not all but some. I do realize that the middle and upper classes are also responsible for a great deal of drug use and abuse of prescription meds as well.

So why not subject them to random drug tests as well?

 

[airportcop]

What a person does with his free time is none of my business. I do not care if a person does drugs, as long as it doesn't affect his work performance.

This is where we really disagree. If a person does drugs and gets behind the wheel of a car or neglects their children or abuses them due to the drugs then we have a real problem. If a person uses drugs on the job and causes someone else to be injured or killed due to his or her use then it is also a major problem. Then you have those that OD and require medical assistance which costs the taxpayers dearly. Or they burn down the house also costing the taxpayers dearly for haz mat clean up and so forth. So, I ask you does a person doing drugs in his free time still not matter?

 

[airportcop]

So why not subject them to random drug tests as well?

I have no problem with that but that would be up to their employers. I had to be tested in the military and also since I've been a cop. I don't have a problem with it because I don't use drugs.

 

[Beowulf]

This is where we really disagree. If a person does drugs and gets behind the wheel of a car or neglects their children or abuses them due to the drugs then we have a real problem. If a person uses drugs on the job and causes someone else to be injured or killed due to his or her use then it is also a major problem. Then you have those that OD and require medical assistance which costs the taxpayers dearly. Or they burn down the house also costing the taxpayers dearly for haz mat clean up and so forth. So, I ask you does a person doing drugs in his free time still not matter?

Sounds like Bizzaro world where all the planes crash out of the sky and the highways are total junkyards. Not gonna happen.

 

[airportcop]

Past convictions do not support what may be happening today. That is a rather discriminatory way to decide who will be tested and who won't. Random testing of all applicants is more fair than testing based on drug convictions. In fact, most users will not even have a criminal history. Especially those that are abusing the drugs that are prescribed to them.

Would you object to someone with schizophrenia receiving benefits?

Jillio,

I'm sad to say that you are wrong about that at least in my line of work. Most people that I have busted for drugs over the past 18 years have had other criminal convictions. Most of them were for illegal drug possession. Some for stealing offenses as well. I know that it is not always true but in law enforcement it is a large percentage.

 

[airportcop]

Sounds like Bizzaro world where all the planes crash out of the sky and the highways are total junkyards. Not gonna happen.

Better wake up! I see and hear about it nearly every day! Child abuse and neglect due to parents using drugs, houses blowing up from meth cooks, folks ODing, people killing others on the highway and were found to be under the influence! It is a sad fact of life!

 

[VacationGuy234]

This is where we really disagree. If a person does drugs and gets behind the wheel of a car or neglects their children or abuses them due to the drugs then we have a real problem. If a person uses drugs on the job and causes someone else to be injured or killed due to his or her use then it is also a major problem. Then you have those that OD and require medical assistance which costs the taxpayers dearly. Or they burn down the house also costing the taxpayers dearly for haz mat clean up and so forth. So, I ask you does a person doing drugs in his free time still not matter?

What you are saying is the ability to commit a crime is, in fact, a crime. You are saying the possibility of a crime outweighs the, "Pursuit of Happiness" as stated in the Declaration of Independence. You are saying that we must prosecute people for a crime before a crime is committed. This is irrational, a person who commits a crime should pay the price for that crime and a person who does not should not. Crime prevention starts with education not incarceration, it only makes stupid people more stupid.

There is no such thing as a world without risk, it is inherent in our search for a better life.

 

[airportcop]

What you are saying is the ability to commit a crime is, in fact, a crime. You are saying the possibility of a crime outweighs the, "Pursuit of Happiness" as stated in the Declaration of Independence. You are saying that we must prosecute people for a crime before a crime is committed. This is irrational, a person who commits a crime should pay the price for that crime and a person who does not should not. Crime prevention starts with education not incarceration, it only makes stupid people more stupid.

There is no such thing as a world without risk, it is inherent in our search for a better life.

I never said anything about prosecuting someone before a crime was committed. ???? And no, sometimes incarceration is the only way to stop repeat crime. I agree that while education works best it does not always work.

 

[Beowulf]

Better wake up! I see and hear about it nearly every day! Child abuse and neglect due to parents using drugs, houses blowing up from meth cooks, folks ODing, people killing others on the highway and were found to be under the influence! It is a sad fact of life!

I am awake, thank you. This is a free country and has its costs. I do not accept the alternative where a cop follows each citizen all day to make sure nothing untoward occurs. To each his own, I guess.

 

[jillio]

What healthcare system? A couple days ago I gave a ride to a friend who wanted to be seen at a cancer hospital. I told her she is wasting her time since she didn't have insurance. She was weeping from pain, and it was heartbreaking when they turned her away and I brought her to an emergency room.

Disgusting state of affairs. People should certainly be more concerned about things like this than about finding one or two people on assistance with THC in their system.