Urine tests for welfare recipients

[lumberjim]

an email that is making it's way around:

This person has a great idea!

URINE TEST
(I sure would like to know who wrote this one! They deserve a HUGE pat on the back!)

I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB.... SO I AGREE 100%

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 it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I Do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who DON'T have to pass a 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, however, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS doing drugs while I work. Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country -- and soon!

AMEN!!!

I can't think of any reasons why this isn't already a law.

[Clodfobble]

They've tried. From the ACLU's website on the topic:

The 1996 Welfare Reform Act authorized (but did not require) states to impose mandatory drug testing as a prerequisite to receiving state welfare assistance.

Under the Welfare Reform Act, people convicted of drug offenses are subject to a lifetime ban on receiving cash assistance and food stamps.

Michigan is the first and only state to require random drug testing of all welfare recipients. In its lawsuit fighting the Michigan policy, the ACLU contends that "mandatory drug testing of a broad swath of the adult population has never in our nation's history been proposed or enacted by a state government, much less approved by a court." The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision striking down Michigan's policy.

Although no other states have implemented a law as extreme as Michigan's, Arizona and Vermont are currently considering similar legislation.

Emphasis mine for clarification, since I took some quotes out of order. There's also more on there about several other states who have considered and rejected mandatory testing, usually in favor of selective testing of just the likelier candidates in order to save money.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Great idea!
After all, if they can't pee they're most likely dead.
I'm tired of supporting dead people.

[TheMercenary]

I love it. To bad they would then have to come up with the money to pay for all the testing. Still a good idea.

[Spexxvet]

I don't think employers should be able to drug test, so niether should the government.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't think employers should be able to drug test, so niether should the government.

So if trucking companies, train Corps, movers of heavy equipment, commercial boat drivers, Hospital personal are loaded on some drug at work that is cool with you?

[Shawnee123]

If a person isn't effective at their job (due to being loaded at work) that is a completely separate issue than if Joe Schmo the mailman likes to smoke a big old hooter on the weekend.

[lumberjim]

true, but how can you tell if they're high at work, or were just high Saturday night? I can't say I think it's a bad idea to drug test truckers and heavy equipment operators..... Testing office workers is a tad ridiculous, IMO, but the employer doesn't HAVE to test.

I think that if the gubmint wanted people off of drugs, they'd test welfare recipients. But, I don't think the gubmint wants wellfare recipients off drugs, really.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

If a person isn't effective at their job (due to being loaded at work) that is a completely separate issue than if Joe Schmo the mailman likes to smoke a big old hooter on the weekend.

So if the mail dude then says well hey just little hit at lunch or on the way back at the end of the day and runs over some little kid in his mail truck, then what? Our legal system would crucify him and the post office. There would never be a trial, just get out the check book. If you are a stoner at work in an office I doubt you would get much done and you would eventually get fired on your own. But hey if you are in a Bank and crunching numbers or need to be clear headed to do your job well, then why not? They should have a right to test.

[Clodfobble]

Supposedly alcohol abuse is much worse among welfare recipients anyway.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So if the mail dude then says well hey just little hit at lunch or on the way back at the end of the day and runs over some little kid in his mail truck, then what? Our legal system would crucify him and the post office. There would never be a trial, just get out the check book. If you are a stoner at work in an office I doubt you would get much done and you would eventually get fired on your own. But hey if you are in a Bank and crunching numbers or need to be clear headed to do your job well, then why not? They should have a right to test.

But all of the previous is just as true about alcohol, too. You don't stay high all the way from Saturday until Monday morning...

[Shawnee123]

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So if the mail dude then says well hey just little hit at lunch or on the way back at the end of the day and runs over some little kid in his mail truck, then what? Our legal system would crucify him and the post office. There would never be a trial, just get out the check book. If you are a stoner at work in an office I doubt you would get much done and you would eventually get fired on your own. But hey if you are in a Bank and crunching numbers or need to be clear headed to do your job well, then why not? They should have a right to test.

Thanks for supporting my assertion that it's a separate issue, what you do on your job and what you do outside your job.

[Spexxvet]

What you do on your own time is not your employers business. IF, and it's unlikely, but IF you can perform your job in an outstanding manner while on drugs, then, by all means, take drugs. If you perform poorly, you should be fired - whether you're on drugs, or not.
BTW, if a sober mail man runs over a child, you'd get the same results.

[lookout123]

What you do on your own time can be the business of your employers. I know my industry is a bad example but I'll use it anyway. They know pretty much everything about me. Hell, YOU as a consumer can pull up my file on the industry website and check out my credit, employment, discipline, and education history. The national regulatory associations keep notes in my file about my time spent coaching kids' soccer. If an anonymous report pops up saying I spend a lot of time in the casino I will be flagged for special attention. Why? To make sure that I don't have some outside problem that might lead me to start screwing people over and taking their money. Extreme? Yes, but it is an example of why it is in the employer's best interest to keep tabs on certain behaviors.

Like it or not, a good job is not a right - it is a privilege, and there just might be some restrictions. You don't have to accept the restrictions. You can turn the job down. Same with the welfare recipient. If they don't want to take a drug test - they can quit accepting the check.