What do you think Romney and the Republican controlled House and Senate should work on first?

[Ban Hammer 13,567]

If it costs more to administer a drug testing program than it will save in benefits denied why do you want to do it? Is your outlook on life really that punitive?

how punitive do you think it would be if i took a drug test and failed it?

[james&olya 1,121]

how punitive do you think it would be if i took a drug test and failed it?

If your job involves issues of public safety than it is sensible to have such a policy. You tell me, how punitive would it be?

I have no drug testing. My job position probably would justify it. I would not tbe bothered if I had to do it for that reason but if I had to do it for some BS reason I would fight it. Not because I might fail the test but on principle. I have never used illicit drugs, won't use narcotics even if prescribed, and rarely touch alcohol so I have nothing to worry about, unless Coke Zero is ever made illegal!

[Ban Hammer 13,567]

If your job involves issues of public safety than it is sensible to have such a policy. You tell me, how punitive would it be?

I have no drug testing. My job position probably would justify it. I would not tbe bothered if I had to do it for that reason but if I had to do it for some BS reason I would fight it. Not because I might fail the test but on principle. I have never used illicit drugs, won't use narcotics even if prescribed, and rarely touch alcohol so I have nothing to worry about, unless Coke Zero is ever made illegal!

public safety - no, security clearance. as to how punitive - fired!

[james&olya 1,121]

public safety - no, security clearance. as to how punitive - fired!

Without knowing more details I would expect that if you need a security clearance than you could be compromised directly by being under the influence of mind-altering sustances and indirectly by blackmail from anyone who has knowledge of illegal activities. So doesn't that involve public safety?

[Ban Hammer 13,567]

Without knowing more details I would expect that if you need a security clearance than you could be compromised directly by being under the influence of mind-altering sustances and indirectly by blackmail from anyone who has knowledge of illegal activities. So doesn't that involve public safety?

don't be coy, i know you're former af

[james&olya 1,121]

don't be coy, i know you're former af

And there are a very wide-ranging set of reasons for security clearances. Some are very real in terms of potential security, others just bureaucratic BS. That is why I said I would need more details to judge whether your piss tests are justified!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If it costs more to administer a drug testing program than it will save in benefits denied why do you want to do it? Is your outlook on life really that punitive?

How many folks would avoid drugs if they knew they could be tested at any time? You don't have to do that many tests to put that fear into deadbeats, just keep reminding them that failing a test would bar them from receiving payments for a set period. Being from California, I never got drug tested. It was always the same two folks that came "respectable" states that got chosen for the "random" tests in my unit.

[bsd058 296]

I am subject to random drug tests to get the money I work 50+ hours a week. Somehow you think it is unfair to subject the people who don't work for my money to have to do the same thing .. HMMM

I think this is unjust too. You shouldn't be searched unless they have probable cause to search you. I think it's in the constitution, no?

How many folks would avoid drugs if they knew they could be tested at any time? You don't have to do that many tests to put that fear into deadbeats, just keep reminding them that failing a test would bar them from receiving payments for a set period. Being from California, I never got drug tested. It was always the same two folks that came "respectable" states that got chosen for the "random" tests in my unit.

How many rights will we give up under the guise of "the greater good?"

You want tax payers $$$$ then you should be subject to drug testing. If you have a prescription from a doctor then bring it with you. If you do drugs which most likely means your spending money on said drugs then don't expect to receive tax payer dollars. The government gets it's money from the people, not the other way around. That money is supposed to be for keeping the government running and protecting this nation. Why should anyone's money go to help someone's drug habit? None of us were put on this planet to support other peoples drug habit.

Now we're putting them under duress to divulge their private medical information? Wow.

[Karee 4,191]

I think this is unjust too. You shouldn't be searched unless they have probable cause to search you. I think it's in the constitution, no?

How many rights will we give up under the guise of "the greater good?"

Now we're putting them under duress to divulge their private medical information? Wow.

How do you feel about drug testing airline pilots? Is that a violation of their rights?

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

I thought a benchmark of the conservative platform was fiscal conservatism and the goal of small government. No one wants welfare recipients to use drugs, but the program in Florida cost the taxpayer a lot of money ($45K net loss) and only 2% of people failed. Surely wasting money and having a larger government for no benefit isn't what people want?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html

[bsd058 296]

How do you feel about drug testing airline pilots? Is that a violation of their rights?

Good point. It would be dangerous for them to not give random drug tests.

Maybe the poor should be tested so they don't fly their welfare cheques into anything.

[Karee 4,191]

Good point. It would be dangerous for them to not give random drug tests.

Maybe the poor should be tested so they don't fly their welfare cheques into anything.

I think the point is if you want to have a certain job, you have to subject yourself to some conditions. If you want free money, you also have to subject yourself to certain conditions. Even when collecting unemployment you are expected to look for work. What's the problem with the govt. saying, "We'll give you free money, we just want to make sure you're not spending it on illegal drugs."?

[bsd058 296]

I think the point is if you want to have a certain job, you have to subject yourself to some conditions. If you want free money, you also have to subject yourself to certain conditions. Even when collecting unemployment you are expected to look for work. What's the problem with the govt. saying, "We'll give you free money, we just want to make sure you're not spending it on illegal drugs."?

Nothing. As long as is doesn't subject them to giving up their right to releasing their medical information under pain of starvation or no shelter, etc.. That's really what it boils down to. "If you don't give us your medical records, we won't help you eat." Perhaps there is a better way? I don't know. I just don't think taking rights away continually will ever stop. But I'm open to being wrong. I just don't see how logically we can make these people divulge their private info just because we want to be satisfied that they aren't using the money for drugs.

It seems innocent right now. Pretty soon they'll be asking for more, though. We cannot control everything in this manner.

I'm not against making sure these people are using their money for essentials. And to be quite honest, I agree with you that in some circumstances where public safety is concerned, drug testing should be mandatory (airline pilot).

I just think the law would contradict the constitution. Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps being poor is probable cause to be checked for drugs.

How often should they be checked? Or should it be random so as to make it more feasible?

Edited November 1, 2012 by bsd058

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Nothing. As long as is doesn't subject them to giving up their right to releasing their medical information under pain of starvation or no shelter, etc.. That's really what it boils down to. "If you don't give us your medical records, we won't help you eat." Perhaps there is a better way? I don't know. I just don't think taking rights away continually will ever stop. But I'm open to being wrong. I just don't see how logically we can make these people divulge their private info just because we want to be satisfied that they aren't using the money for drugs.

It seems to innocent right now. Pretty soon they'll be asking for more, though. We cannot control everything in this manner.

I'm not against making sure these people are using their money for essentials. And to be quite honest, I agree with you that in some circumstances where public safety is concerned, drug testing should be mandatory (airline pilot).

I just think the law would contradict the constitution. Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps being poor is probable cause to be checked for drugs.

How often should they be checked? Or should it be random so as to make it more feasible?

There is no right to welfare, or any other benefits. If you want free money, you have to accept whatever conditions the folks offering the money may require. For instance, if you go to the soup kitchen for a meal, you may have to listen to praises of Jesus while you are eating your meal, or the homeless shelter may require you to leave your shopping cart outside in a designated area.

[natty bumppo 297]

I am subject to random drug tests to get the money I work 50+ hours a week. Somehow you think it is unfair to subject the people who don't work for my money to have to do the same thing .. HMMM

i too am subject to random drug tests to earn it - why shouldn't someone who gets my redistributed paycheck have to take one to receive it?

same where i work.

random testing is a requirement of employment.

if your name is picked, the ESH manager will visit your desk/ work station and you are immediately escorted to an offsite facility for testing. you are not allowed out of the ESH (escorts) sight until hand-off at the testing facility which is only a few miles away. refusal to comply is instant termination.

we've actually had a few persons when informed it was their turn for testing quit on the spot. these persons decided it was better to quit than fail the test and be terminated.