• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drug testing surprise

Gipper said:
Thanks, Ikari. Now I'm picturing you in a bathroom stall with a jar of piss trapped in your armpit.
Click to expand...

That's a bit disturbing. But I think that they already make devices which keep urine at the proper temperature just for this purpose.
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
I thought they checked the temperature of the urine to make sure it is fresh.
Click to expand...

As long as you keep it close to the body it maintains its temperature.
 
Gipper said:
Thus proving that some people will do anything to pass a test.
Click to expand...

Some people even force their children to pee into containers for them when a random test is required.
 
Hicup said:
Nice answer, but it doesn't really answer my question. We have a society now that is approaching 47% on the government dole in some fashion. How do you take that away, politically speaking? Even if you were somehow able to find some majority of consensus among the current crop of politicians, what's to stop the next crop from coming in and promising the goodies back to those lazy constituent voters?

What is it now? 50 million families on food stamps? Try and take that away from the 50 million as a politician, and see where it gets you? The only way I see it happening is in term limits, and an enforcable (With real teeth) oversight body that oversees corruption within our government. The oversight body would need to be randomly selected citizens (Like juries) that are selected to serve on this committee (With full pay) for a durational period that aggressively protects the American interests in a stable, honest government. No more congressional oversight of congress (An oxymoron). What we need is real people with common sense looking out for all the rest of us.

Right now, our entire sysetm is run by 535 innately corruptable individuals with only their own interests taking center stage!


Just my opinion.. But we can't begin to fix Washington unless we take seriously how inherantly corruptable our system of government has become.


Tim-
Click to expand...

I think the 47% statistic is pretty misleading. Many of the people that did not pay income taxes still worked and earned their own living. A government oversight body is an interesting idea, but in itself would become "a government" that is not immune to corruption. What we really need to do is stop teaching our children government approved propoganda and educate them on the importance of knowing what their government is doing and how it affects them. Having more "average" people interested in politics would thin out the crowd of self centered career liars that are "leading" this country now.

A more educated society will naturally be more productive.
 
Helix said:
drug screening has been abused to the point that i'd like to see it banned unless court ordered on an individual basis.

no business needs to know if an office worker smoked a doob over the weekend. if the worker's performance sucks, fire them. if it doesn't, don't.
Click to expand...

Unless there is probable cause random drug testing should not be used. Say an employee runs over someone with a tow motor. This would warrant a urine test. If you've done nothing suspicious, no test.

I remember a case where the CEO of a large company was selling drugs to his manager's. He never got a random drug test, and kept his position. On the other hand, at the same company several tow motor operator's were given random drug tests. They turned up positive for marijuana and were immediately fired.
 
Smokified said:
Where did I say the key distinction for drug testing is emplyment? I pointed out that you are comparing apples to oranges. A person who is earning their own money should be of no concern to you as a taxpayer. The people who run the companies that own the road grader and employ the guy operating it likely do make him piss in a cup. And it costs you nothing as a taxpayer (beyond what is already budgeted for public employees) so your argument is completely irrelevant. A person on Welfare is simply collecting public money. The guy who got laid off from the construction firm is likely actively looking for another job. None of this is designed to target these kinds of people, so again, your argument is irrelevant. It is designed to target people who simply do not work and abuse the system. If you think the only people on welfare are hard working people who are victims of circumstance, then you are not educated enough on this topic to be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about one person taking public money to work heavy equipment versus another guy taking public money to stay off the street. Both are taking public money. Apples - apples. Except the former is a bigger risk to public safety if he's intoxicated.
 
Gipper said:
You've never worked with or for an insurance corporation, have you?

If the negative externalities for recreational drug users didn't exist, I doubt it'd be a concern at all. I highly doubt that Bill Gates or Larry Ellison give a damn what you do in your spare time.
Click to expand...

then why not test for alcohol, tobacco, and obesity?

the prevalence of negative "externalities" is almost certainly much higher for all of these.

i don't support testing for any of them. you're either doing a good job, or you're not. since workers have basically no rights these days, a business can fire someone without an intrusive piss test. i'm for preventing businesses from testing with the exception of driving / other high risk jobs, and in cases of accidents.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Indeed. So what you are saying is that corporations aren't citizens after all. I totally agree.

We could piss test everyone on Wall Street. What do you think we'd find? Probably higher abuse rates than for people on the dole. No one is going to test white collar, white guys who work with money? Never happen.
Click to expand...

How is this even relevant to the topic of people who receive public money and then spend it on drugs?
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
Unless there is probable cause random drug testing should not be used. Say an employee runs over someone with a tow motor. This would warrant a urine test. If you've done nothing suspicious, no test.
Click to expand...

agree completely.
 
AdamT said:
I'm talking about one person taking public money to work heavy equipment versus another guy taking public money to stay off the street. Both are taking public money. Apples - apples. Except the former is a bigger risk to public safety if he's intoxicated.
Click to expand...

One person is earning money performing tasks that need to be done. Are you and your neighbors just going to go out and grade the road? One person is probably also already being randomly tested. I don't know if you were paying attention when they went through fruits in kindergarten, your apples don't really look the same to me.

If you are OK funding the drug habits of capable people who refuse to work, then take your money and do so.
 
Last edited:
The really amusing thing aboit this entire issue is that ALCOHOL is the poors drug of choice.

Cheap and easy to get.
 
Helix said:
then why not test for alcohol, tobacco, and obesity?

the prevalence of negative "externalities" is almost certainly much higher for all of these.

i don't support testing for any of them. you're either doing a good job, or you're not. since workers have basically no rights these days, a business can fire someone without an intrusive piss test. i'm for preventing businesses from testing with the exception of driving / other high risk jobs, and in cases of accidents.
Click to expand...

They do. The only difference is that booze, cigarettes, and food aren't illegal. Oh, and some of the more "progressive" companies are indeed punishing the "sinners", specifically smokers. A lot will refuse outdoor smoke breaks or make no indoor facilities allowable for them (a real problem if you're on the 32nd floor). Some will make you pay a LOT more for insurance. Some will even not hire if they know you to be a smoker.

That's just the way of the world.
 
Smokified said:
One person is earning money performing tasks that need to be done. Are you and your neighbors just going to go out and grade the road? One person is probably also already being randomly tested. I don't know if you were paying attention when they went through fruits in kindergarten, your apples don't really look the same to me.

If you are OK funding the drug habits of capable people who refuse to work, then take your money and do so.
Click to expand...

In both cases it is taxpayer's money being spent. As I understand it that was the rationalization for the drug testing -- not to punish or humiliate people who are down on their luck.

Of course there is no basis for your assumption that the typical welfare recipient is a capable person who simply *refuses* to work, just as there was no basis to think that many welfare applicants were on drugs. As we've seen, the evidence suggests that welfare applicants are LESS likely to test positive than the average Joe.
 
Smokified said:
Maybe you don't pay taxes, but I do. I am very concerned with where my tax money is going because I work hard for it. I know for a fact that there are many many many people on welfare that are not utilizing the benefits to better their lives. Just as I would not hand a bum on the street $20 to go buy a dime sack and a six pack, I would not want my taxes going towards those kinds of habits either.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously trying to insinuate that if someone receives some of their tax dollars back when they hit hard times via a welfare check then that necessarily means that they are spending your tax dollars on drugs if they test positive for drugs because someone passed them a joint at a party?

You authoritarian radicals types make no sense whatsoever. You need to learn how to mind your own business.
 
I'm not going to get into the arm-wrestling about who is more likely to use illicit drugs. What I will say is those with problematic alcohol and drug use as a group to tend to lose employment involuntarily, have more trouble finding new employment due to the history of having been terminated multiple times and therefore would be more likely to be receiving benefits due to having a low or no income. The problem with testing only the person applying for the benefits is that an adult member of the household without a drug / alcohol problem will usually be the one making sure their is income to pay rent and put food on the table.
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
I think this whole drug testing thing is discriminatory. What will they do if a recipient does test positive? Take away all that they have? Remove their children?

They might just be selling the drugs. I read somewhere that many dealer's don't use.
Click to expand...
First, the non-users who deal drugs tend to be doing well enough not to bother with things like food stamps. Most street-level dealers are supporting their own drug habit by dealing.

I doubt children would automatically be removed for failing the drug screen - though they would likely open a protective services case to check on the welfare of any children in the home. Not sure what other states do, but TN drug screens women giving birth and opens a protective services case if they test positive for alcohol or marijuana and often remove the child at least temporarily for things like methamphetamine, opiates and cocaine.
 
Hicup said:
What gets me, and is often overlooked by pundants is this. If the point of testing is to punish users by removing their benefits, how is that any different than simply taking benefits away from capable people? If the goal is to remove those that are unworthy, then do so, and we don't need drug testing to do this. Just manpower. That said, and here's the rub.. What about the children? What aboutt he kiddies of all these abusers, and fraudulent recipients of welfare dough? Regardless of why thy are removed, don't the children still suffer? This is the argument from progressives, and even some moderate republicans for decades, and to some extent the argument has merit. Whehn we remove benefits of welfare recipients, what we're really doing is taking away (in some quantifiable measure) from the children of these people.

My question is. If we all agree that we as tax payers shouldn't be paying benefits to capable, and able-bodied people, and only to those that are deserving, how do we resolve the moral obligation to protect the children?

By the way.. I'm a conservative, but I've never really heard a good argument for how we stop the waste, abuse and fraud, and yet still find a way to protect those that are simply victims of this circumstance? The same can be said about the illegal immigration issue, and that MOST illegal immigrants in this country are actually hard working, and notwithstanding the illegal act of coming to America, are themselves honest people willing to do what it takes for their families.. How do we fix this conundrum?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Good points.

There is no simplistic solution to welfare, or illegal immigration, or any other problem we face, at least not one that works. It is pretty obvious that the purpose of drug testing welfare recipients was to score political points. Now, it appears that their game has backfired. But, what are they going to do with recipients who test positive? cut off their benefits? Then what, is that going to make them productive citizens? Do we put their kids in foster care? Open up orphanages? What?

And, if we insist that able bodied people work, where are they going to work? Even people with job skills are having a difficult time of it just now.

It's easy to make a moral judgement and say, "Those people need to quit doing drugs and work for a living". Bringing that about is a lot more difficult.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
First, the non-users who deal drugs tend to be doing well enough not to bother with things like food stamps. Most street-level dealers are supporting their own drug habit by dealing.

I doubt children would automatically be removed for failing the drug screen - though they would likely open a protective services case to check on the welfare of any children in the home. Not sure what other states do, but TN drug screens women giving birth and opens a protective services case if they test positive for alcohol or marijuana and often remove the child at least temporarily for things like methamphetamine, opiates and cocaine.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt drug dealers aren't going to take advantage of the freebies of welfare. If the dealers aren't on welfare personally, their families are.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Good points.

There is no simplistic solution to welfare, or illegal immigration, or any other problem we face, at least not one that works. It is pretty obvious that the purpose of drug testing welfare recipients was to score political points. Now, it appears that their game has backfired. But, what are they going to do with recipients who test positive? cut off their benefits? Then what, is that going to make them productive citizens? Do we put their kids in foster care? Open up orphanages? What?

And, if we insist that able bodied people work, where are they going to work? Even people with job skills are having a difficult time of it just now.

It's easy to make a moral judgement and say, "Those people need to quit doing drugs and work for a living". Bringing that about is a lot more difficult.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! Putting people on the streets will create even more crime as well. I see no real answer for it, either. I've heard O'Reilly say put the welfare recipients to work. Doing what? They'd want at least minimum wage for their efforts and probably unionize, so what would that accomplish? Training programs also cost money. We are broke. Nobody seems to get that.
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
Exactly!! Putting people on the streets will create even more crime as well. I see no real answer for it, either. I've heard O'Reilly say put the welfare recipients to work. Doing what? They'd want at least minimum wage for their efforts and probably unionize, so what would that accomplish? Training programs also cost money. We are broke. Nobody seems to get that.
Click to expand...

"We are broke". That phrase should appear at the bottom of the screen during every debate and every campaign commercial. It should be added to the oath of office. It needs to be placed prominently on the capitol building. Maybe then someone would get it.
 
AdamT said:
In both cases it is taxpayer's money being spent. As I understand it that was the rationalization for the drug testing -- not to punish or humiliate people who are down on their luck.

Of course there is no basis for your assumption that the typical welfare recipient is a capable person who simply *refuses* to work, just as there was no basis to think that many welfare applicants were on drugs. As we've seen, the evidence suggests that welfare applicants are LESS likely to test positive than the average Joe.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about humiliating people that are down on their luck? The last thing people who are down on their luck need is a drug habit. It is pretty obvious that drug testing people to make sure they are eligible to receive public money as their source of income and humiliating people that are down on their luck are 2 different things. 1 is reality and one is a silly excuse.
 
Muhammed said:
Are you seriously trying to insinuate that if someone receives some of their tax dollars back when they hit hard times via a welfare check then that necessarily means that they are spending your tax dollars on drugs if they test positive for drugs because someone passed them a joint at a party?

You authoritarian radicals types make no sense whatsoever. You need to learn how to mind your own business.
Click to expand...

What makes no sense is how you just make things up and then try and form an opinion on it as though it were true. Why is it so hard for you to separate the people that need a bit of help due to hard times and the people that are abusing the system? It is pretty simple.... if you are down on your luck and receiving public money, don't use drugs.... I don't give 2 ****s if you want to buy it with money you earn.

Also, where do you think tax dollars go? "...Receives some of their tax dollars back.."? You think that having roads to drive on, emergency services, schools... etc just fall out of the sky? That is what you get back for your tax dollars. Right now I see more people ending up on entitlement programs while the roads I drive on are getting worse and worse. Weeding out the people abusing the benefits will allow our tax money to be properly spent on those that legitimately need help while still paying for the services my tax money was meant for.

It is my business when you are paying for it with my money....
 
Last edited:
Smokified said:
It is my business when you are paying for it with my money....
Click to expand...
Ok, so are you also calling for random tests for alcohol use? Tobacco? Pepsi? Twinkies? Why single out illicit drugs when there are thousands of other things these people shouldn't be buying with your taxpayer dollars?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom