Unemployed & Drug Tests?

**partyhardy** · June-16-10, 11:40 PM

"Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, proposed yesterday that people seeking unemployment benefits or welfare undergo drug tests before they can receive benefits.

"Too many Americans are locked into a life of a dangerous dependency not only on drugs, but the federal assistance that serves to enable their addiction," Hatch said in announcing the proposal. "This amendment is a way to help people get off of drugs to become productive and healthy members of society, while ensuring that valuable taxpayer dollars aren't wasted."

The proposal comes in the form of an amendment to a bill now being considered to extend tax breaks and social programs; it mandates that if someone fails the drug test, "then states could enroll them in either a state or federal drug treatment program," according to a release from Hatch's office. It is not clear whether or not the person could face jail time.

Hatch suggests such a system would save money and reduce the deficit, presumably by virtue of withholding benefits from those who fail drug tests. His release does not address the costs of drug testing everyone receiving unemployment or welfare benefits or enrolling those who fail the test in treatment programs."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...29-503544.html
--------------

As I see another thread on this board, I too am tired. I'm tired of a government who is suddenly concerned with the deficit when it comes to helping out the American people, but not bat an eye when it comes to helping out corporations or banks. Now people who are unemployed through no fault of their own are suddenly suspected of being drug users?? Unemployment extensions still have not been passed, they have been expired since May 31st. The House had passed the bill on May 28th, but is still stuck in the Senate.

**gibran** · June-16-10, 11:47 PM

welcome to the tea party mentality....

**ghettopalmetto** · June-16-10, 11:59 PM

This must be that "states rights" and "less government intrusion" that we keep hearing about from the Republican Party.

**Papasito** · June-17-10, 07:10 AM

Drugs are illegal anyway.
I don't see a problem with taking a drug test to get Government cash in your time of need. Being able to function well enough to seek employment and have a coherant conversation during a job interview is probably a good thing.

Besides, most employers do pre employment drug tests anyway.

I guess I don't have a problem with it, because I am not on drugs.

**Meddle** · June-17-10, 07:20 AM

Have mixed feeling on this one. When you're drawing UI, you're supposed to be 'able and available' for work. Since most major employers and many minor ones require drug tests before they'll hire you, if you're using drugs, you're not really available for most jobs.

UI is not supposed to be an entitlement. It's supposed to be a crutch of sorts to help you pay your bills between jobs.

But then since I may soon be applying, I don't want to have to take any form of drug test. I don't believe I've ever been required to for any job, even FedGov, but that was before most testing was required.

**oldredfordette** · June-17-10, 07:59 AM

More punishing of the poor. Typical mean-spirited Tea Party/Republican horseshit. Please, quote some Scripture now.

**Corn.Bot** · June-17-10, 08:09 AM

Don't drug-test unemployed people unless they're getting other assistance.

I can't afford a cell phone, cigarettes, or new stylish outfits, or even to get my hair done, but every day I must walk through a crowd of people who possess all of these things. They come to my [[public health) building to take advantage of our government-backed free dental, health, WIC, and legal services. They are yakking to their bluetooths, yelling at their cutely-coifed, well-shod kids, dropping their name-brand cigarette butts all over the entryway. Oh, and their fast-food wrappers get left too, another luxury I don't have.

I would rather anyone getting non-employment-related government services and/or assistance be drug-tested before they receive their [[mostly unearned) money.

I say this because I have a spouse and an adult son both collecting unemployment. Spouse put in 30+ years in both white- and blue-collar trades before ever even applying for unenjoyment. Son worked 9 straight before having to file. Spouse may or may not be extended beyond 26 weeks; son's claim is being contested by his last employer even though he was already penalized 13 weeks. Son and spouse would both love to have a smoke - either a cigarette or a joint, both would make 'em happy. Neither can afford either and I don't earn enough to provide such extras when my wages have to keep a roof over our collective heads and basic food in our tummies....

**jams** · June-17-10, 08:53 AM

Might we examine why self-medication is so prevalent in our society?

**MCP-001** · June-17-10, 09:10 AM

This is what happens when government strays away from its original purpose, and goes into areas in which it has no business belonging in.

**johnsmith** · June-17-10, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by gibran

welcome to the tea party mentality....

Umm, wrong.

The tea party mentality says, "don't tread on me." This is the opposite of that. And bailing out corprations/banks was the last straw that started the protests.

**oladub** · June-17-10, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by MCP-001

This is what happens when government strays away from its original purpose, and goes into areas in which it has no business belonging in.

Correct. Working this backwards, this proposal is an invasion of privacy and an unreasonable search without probable cause or required warrants [[4th Amendment). What business has the federal government though even handing out unemployment benefits? That is the option of states [[10th Amendment). The federal war on drugs is itself federal overreach.

Under Bush, federal agents were even sent into California to arrest users of medical marijuana which was legal in California. Yet for all the money spent on the war on drugs we are still losing the war on drugs under Obama. There are now signs along the border of three counties in Arizona, up to 80 miles from the border, warning Americans to stay out because of well armed drug smugglers operating in the area. Were marijuana a legal drug, like nicotine and alcohol in every state, we wouln't have ceded that territory to druglords. A serious military presence defending the border would also help.

**partyhardy** · June-17-10, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Drugs are illegal anyway.
I don't see a problem with taking a drug test to get Government cash in your time of need. Being able to function well enough to seek employment and have a coherant conversation during a job interview is probably a good thing.

Besides, most employers do pre employment drug tests anyway.

I guess I don't have a problem with it, because I am not on drugs.

Nor am I on drugs, but criminals are required to take drug tests at times in part of their probation. So, should I happen to become unemployed, I would need to be placed in the same category as convicted criminals in my time of need [[not saying all convicted criminals are necessarily bad people, but in the eyes of Government we would be viewed as the same). But then, when does it stop? Are we going to have to be drug tested to get a driver's license, to vote, etc... If private companies wish to drug test, that's up to them...

It's just another example of an outdated government official who should have been voted out years ago.

**ghettopalmetto** · June-17-10, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Being able to function well enough to seek employment and have a coherant conversation during a job interview is probably a good thing.

I think that's for the prospective employer to determine, is it not?

Who do you propose is going to pay for all this needless drug testing? Sorry--I don't like it. It screams "We don't trust you. We think that because you're unemployed, you're scum of the earth, and are highly likely to be on drugs."

In the meantime, we don't dare enforce regulations on Wall Street bankers, while they shove as much blow up their nose as humanly possible.

**MCP-001** · June-17-10, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

In the meantime, we don't dare enforce regulations on Wall Street bankers, while they shove as much blow up their nose as humanly possible.

Find one elected official on Capitol Hill who can clearly explain how derivatives work.

**ghettopalmetto** · June-17-10, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by MCP-001

Find one elected official on Capitol Hill who can clearly explain how derivatives work.

People who SELL derivatives don't know how derivatives work.

**MCP-001** · June-17-10, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

People who SELL derivatives don't know how derivatives work.

My point, exactly!

**gibran** · June-17-10, 02:25 PM

then lets drug test wall street and the rich also ..they get federal funding...maybe we should do a loyalty check on corporations also...those that outsource jobs ....we know the poor have difficulties why pile on them...only.

as far as tea party folks this is where their hypocrisy shows...or is the tea party really the anti poor party? when you say less government you are saying cut welfare and subsidized programs [[are we)...if the tea party doesn't like government intervention ...move to the sudan..or pay for the real cost of driving, mailing, protection etc...but stop threatening America's decent side with their indecent goals...

Retroit · June-17-10, 02:43 PM

Not only should they be drug tested, but they should be put to work, even if it's just picking up litter or mowing the grass.

**Sstashmoo** · June-17-10, 02:53 PM

Retroit.

Spot on as usual..

**partyhardy** · June-17-10, 03:15 PM

I'll be waiting for Retroit and Sstashmoo to come mow my grass once they're unemployed after they get done peeing in their cup.

**Roq** · June-17-10, 03:42 PM

Yes, let's drug test someone getting $362 a week at a cost of what, $50, $60 bucks a test? Makes complete sense to me.

Gibran, good point about testing Wall St. since they are receiving government handouts as well.

**Sstashmoo** · June-17-10, 04:09 PM

I'll pee in your cup, no problem. "Say when" Like I told my last F'ing boss: "You're wasting seventy-five dollars".. They never drug tested me again..

**Lowell** · June-17-10, 04:18 PM

I agree with this idea. If people on unemployment are found to NOT be taking drugs they should sent for counseling as to why they aren't and given free prescriptions for depression. They obviously need it and they can't do any damage to their employer or his equipment.

**Papasito** · June-17-10, 04:20 PM

then lets drug test wall street and the rich also ..they get federal funding..

first post in the thread that made sense!

**maxx** · June-18-10, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Drugs are illegal anyway.
I don't see a problem with taking a drug test to get Government cash in your time of need. Being able to function well enough to seek employment and have a coherant conversation during a job interview is probably a good thing.

Besides, most employers do pre employment drug tests anyway.

I guess I don't have a problem with it, because I am not on drugs.

So who's going to pay for all the drug tests? Why not only test those people who present signs and symptoms of drug use?