We need a bill to do randomized drug tests on all politicians!
If I have to be tested for drugs to work for money, why the fuck should anyone be exempt from a drug test to take the money that I earned and was taken off of me.
Bernie must be furious. He's about to lose 80% of his 2020 campaign donations.
All other federal employees have random drug tests but somehow politicians are exempt. They should be the first ones being tested as they work for the people of the United States of America. I love this move thought with testing welfare recipients. I've been talking about this for a long time. I'm also for welfare recipients having to work for their check. If you work hard and just can't seem to make ends meet, sure, we should help those people. But, people shouldn't just be allowed to sit on their asses all day every day and collect money. Those people should be made to do some kind of work for that money such as picking up trash around the city they live in, painting over graffiti, painting government buildings showing wear, etc....
I was all for it here in FL, however the tests costs actually outweighed the positive tests. Therefore it was costing more to test for the drugs vs. saving welfare money bc majority of applicants one way or another tested negative. Also Rick Scott is a bumbling dumb ass hole.
if they actually do real random drug test, 1/2 the people on welfare wont qualify.
Edit- Further, he used his wife's drug testing company to do the tests. He should be locked up along w/ Hillbilly Clinton.
Somehow I feel that their high cost testing has something to do with his follow up:
Further, he used his wife's drug testing company to do the tests.
This is the point. If you're doing drugs, specifically drugs that are not prescribed to you by a doctor, then you should not qualify to be carried by the country.
Bullshit. Bullshit bullshit bullshit. Drug tests DO NOT cost a lot of money. It's like $20-30 at Walmart for a 12 panel drug test, so I KNOW they have shit that will do it for much cheaper. And you don't need to test all of them, only randomly test 25% like the military does. I don't buy this argument one bit, not with the billions and billions and billions of dollars going to entitlements.
Notice that this is a bill that allows a state to test if it wants.
This doesn't force anything, it just removes a needless federal overreach on state power.
Pretty much exactly what we would expect Trump to do: Give states more power.
It's dumb because all this will do is allow some company to rape the government for the cost of these drug tests like dickhole guy from Florida did.
I understand your position here but as someone that was also tested for my job, I just can't get behind the attitude of "they did it to me, do it to everyone else". I really don't approve of drug testing. If I like to smoke some pot to relax on weekends, why should I lose my employment? If I'm showing up to work high, then yeah get rid of my ass.
It's exactly that, that's my point right there.
If I have to worry about losing my job because I smoke a doob on the weekend, why the fuck is it fair that this person can pick up the money taken from me high as a kite? Infuriating.
Guess he's gonna have to give up plans on house number 4 and 5, for now.
TOO MUCH WINNING! NJ should save a lot of money if they do this!
The difference in my view is that if you have the cash to waste on cigs, weed, and booze, tax payers shouldn't be footing the bill for your house and food etc.
Fucking Rick Scott... guy gets busted for millions in medicare fraud and somehow becomes Governor.
People on welfare can smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol- so I am not %100 fan of this.
Tax payers shouldn't have to subsidize your house and food while you spend your cash on cigs, weed, and booze.
Everyone has the right to do whatever the hell they want. You wanna smoke all the time? Self employ. You wanna get a check from someone then you play by their rules. Don't like it, find another employer. You give up certain liberties depending on your employer that you willingly sign up for
You can randomize the testing to reduce costs. As long as the possibility of being tested and losing benefits exists, that should be enough of an incentive to stay clean.
Have to be random
As long as it leaves it up to the states it's okay by me, would rather my state put that money into vocational skill training.
And not alert the person(s) their being tested a week in advance
The guy is a legit scumbag who should be in jail. If you dont know much about him, look up his time in the private sector where he screwed tax payers with Medicare fraud.
Drug testing everyone on welfare would be difficult and costly. Plus knowing your going to for sure get drug tested let's you prepare for it. Having it short notice and random means less likely to cheat it
We need to fix our major drug problem first. When is the last time you saw a drug PREVENTION program? It's all about drug TREATMENT - follow the money...
If taxpayers have to pay for your house and food you shouldn't be spending money on drugs.
I hate this. The government is already intrusive enough. Just eliminate the welfare. This goes down a slippery slope. "Well if you can't afford food and shelter then you shouldn't have money for a firearm." Or add in countless other items that a scumbag democrat might twist this logic into.
The best drug prevention program is a prosperous economy and a stable life.
The difference being that those are legal.
Yep, if you have money to buy drugs you have money to feed your own children. Let's see how news spins this as a negative"it hurts the children!"
Well, I'm ok with that, at least it's their children suffering and not mine because I'm forced to pay for their parents drug habit.
Does pizza come up on a drug test?
STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE
Theoretically, yes I think it's a good idea. If they can't be ready to pass a drug test for work, then they shouldn't be getting government aid.
BUT... they have trialed these programs in several places around the country and the program is a huge failure every single time. The program costs WAY more than it saves. Even when applicants pay for their own drug test, the administrative costs far outweigh the money saved. They catch very, very few people. And if people know they will be tested, they can stay clean, apply, then go back to using. So you would have to do random tests to make it work and that drives costs up even more.
Then you have the issue of children. Welfare is mainly geared toward providing for poor families children. So you take away benefits from the family because the parents screwed up. Now what? The kids starve because their parents are knuckleheads? Do you take the kids away? If so, how much more are we going to pay for foster care?
This is one of those ideas that sound really good on paper, but in practical application it doesn't make sense. It's just a huge waste of tax dollars.
This is a bad law - right to privacy and unreasonable searches are more important than winning points against welfare.
Sounds like a good idea on paper, but practice has shown it to be a waste of money in states that released their data on it. The cost of the drug testing is way more than the reduced welfare spent on the caught drug users. It's very easy to beat these piss tests.
I think it's a good moral statement to have that, but it's shown poor results and inefficient use of tax dollars.
smoke pot and fuck your hunger or shelter?
Food and shelter are basic needs. Marijuana is not necessary to meet basic human needs. If you are consuming marijuana you must have discretionary income with which to purchase it because your basic needs have already been met. If you have discretionary income, why should the government pay for your basic needs?
This is absolutely correct. They've tried stuff like this before and it was a huge waste of money.
"Random." The military testing 25% ended up with me getting tested what seemed like every other Friday (white, educated, upper middle class female E3). I guess it ensured that my office passed every time...
They tried this in Florida. It was a corrupt waste of money.
Drug and Alcohol Case Manager here. While I agree it is prudent to allow states to establish these policies for themselves, any state that implements them should be aware that they are a colossal waste of taxpayer money. I get it, and agree, drug users shouldn't be able to subsidize their habits with government funds. But looking at the financial and constitutional ramifications these policies impose, they simply are not worth it and are largely unethical.
Hell, the majority of my clients are on probation and they regularly skirt the stringent drug testing that they employ. Addicts are addicts. They use cleansing teas to flush their systems, smoke spice, take designer drugs that don't show up on traditional drug screens. FYI, if you want to implement a good, comprehensive drug test it's going to cost much more than $30 and often has to go through more than one lab.
This is one of those stupid feel-good laws that make conservatives appear to be doing something for their constituents when they're actually not addressing the problem at all, which is substance abuse and substance dependency. Quite frankly, it's like the democrats and gun control: it restricts people's freedoms and does little to solve the actual problem.
If there were some way to test for it and a person came back positive for pizza, it should result in a bullet to the head right there.
I'm all for that. But first thing is to prevent taxpayers from subsidizing lawbreakers wherever possible.
It is important to note that those over-the-counter drug tests are not as accurate as the ones labs use. Those $20-30 tests have a higher rate of false-positives.
On the flip side, the lab tests are more expensive because they are a lot more specific...it requires more of the actual drug metabolites to test positive, BUT, if you do test positive, it's almost certain that you truly did have the drug in the system.
Going back to your initial point. Yea, those Walmart tests are good for "screening"....in essence, "does it look like we need to investigate this further". In the event that the screen is positive, then the sample is sent for testing, where the urine, hair, whatever is subject to analysis via Mass Spectrometry or Gas Chromatography....both being extremely expensive instruments to use and can detect what's in the sample down to the molecular level. That's where the costs skyrocket.
General rule of thumb: The cheaper the test, the easier it is to beat.
But what about the people who finally stop smoking bud or popping pills 24/7...and say...get a job?
Before anyone goes off on a "omg weed is harmless" rant, yes in moderation it is harmless. But i have seen many get addicted to a lazy lifestyle through it. Wake n bake, watch netflix, smoke, eat lunch, chill, smoke, watch your late night tv, smoke, video games, bed. Rinse and repeat. Cut out weed and all the sudden they dont ruin their day by getting high first thing. Go get a job and maybe get off welfare and you can RECREATIONALLY smoke.
Just make welfare recipients go to school and get a education or tech skill. You want help then you need to help yourself and educate yourself. Studies have shown basic high school education and a tech skill have far more impacts on reoffends in prison and welfare recipients. There should also be a limit on how many kids we are willing to support as tax payers.
I don't mind my tax dollars going to help someone learn how to fish and possibly supporting their children as fix their mistakes. But there is a limit to how much we'll support this behavior and it's out of control
I'm having a hard time parsing your response, but I would imagine that those 5 are the most common in use, and will catch the majority of offenders.
The logistics of drug testing every single welfare recipient is too great I would imagine.
This is how a lot of counties do testing for probation. You're assigned a color randomly (I assume) at intake (red, blue, purple, silver, etc.)
Then it's your responsibility to call in every Monday, Wedenesday, Friday, whatever. And they have a recording that says which colors have to report within the next 24 hours.
If you don't show up, they assume you're dirty. It's your responsibility to call. You can call from a payphone if you have to, or even have someone else call in and listen to the recording, but you better make that call.
I'll just do what I want. I vote for it every time I can.
If they are going to drug test the poor and disabled, then they should also test Board Members and CEOs of any company taking corporate welfare, including economic development subsidies.
Also drug test all members of Congress, their staffers, the federal and state bureaucrats, state representatives and government administrators.
All these people eat from the public trough and should be treated the same when it comes to drug testing for state economic support.
And I tell you what, a youngster with a tool in both hands has no hands left to do drugs. -Hank Hill
Stop believing the meme that welfare is necessary.
Maybe they should stop passing people over, just because they smoke a little pot outside work hours?
I'm opposed to all drug testing, except maybe pilots and a few other professions. This is one instance where I disagree with President Trump.
Well if you define welfare as 'tax money'
We should already! Drug test all recipients of 'tax money'!
Yeah I get it. In the end we really both just want the same thing.
Leave it to the states to decide. I personally think it's a waste money to administer drug test.
In reality this hasn't been shown to be the case, no state that has implemented has had the program be a success.
Waste of money in my opinion.
I agree with you 100%, but I honestly think this is a waste of money and resources.
Rather than ordering the drug tests, there should be more support for the welfare program in Maryland(?) where recipients had to be employed or actively seek employment to get welfare/medicaid (excluding the majorly ill).
Let the employers do the drug testing. Instead, the government should require all able recipients of government assistance to attend regular sessions with an employment coach to ensure they get help with their resume if needed, and show evidence that they are actively applying for viable jobs.
Work to change the law, then smoke. You have no room to complain if you willingly do something illegal that you know has undesirable consequences.
This. If taxpayers are footing the bill for you at least do something productive.
What if you grow your own weed ?
In addition, the drugs that are actually bad - meth, cocaine, heroin - are out of your system in a weekend.
And what do we do if positive? Can't be fired, nor placed on administrative leave. Even if arrested, they would still hold their elected position. Until a referendum is conducted.
Would a positive test be enough to hold a referendum? What a powerful weapon for political opponents.
I like the concept, but the slope is very slippery on that one.
This. But it needs to be controlled by a private entity via a computer program and audited regularly by a federal examiner. This would prevent anyone trying to pay people off and getting out of the system.
Also it does not matter if there are results. In fact, if no one test positive for drugs, the system does not need to be shut down, it just shows that it is working.
Which is quickly gained back by canceling the welfare of anyone who doesn't pass the test.
Many states have already tried this and it ends up costing more to perform the drug tests than what word have been saved by people on drugs getting denied. A very very low percentage of welfare recipients fail the drug tests. I can provide sources for this at a later date but you should be able to Google it.
Living in colorado. I can attest to this statement. So many lazy hipsters and their weed. If anyone doesn't think it's addictive, come check out where it's legalized. Sure some people can handle it and not get addicted. But the majority of people self medicate to feel better and ignore their problems. Then when they quit weed they can't handle the basic stresses of life. I've seen it all over.
The drug testing system punishes those who smoke pot more than cokeheads or junkies.
I would consider it preparation and training for a job.
Most entry level employers will tell you that the biggest problem with hiring is finding people who can pass a piss test.
And yes the costs outweighed the positive results in your example. You example is garbage. The people running the program were corrupt and it was designed to look like a failure to fool simple minds, like yourself boonpa.
I'm shaking right now....From the heroin.
WTF? I love drugs now?!
Very good point
pretty sure this loses money due to testing costs.
This is less important to me than the fact that my tax money goes to people that should be disqualified from receiving it. Deportation also costs money, but it's also to enforce the law of the land.
Because your employer doesn't want you to smoke pot. Simple enough. Those are their terms of employment, if you don't like those terms, then they'll hire someone who does.
All this does is further stigmatize the use of recreational drugs (weed, mostly).
Is a drug test for a company an "unreasonable search"?
Yes - but we give companies a lot of leeway in violating constitutional rights ( I would say too much leeway, but there certainly should be some )
Is a drug test for a company an "unreasonable search"?
Some entity agrees to pay you benefits in exchange for verifying that you haven't done drugs over whatever time they verify. With welfare, this type of deal is even less unreasonable because the recipient isn't giving labor in the exchange.
While drug tests for recipients may not be cost efficient, it should still be up to the state regarding the conditions for doling out benefits to its citizens.
I agree. I work with SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, etc, and drug testing will just end up being a waste of money. Recipients know how to get around drug testing. In fact, when they implemented piss tests in Florida for welfare receipients they found the rate of drug use was lower with welfare recipients than it was in the general populations. Only 2% failed the drug tests. http://www.tbo.com/ap/politics/welfare-drug-testing-yields--positive-results-252458
It's still a stupid rule. You can get fired for showing up drunk but you won't get fired if they found out you were drinking over the weekend.
They mentioned how 12 cases cost 30,000$.
I'm on my phone with shitty internet so I can't really do the googling, but it sounds like they found 12 welfare recipients on drugs?
Then later down the article they just assert that it costs more to test people.
Now assuming something in the range of 500-1000$ a month in entitlements per person caught, that's a lot of money saved.
already been shown to be a huge waste of time/money
Maybe the bullet can be made out of that worm from the Wrath of Khan.
How brittle must the human psyche be for this to be the case.
Oh go fuck yourself