Do you think welfare applicants should have to pass a drug test?

Robopuppy · 3 years

Sure, on the condition that we also start randomly drug testing members of Congress. They're on the government dole too, y'know.

YogiWanKenobi · 3 years

Some laws are as much political theater as anything else. They don't exist to solve problems, but merely to gain free publicity and unwarranted support for the politician that writes them. Sometimes, they even pass laws they know aren't enforceable, just to say they voted a certain way. Our body of law shouldn't resemble a cheap social hacking experiment.

There is a subtext to this law, that creates the false dilemma that drugs are always the cause of welfare, it's an intentional ploy to link the two in people's minds, and thus join two different groups behind the same politicians. Libertarian? Hate welfare? Now you're voting anti-drug too. Liberal? Anti-drug? Now you're voting against welfare too. Vote against it? Now you're pro drug! Laws like this offend me on a much more fundamental level than any political affiliation could.

sydler · 3 years

Social worker here. This issue makes me irate. No- no drug tests, absolutely not. There are many, many different aspects to this issue. First of all, "welfare" is an extremely vague, dated term. Benefits come in many different forms, most of which benefit the minor children. Second of all, are you saying people who struggle with addiction don't deserve help, that they don't deserve some quality of life... or rather, their children don't deserve help? Also, treatment for addicts is not a simple, quick fix. During someone's process of "getting clean," relapses are imminent and often are a constant struggle. During this time are you saying people shouldn't continue to get help? Because taking away someone's benefits only puts stress on them, their children, and the rest of their family... which also plays a part in relapses (see the cycle here?). Also, do you think the system is really capable of handling urine screens in order to determine benefits? Do you understand the cost that would go into that? In both the hiring of new staff to help maintain this, the drug tests themselves, and then taking into account that this would only delay the actual benefits to those who deserve it (in your opinion, that is). Lastly, what about the civil rights issue that this would encompass? Has anyone thought about that?

In closing, no, I don't believe it should be required. I've deleted friends off facebook who joined this asinine group. So you know I really mean business. Hmph.

geoman69 · 3 years

The trouble I have with it is: Then what?

You've stopped giving them welfare. If they're heroin or crack junkies, now they're homeless heroin or crack junkies, I don't think a very large percentage will quit.

If they like weed, they probably quit smoking it, some smallish percentage of really addicted people will probably become homeless.

Piss-test-beating companies rejoice.

So some people quit smoking weed, and some other people are now homeless. If you could convince me that all of the tax money saved would be spent on helping junkies and homeless people, I might consider it a reasonable idea. Otherwise, you're just creating a bigger societal problem.

I suppose the libertarian in me says "They should pull their weight, earn a paycheck or go die in the street". However, the human being in me says "What the fuck is wrong with you?". The latter usually wins these discussions.

mildmannered · 3 years

I think members of congress should have to pass a drug test every 15 days.

torchlit_Thompson · 3 years

The safety net you need is right, the safety net someone else needs is an injustice...

Baziliy · 3 years

Depends on the drug. Is it better that the guy on unemployment is blowing his check on alcohol instead of weed?

bz922x · 3 years

Yes. Every interaction with the government should begin with a mandatory drug test, breathalyzer test, a complete strip search, a search of your vehicle, your house, your bank account, and your internet posting history. If anything is out of place, you are clearly not following the laws of the land and are not fit to continue to live with the decent people who do follow the law.

If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. If you are hiding something, it is clearly because you are not following the law.

All searches are always appropriate. There is never a reason to think a search is out of line, too invasive, or ill advised.

Marxshmarx · 3 years

I think that people who know nothing about welfare benefits should try to keep from forming opinions. I guarantee you that no one you've spoken to knows the monthly allotment of a TANF family of four, what the employment and training requirements are, or what the difference between Food Stamps and TANF is. If that's true, then they don't have an opinion because they might as well be a person who's never left South Florida describing snow.

If you want to force people to take a drug test that costs hundreds of dollars to administer (how often?) for a monthly benefit of 497 dollars for a single mother and three kids.... fine. It seems needlessly intrusive and a terrible value for money, but it seems like it's always the people who know the least about a situation who make the decisions so whatever.

ghostchamber · 3 years

Nope. Welfare could probably be revised and tightened, but I don't think drug testing should be involved.

EDIT:

My problem is this: where do you draw the line? Okay, you don't want welfare recipients smoking crack. My pot-head roommate has said as much, but I sincerely doubt she would say the same for weed, especially since she is applying for Section Eight housing, which is a form of government assistance.

But what about alcohol and cigarettes? Those are drugs, but because they fall under the umbrella of legality, it causes a huge grey area. It kind of kills the argument of "Well I don't want them spending money on drugs when the money should go towards children." Okay, that's fine, but they can just spend it on alcohol and cigarettes. They could buy all kinds of stupid shit that would have no benefit whatsoever to their children.

sir_wooly_merkins · 3 years

Only if corporate welfare recipients do.

therealcheney · 3 years

No, kids shouldn't go hungry because their parents smoke weed.

mazzarelli · 3 years

This is a very vague question. Can you be more specific? There is no program called "welfare" in the United States.

It is already illegal to use illegal drugs, what would be the point of such a rule? If it is to save money, that's not likely to happen by introducing more bureaucracy. If it is to punish them, we already have laws that punish law breakers. Why the hell would we do this?

wolftrouble · 3 years

No. Welfare is not about enforced morality, it's about doing the least harm to society. The fact is that that the more people who have a chance to recover from abject poverty the better for all, and thinking of it as some kind of mandatory responsibility does more harm than good.

dalore · 3 years

No. What a preposterous suggestion.

I think drugs should be handed out with welfare, since your obviously having a shit time if your on welfare so you need an escape.

[deleted] · 3 years

aaomalley · 3 years

People have a very skewed idea of what welfare is in this country. It is not like an unemployment check. Very few people qualify for monetary assistance through the state. Depending on the state the level of that assistance, and restrictions on recieving it, are different. In Washington State, where I work in the social service field and deal with public assistance daily, the only monetary assistance is in the form of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which pays about 300 per month and only for 6 months without an extension. The applicant can choose to take a 1 time grant of 1600 in lieu of the monthly payout. In order to qualify for TANF you have to be below the poverty line, unemployed, and have dependant children. Outside of this program there is no monetary assistance in my state. Welfare, in that case, come to state medical benefits, food stamps, housing assistance and employment assistance services. All of these should be basic human rights and not dependant on passing a drug test. For context I am a drug and alcohol counselor and I happen to know that refusing drug addicts services would only enhance societies problems by creating an environment where crime is the only option for survival.

gingerman13 · 3 years

No drug tests should be administered to anyone unless public safety is directly affected, like a pilot.

BrewRI · 3 years

Definitely not. Yes, there are the occasional scumbag people on drugs. But most people are addicted to some substance and they simply cannot kick the addiction. Or maybe they have chronic pain and became addicted to pain pills. There are many scenarios I can think of where addiction is not the stereotypical story.

Main point: you would not want to hurt an addict, or their family, because an addict is still going to find some way to get their fix, not necessarily their food or rent.

GuaranteedDownVote · 3 years

I'm not sure about the accuracy of this but a friend once told me that in Spain you have to do about 30 hours of community service every week to qualify for unemployment benefits.

I'm unemployed and I would vote for this if it were introduced. Of course you would have to make sure that the drug addicts were in rehab ar at least attempting to get clean.

Craptcha · 3 years

I think people got the whole welfare thing wrong. In my mind, welfare and, to some extent, any 'social democratic' service policy, serves a greater purpose: it's a safety net. If you say: you don't get welfare if you do drugs, chances are the targeted audience will a) still do drugs and b) get their money somewhere else (i.e. in your house, at night).

I say welfare buys us some peace and it allows people unfit to thrive in society to survive without having too much of a negative impact on said society.

Maybe some of these discussions are fueled by people who are frustrated at seeing people 'having it easy' and making money without working: but would you trade your life for theirs? I wouldn't.

Lets focus on making sure people with potential aren't let down by the system, the others can have their 12-packs and their afternoon soaps for all I care.

ike6116 · 3 years

Welfare is for the bottom rung of society, people who are desperate. You know what desperate people do in spades? They make bad decisions. The whole idea of a social safety net is so that desperate people aren't breaking into your home for your shit. You give them just enough so that you can ignore them happily and be on your way. You want to give people with nothing to lose even less to lose? Go ahead but let me know how that works out. This is a popular republican talking point because it's so much more visible than corporate welfare or defense spending. Don't like the latter? Turn off CNN. But if section 8 housing goes in in your neighborhood and brings down YOUR property value (not to mention the less than savory crowd now playing basketball or having a shit ton of people over for BBQs that go late into the night on a weeknight) well then that's one more middle class republican voter. Democrats maybe right on a lot of things but they fail to get the whole "my backyard" element of the American public. A lot of people don't go skiing unless they see snow in their backyard.

houndofbaskerville · 3 years

People in general have no clue what the welfare system in the US is really like. You can thank Bill Clinton for reforming welfare and making it so the stereotype of people sitting on their asses for years collecting large checks is practically impossible.

torchlit_Thompson · 3 years

Tell those pretentious a-holes that those tests have a 20-30% false positive return rate(I've used that defense to buy time on more than one occasion), and they'll end up spending more money to cover fewer people, which means more people turning to "alternative" means. And make sure that when you say alternative, to mimic a pistol with your thumb and forefinger. Watch there amazement as they realize that welfare is for their protection, not a charitable handout. Remember, "Let them eat cake..." always leads to "Cut their fucking heads off!!!"

k-h · 3 years

Yeah, more big government interfering in people's lives. How could that be wrong? Oh and how expensive are the tests? Money well spent?

Wait, what if you drug tested the executives of all companies that got hand outs from the government, be it grants, loans, bail-outs, tax relief, contracts or preferential treatment. These people have responsibilities and it matters if they are not in full command of their senses.

corbalt · 3 years

I'd be fine with this as long as every executive and shareholder has to piss in a cup before any corporation gets handouts, bonuses, subsidies, or pork.

[deleted] · 3 years

God yes. All welfare applicants should know good weed from bad weed.

Kerplonk · 3 years

I don't think we should drug test anyone unless they're operating heavy machinery. As long as they're not going to hurt anyone else its their own fucking business

corillis · 3 years

What would you test for? Opiates? Many prescription drugs contain opiates. MM? If a doctor prescribes it, what is it to the government?

The measure would be a massive invasion of medical privacy and privacy in general. No amount saved on SS could make up for that.

Should there be programs aimed at people on welfare to help them cope with their addictions and substance abuse? Absolutely!

apparatchik · 3 years

Sure! 100%

As long as the condition of receiving corporate Welfare (such as the bailout, or Military industry subsidies) is drug testing too.

TreeFan · 3 years

And what about companies and corporations that take government subsidies of various sorts? Can we have some standards and tests for them (and their respective leaders)??

cat_mech · 3 years

In the USA you have this insane, completely wrong idea that welfare enables people, or gives them incentive to do nothing or ever get off it. It exists in this vacuum of real facts that completely ignores how every socialized state that moves further away from that concept consistently ranks higher on global standards assessments than the US.

Let me say that again: the nations (i.e. the Nordic Socialist States) that reject this idea that is pounded into your culture, consistently rank higher on global indexes for standards of living, health and happiness, reduced infant mortality, education, length of life, individual rights.

To put it very very simply, welfare is a good thing, and it does not come from your taxes.

Let me say that again: your taxes don't pay for welfare. Your taxes pay for the massive tax loopholes used to give multinational corporations huge bonuses that are never taxed, but then siphoned out of your country to other accounts where the actual value of your dollar is removed from your immediate culture. This destroys your dollar value far more than any number of people on welfare.

Every single person on welfare has more money than they would if they weren't on welfare, in a society that has unemployment. And every single penny of that money eventually goes back into the system and is retaxed.

There is a massive lie being perpetuated in the cultures of the right wing capitalists- the lie that Rand perpetuated, the lie that you succeed based only on yourself, the lie of the conservative that everyone is to blame for their own shortcomings.

Welfare helps everyone in society. Every country on the planet that moves further away from the attitudes of North Americans about welfare and further towards socializing in the way of the Nordic Socialist states sees a massive improvement in all of the sectors of their society, and those states are consistently ranking higher with every assessment in health, happiness, education, standard of living, and almost every other scoring, than the USA. The USA is no longer even in the top 5 for living standards, and not even in the top 10 for educational standards.

You have been sold a lie. A lie that tells you that the rich earned it and the poor deserved it. A lie that tells you that the highest, most noble ideal is 'Fuck you! I got mine! Fuck you! I got mine!'

This lie seeps through every inequality in your culture. In every smiling, sneering sycophant telling you that the USA is the greatest nation on the planet. I'm not telling you it's the worst, it definitely isn't. But everywhere that isn't ravaged by war and poverty and natural disasters ignores the feeble bleating and empty chest pounding because it is ridiculous to them in the way elementary school patriotism is inane to a refugee.

Welfare is good; it is shown in every culture that no matter the reason why the person receives it, it benefits the society.

Correlation is not causation; if anything people who are poor are more likely to do drugs to relieve additional stresses of poverty because of poverty. They are not impoverished because they did drugs; they do drugs because they are impoverished.

If you want people to lead better, healthier lives, you need to improve and expand upon welfare; you need to give more in the way of education, and health care, and access to knowledge. Better food and healthier options.

You need to stop believing the people who own the news and television stations when they tell you to direct all the anger you have at seeing how life is one big train of people fucking you over for every last penny, and then blame it on the poor.

The only real welfare in the form of stealing from the people and producing nothing themselves are the elite upper class capitalists. They themselves produce nothing; they give nothing; they have no obligation to labour or to the rest of humanity, and they raise you your entire life to believe if you just fall in line well enough, you can grovel at their feet for some warmth from the cold.

uppercrust · 3 years

No, anyone who has ever taken a drug test will tell you how humiliating the experience is. Anyone who has waited in a welfare line or tried to apply for welfare will tell you how humiliating this is. Put the two together, and it's mentally and emotionally crushing.

jordtallguy · 3 years

nobody should have to pass a drug test

interweb_repairman · 3 years

No. Drug tests themselves are usually an unconstitutional search/seizure without probable cause.

ryalslawfirm · 3 years

Clearly the small amount of money spent on social welfare programs is the problem, not the titanic amount of unnecessary defense spending or other corporate welfare programs . Its welfare queens in Cadillacs. Don't look over there... look over here.

Nice try Reagan.

PandaK00sh · 3 years

Lifestyle of the applicant is more important to review than just "Does person X smoke weed?"

ogenius · 3 years

as soon as they drug test every government employee on a weekly basis, sure thing! go for it! police, the president, senators, secretaries. every single one of them.. oh wait, that would be catastrophic... wouldn't it?

[deleted] · 3 years

I think that if they did that cocaine would make a big comeback. Violent crime would increase and you would end up paying much more to house the same people in prison. You don't have to build ghettos out of steel and concrete. You also don't have to worry about hazard pay for armed guards.

[deleted] · 3 years

I think that they should, but if they do screen as drug users, they should be offered free treatment and a smaller welfare check, then if they choose the treatment they will be granted the normal amount as long as they stay clean during semiannual screenings. I know there are many many problems with this, but this is just what I think and I know there is much room for improvement as well.

whigs · 3 years

I think corporate welfare recipients should have to pass a drug test too.

[deleted] · 3 years

No. Who's to say they don't smoke marijuana with their friends? Friends often share their weed. You can't assume it's what the money is being spent on.

komphwasf3 · 3 years

If yes, that would mean we are compelled to pay people who don't use drugs

cyber_rigger · 3 years

They should get a job selling drugs, ... legally.

faschwaa · 3 years

Sure, let's throw more money into welfare than is necessary to police the personal lives of the poor. Great call.

[deleted] · 3 years

I don't care that people on welfare use drugs or not in the sense of 'drugs are bad'. I care in that they have money to pay for luxuries like drugs and still use the taxpayers money. So instead of testing for drugs, I would like to see a test for cigarettes, alcohol, fancy rims, playstation games, etc.

If you have to use taxpayer money to pay your rent, utilities, and food costs then you need to be exercising frugality in a big way. I work hard, save money, and often go without the things I want so that I don't end up on a government program burdening the state. I would like to expect the same from everyone else.

weirdwithwords · 3 years

Former welfare child here, and this sort of topic pisses me off. My mother would never have been able to support me and both my brothers without government help. My mother also smoked pot, though she wasn't buying it. How is this possible? She had friends. Friends who were generous enough to get a stressed-out mom high.

My friends all tell me I'm lucky to have such an awesome mom. My government tells me I should have been taken from her at an early age. Which one should I believe?

N01SE · 3 years

No. Why does everyone confuse drug use with drug abuse? Not one in the same, sorry. They need rehab if they're abusing drugs and alcohol. Deny them welfare and addicts will simply turn to crime and violence. Also understand that drug abuse by impoverished people is a way of escaping the harsh reality of living in poverty, it's a vicious cycle. When are people going to learn that addicts need our help, not punishment, it only drives them deeper into their addictions.

fubo · 3 years

Hell, I'd rather pay for your weed than pay a cop to bust you for it. You may be a bum, but the cop is a violent thug ... and a danger to the rest of society. If one of you is going to get your enjoyment at the taxpayer's expense, I'd prefer it wasn't the one who did it violently.

bboy1977 · 3 years

Nope, but there should be a requirement to actively seek a job. Oh wait there is...

theBishop · 3 years

It's amazing how readily the lower classes conduct war amongst themselves.

Welfare recipients are not the problem.

[deleted] · 3 years

Wow, the pro-testing crowd on Reddit is shocking. Also the misunderstanding of the "welfare" system. Frankly, in less you are handicapped or have a mental disorder you aren't getting welfare in the classic sense. You can get food stamps, even then you have to fight to keep them. The only people who can really game the system are women with children with none of their possessions in their name. Even then its a few hundred a month cash and two hundred EBT (food "stamps") and requires a ton of constant hoop-jumping. It's so low you pretty much have to be stealing, selling drugs or your body to supplement. It takes a special kind of nihilism to stay that low for long. Not sure what my point is, but I've been slumming it in the city for so long I know these issues inside and out. Though I personally can't get anything when I'm getting thrown to the curb... because I'm male. Can't ever get unemployment because I freelance so much (even though I still have to pay the tax). Though the plight of the homeless is different than that of those on welfare. Oh, well. No point. I was just shocked by the discussion.

El_Morro · 3 years

Sure, so long as every member of upper management in companies that received bailout money or are getting subsidies from the government are also subjected to drug tests.

After all, their f*ckups cost our country just as much (if not more) than people on welfare. Picking on the underclass is easier though, I understand.

wonko221 · 3 years

i haven't used much of a variety of illegal drugs. How many would i have to be able to identify to pass?

flissss · 3 years

No, because it's a blatant violation of the Constitution.

I live in a small city where I see people pay their grocery bills with food stamps and load the groceries in a chromed out Mercedes filled with kids dressed better than me, and people who sit on their stoops and drink Steel Reserve all day long so I see the abuse everyday. But I will not erode my rights so that They can catch a few people abusing the system.

It's been shown that asking appropriate questions will usually net the same result when trying to diagnose drug use and actually works for alcohol as well, something that drug tests cannot show.

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

e82 · 3 years

Not necessarily pass, but if they fail - need to go into treatment/rehab.

f4nt · 3 years

I'd rather see us offerring free/public rehab programs. As it stands it can be rather expensive to get clean, and get back on your feet. For family members of mine it was fiscally more responsible to commit a "light" felony while high, or get busted selling drugs to get clean than it would be to do it on their own. Then again, I could be full of shit, cuz a drug addict told me that :)

rachelina · 3 years

If you want to punish people for their poor choices, we shouldn't have welfare at all.

[deleted] · 3 years

the real scary thing is that once you make a class of people forced to do something, that line changes and sooner or later you are forced to do something.

i though this was supposed to be a free country?

corduroy · 3 years

Only if politicians have to pass drug tests. And how about all government workers and contractors hired by the government.

[deleted] · 3 years

how about every fucking cop and every fucking politician pass drug tests every day they are on the job? And those douchebag judges and lawyers too.

TooSloJoe · 3 years

To what end? The implication is that having drugs in one's system invalidates one's need for help. Should we drug test indigents applying for medical assistance or other social programs? Say we had the technology to determine drug use before dispatching a fire truck to a burning building; should we just let it burn if they fail?

Where do we draw the line in this morality play? How about we require welfare recipients to attend church or vote for our political party? And consdiering the heinous nature of these people's lifestyle, why stop at publicly funded programs? Drug-test to buy groceries, faith test to receive medical attention, patriotism test to walk around in Arizona...

The people who promote this sort of agenda fail my empathy and humanity tests. Fuck them...

Brown-Thunder · 3 years

I'm not certain what drug testing these welfare queens will accomplish.

OTOH, why not? It could be fun.

Malfador · 3 years

Fucking drug tests, how do they work?!?

rhoner · 3 years

why not make them contribute instead? I don't care if you get high as long as you get shit done.

geak78 · 3 years

People on welfare should not have expendable income.

After being in social work in Philadelphia I realized a simple fix to all welfare problems. Stop paying them! Pay their rent to the landlord. Pay the grocery store for their food. Pay their electric company. DO NOT TRUST THEM to pay for these things on their own.

lrnut987 · 3 years

The question should be why not?

I'm tired of putting users in jail though, dealers/makers should go to jail, but users should be ignored by the law.

If you are going to take my money for sitting on your butt, you should have good reason, and you shouldn't be high while there.

(Don't worry, Reddit, I have a lot of experience in these areas, I know what I'm talking about, I'm not just blabbing off like Palin or some Tea Bagger.)

darwin2500 · 3 years

Yes, because what we need is for drug addicts to be more desperate and have fewer alternatives besides a life of crime.

[deleted] · 3 years

legalize marijuana but test everyone?

DannyInflammatory · 3 years

Nope! Drugs keep the poor pacified, cut down their numbers, and direct their anger and violence toward each other and away from the government.

Tubasaurus · 3 years

Drug tests are a fucking joke. I could go get blasted on coke right now, take a piss test thursday and pass, but I smoked some pot on 420 this year, and it was the first time I smoked in over 6 months, and I'm not sure that I would pass the piss test right now. I am by no means a regular pot smoker, but if I had to take a piss test I would get treated like a junkie for smoking once.

Barnolde · 3 years

No, because they're probably not going to catch users of the bad drugs. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_do_drugs_stay_in_your_system

and it's just more money being wasted for an invasive program that really only targets weed.

jeanlucpikachu · 3 years

Welfare queens are an outdated myth that will not go away.

[deleted] · 3 years

yeah, no money for those on pain meds!

longshot · 3 years

Unless it's good to have the statistical data, and the ends the data is going to justify the breech of privacy, I guess.

king_awesome · 3 years

I remember my mom copying and pasting a message in her Facebook status that supported this movement months ago so no, this is probably a terrible idea.

reodd · 3 years

No one should be subject to drug tests unless it is a post accident worker's comp claim test.

notjawn · 3 years

Who's gonna pay for the drug testing? Who's gonna pay for the lab to analyze it? Who's gonna pay the cops over time when the denied welfare recipients resort to crime to live?

sardinski · 3 years

What about the recipients of billions in corporate welfare? Or the politicians, leaching off the public teat?

fluffykittie · 3 years

I think those of us who pay for welfare for others should get a free bag of homegrown weed every month.

[deleted] · 3 years

No, for the same reason that I don't believe in random drug testing in the work place.

TheGhostRedditor · 3 years

Yes. What you do with your body is your business. What you do to your body with my money is my business.

dwightmoody · 3 years

No.

Why waste more money trying to punish poor people? Welfare would be cheaper and more effective on the gods damn honor system than the way it works now.

[deleted] · 3 years

Only because it may prevent their acquisition of a proper paying job. That perpetuates being on welfare. I think the whole concept of drug testing is moronic, though.

JohnStamosBRAH · 3 years

it makes me sick to think that im paying for people to get high. im perfectly ok with some of my money that i work hard for going to a social program that helps people get back on their feet, but only if they do it responsibly. getting high is not a necessity. food, clothing, shelter, and transportation to a job is a necessity, which is what im ok with paying for. hell yes to a drug test.

wildebeest · 3 years

Many people in poverty develop addictions, and many people with addictions tend to end up in poverty. There is an underlying problem here that needs to be addressed. Most of these people need help and support in the form of counseling and treatment, not more rules and restrictions. These are people we're talking about, people with problems, don't make the mistake of viewing them as bottom feeding peasants wasting your tax dollars, or you're no better than them.

If you really wanna do something about the abuse of the system then you should support and rally for programs that will fix the greater problem.

[deleted] · 3 years

no, nobody should have to take a drug test except people operating heavy machinery and the test should be limited to whether or not they are intoxicated WHILE operating the machinery. Also test for alcohol.

other than that, it seems to be a gross violation of civil rights.

everyothernametaken1 · 3 years

NO DRUG TEST FOR ANYONE, no matter how much i like or dis-like them

uri0 · 3 years

I would rather drug addicts get enough money to pay for their drugs than to have to commits crimes to get that money.

2. After 1 year of benefits you are subjected to drug test to make sure that you are not kicking yourself in the nuts by handicapping yourself. At which point your bennies switch to a percentage of treatment that you get back once you pass the test. Correct me if sounds off to you.

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

privacy philosophy

login