If I should have to pass a drug test to work...

then you should have to submit to one to receive a welfare check?

Agree? Disagree?

Discuss.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by CanadianDream420]

reply to post by CanadianDream420


A drug addict can harm the business he's applying at, but somebody
receiving a welfare check does not since he's just going to go home. It's pretty simple actually.

I would say yes only if you are applying for a job that has a lot of safety concerns for other people. And there was a time when I would have said no to even that but with as many people that are taking drugs now I think it best to be cautious. Wouldn't want a drug induced nurse giving you your medication would you?

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
then you should have to submit to one to receive a welfare check?

Agree? Disagree?

Discuss.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by CanadianDream420]

In the interest of keeping things fair, then all politicians and public servants should have to supply one too.

Anayway I disagree, I do see a need in certain proffesions to supply one (ie. miners) but they generally involve the operation of heavy machinery and is putting the lives of others in harms way.
For the most part I see no need for drug tests at all.

Originally posted by Hellas
reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

A drug addict can harm the business he's applying at, but somebody
receiving a welfare check does not since he's just going to go home. It's pretty simple actually.

OH.. Yeah.

I was waiting for you..

reply to post by CanadianDream420


You do not have to pass a drug test in order to work, even in Canada, you have the right to contract. No one is forcing you to contract with an employer who demands a drug test. The right to contract is recognized in Canada:

Court cases interpreting the enforceability of non-competition clauses turn on balancing the competing interests between restricting restraints of trade and upholding the right to contract. Ordinarily, courts are disinclined to restrict parties’ freedom to contract unless a more compelling societal value needs to be paramount. Nordenfelt was cited with approval by the Supreme Court of Canada in Elsley v. JPG Collins Insurance Agencies Limited, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 916, the leading Canadian case dealing with non-competition clauses.

n Elsley, a vendor of a business had a 10-year non-competition clause as part of the sale of his business along with a non-competition clause contained in his corresponding employment contract for 5-years following his employment’s termination. In light of the court’s perception of Elsley as a knowledgeable person of equal bargaining power in his negotiations with the business’ purchaser, the non-competition clauses were enforced.

www.lawyerlocate.ca...

You do not have to take a drug test and have the ability to negotiate the contract you are making, and make a counter offer. If the employer you are making this counter offer declines, you do not have to contract with that employer if you do not wish to take a drug test and can simply negotiate with another employer.

This argument should not be construed as an advocacy of welfare programs, and I remain ambivalent on such matters, but fail to see the correlation between contracts made with private employers, and welfare programs handled by government.

reply to post by CanadianDream420

CanadianDream420,

You didn't specify whether or not the result of the drug test should be negative in order to receive the welfare check. If the result doesn't matter then I have no problem with it.

If the addict is refused a welfare check because of a positive result then I would say this is not okay.

Contrary to what a drugs addict will claim when asked, they are people in need of help. If they cannot work because their drug addiction has made them unable then we as a society should strive in getting this person back on his feet and allow him to be a full member of society once again.

Isn't that what society is all about......being social and all??

Peace

I agree completely, however the reality is that the manpower simply does not exist to drug test everyone on welfare and all future welfare recipiants. It really is rediculous, but I suppose it is the least of our country's problems

reply to post by CanadianDream420


Okay......I have no disagreement with you, OP.

However, there's always a however, lol

Am I, a disabled vet, getting free stuff?

And if I smoke some of that "nasty stuff" , should I be denied that which I more than earned?

Enquiring and "high" minds, want to know,

Is this just a "trash" thread?

Okay, let me tell you want I think
Anybody who's job can affect anybody else, should be drug tested.

Thst's pretty much the most of us, Yes, yes , yes, let's drug test everyone!Because, this is "right:.

Meanwhile, enjoy your life, until "they" come for you. And you know you'll deserve it, right?

the way my job works is that you aren't tested for drugs unless you are injured on the job, so the comparison doesnt really work. But overall I think I would be against it on principal

The question includes the stipulation, "if" you have to get a drug test to work, which you don't. You can work elsewhere. Never been to Canada but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of jobs that don't require drug testing.

There are several states here in America that have such measures on the legislative agenda. What I find disturbing is the government overreach. It's very dystopian sci-fi, IMO.

one: you have a bunch of normal and legal substances which produce false positives, people in need of welfare don't have the time or resources for appeals.especially in winter
two: n Ontario the rate for a single white male is $585.00 total for food and rent. considering the smallest apartement is generally more then that, not much drug money there, not much food or shoe money either.
three: we already have mile long line ups for medical help. why make it worse?
four: to expand on what was stated earlier, after the people who run the show pass drug, alcohol, and porn on the computer tests, maybe the little guy can be subjected to the police state, but not before the police, or the state.

Work is scarce, so the line "peple can just work somewhere else" is not exactly applicable.
After some of the employers I've had, maybe if the people who are hiring took drug, alcohol, and integrity tests...

[edit on 27-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 27-8-2010 by Danbones]

Originally posted by CanadianDream420

Originally posted by Hellas
reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

A drug addict can harm the business he's applying at, but somebody
receiving a welfare check does not since he's just going to go home. It's pretty simple actually.

OH.. Yeah.

I was waiting for you..

?? Here I am.. so now what?

disagree...
don't think you should have to either....
a gov't that has so badly undermined the people's ability to obtain healthcare doesn't have any right to dictate what we put into our bodies, since well, if you are sick and hurt, and well...can't pay for the medical care, that your tax dollars are being used for to provide to others free of charge, well, then you should at least be able to take that job of healing yourself...through herbals....
and some of the herbals will tip off the drug screen!

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
then you should have to submit to one to receive a welfare check?

In my opinion, yes. Why? Because the money you will receive comes by way of taxes collected from people who have jobs!

If it wasn't for others having to possibly be submitted to drug testing for a job, or while on a job, there would be no check to collect.

WTF??? this thread turned into an anal probe of sorts... The OP was stating simply that if you wanna get a free handout (sorry but thats what it is) you should need to pass a drug test. He has an awsome point. I can think of HUNDREDS(line of work) of folks that are on public welfare that have drug problems. Not the softer green type drugs either They take their welfare check and buy drugs with it. That is not OK no matter how many ways you wanna disect what the op states. If you are on welfare you should not be buying drugs hands down. To argue this point leaves me scratching my head. Furthermore Booze and butts should also be on this too

i would test all the drugs, welfare or contract. drugfree america. say no to drugs when it.s not free.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by BlastedCaddy



so....if I am working, paying taxes, and well, don't qualify for help with my medical bills, but do qualify for $50 in food stamps every week, I should have to stop taking the herbals that help me breath, and well, just suffer with untreated asthma or whatever??

so will they do a sex test to?
to stop him wasting His money on prostitutes?
they just give them the money.
its not there job to say what they buy with it.
no sweets only healthy food!!!

for health care yes.

Although I think the original post is well intentioned, I do believe that it just adds to the bigoted and blinkered view that somehow people without jobs are just lazy drug addicts.
Many people are addicted to drugs because of the complete hopelessness of the situation they find themselves in, born into abject poverty with little or no hope of ever escaping it, poorly educated, living in squalid crime ridden housing, surrounded by drug dealers and criminals for role models

Obviously I'm not saying that all drug addicts are like this, but a fair proportion are and these are exactly the kind of people that actually NEED help from the rest of us.

I would say that a fairer option would be that if you are found to test positive to drugs while collecting welfare then you are made to attend compulsory drug counseling and be seen to be making an effort to kick your addiction.