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

Originally posted by davespanners


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.

And, who's going to pay for this? A person on welfare is already getting tax dollars gathered from people who work. I do not agree that I should have to pay for their drug counseling, too!

Make a choice, drugs, or a hand out from tax payers, simple as that. If you want to keep a job badly enough, you will stay clean enough for random drug testing, or in order to get a job.

You have a point, that some addicts are in a never ending cycle because of their situations, but, ultimately, no amount of counseling is going to help a drug addict that doesn't want to help themselves. You might as well just flush that money down the toilet!

I'm afraid that whatever the choice you make on this one then you end up paying for it anyway.
You can either choose to pay for it in a sensible way where you actually choose to help people with their problems, or you pay for it by having even bigger groups of unemployed drug addicts with no access to money or help of any kind stealing from people or selling drugs to fund their habits compounding the very cycle that they are in in the first place.

The word is drug "addict" not drug "liker" addiction isn't something that is just made up as an excuse.

Or of course you can go the way that is the status quo at the moment where you have the largest prison population of any country in the entire world that is effectively used as slave labor (41 cents an hour) by the private companies that run them.

I think drug testing is an invasion of our privacy. I f you are at work every day, and do a good job whats the need for a drug test. What I do away from work is my business as long as it don't interfere with work.

I wouldn't have any major concerns if this was implemented in my country. Of course, denying welfare money to drug addicts could cause more harm to society than good due to increases in crime, so this should be factored into the equation.

reply to post by dawnstar

But thats not what CD420 meant. You know that as well as I do. Semantics. Pretty sure he was referring to harder crack like drugs. Not your "herbals" that help you breathe

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

Agree? Disagree?

Discuss.

Absolutely not.

Give Uncle Sam access to drug testing for benefits and in a few years they'll find justification to use it for anything else. Next it'll be pass a drug test to get your tax refund check.

Drugs shouldn't be illegal in the first place, though that's a topic for another day. Gov't drug testing for benefits gives them a way around the Fourth Amendment.

Colossally bad idea.

reply to post by BlastedCaddy


some of those herbals...will tip off a drug screen.....

and well, we won't get into those times when the people doing the drug screens get lazy or dumb or whatever, and well......
screw up the test and it gives a false negative, will we...
heck even poppy seeds will trip it up....

don't they use poppy seeds in some types of bread???





[edit on 28-8-2010 by dawnstar]

i understand the growing sentiment to have welfare recipients take drug tests, but if you don't like drug tests, get a different job. I've never had to take a drug test in my life, nor will I ever.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by filosophia]

Originally posted by filosophia
i understand the growing sentiment to have welfare recipients take drug tests, but if you don't like drug tests, get a different job.

It's not that easy for many people, especially now.

As soon as Marijuana is taken off the list of tested drugs. I'm all for this.

The problem is, Marijuana is about the only drug that stays in your system long enough to get detected by urinanalysis.

Alcohol Overdose

1996-1998 317 Deaths by overdose of alcohol

Marijuana Overdose

0 deaths reported from overintoxication of Marijuana.

Disclaimer: I don't condone the use of illegal substances.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by sticky]

reply to post by CanadianDream420


Absolutely. Why should the Gov pay money to people who use their own money to engage in a criiminal offense? That is what drug use is, after all. It's against the law. All phases from making, selling, buying, using, possessing.....all against the law.

If you don't like drug tests, then don't apply anywhere where one is required. When I worked HR at one location it was often the first question asked, "Do you drug test?". Big red flag there.

Originally posted by stars15k
Absolutely. Why should the Gov pay money to people who use their own money to engage in a criiminal offense?

Why should the government take our tax money and spend it on monitoring the activities of its citizens? Where does that end? Should they monitor your car speedometer to make sure you didn't break the speed limit laws? Should they put cameras in your bedroom to make sure you don't break the sodomy law or maybe even rip that tag off your mattress?

Originally posted by Dumbass
i would test all the drugs

I would to. There's nothing worse than getting bad crack. And when you just want a mellow buzz it's really a downer to get weed laced with pcp.

say no to drugs when it.s not free.

Even better. Free heroin for everyone!


But let's put free, quality drugs aside for a moment. There should be some sort of welfare reform involving drug testing, but I am not smart enough to develop a working plan. You can't just take a person's money because they test positive for something, whether they're an addict or not. If an addict tests positive than they need help and revoking benefits is just going to make a full-blown criminal. If a casual toker tests positive than revoking benefits is a death sentence.

Because there doesn't seem to be a real answer, things will continue as-is.

It was just brushed over but what about politicians and those in public jobs? They're being paid with tax dollars. Why shouldn't they be tested? After all, they have the ability to do FAR more harm than someone on welfare. And the testing should include alcohol for sure. Should we be allowing an alcoholic to hold public office and make decisions that affect our well being? I say start from the top down. Test them first and then we'll talk.

reply to post by jtma508


My god Winston Churchill would have never been allowed within 200 feet of parliament with this system in place, he was a heavy drinker and it was known about at the time.

I agree with what traditionaldrummer said , in both posts .

No more invasion of privacy . It's none of the governments damned business . You are either eligible for state benefits or you are not eligible . Period . Just because you may choose to smoke a little bit of green-leafy does not mean that you don't still deserve the benefits .

Wake up people , drug usage does not cause poverty . But poverty may very well cause drug usage in some cases .

The adults that receive the benefit checks are not the only ones to consider here , there are children involved . Just because mom smokes a little weed does not give anyone the right to cause the children further hardship .

And , contrary to the concensus here , not all recipients are users .

Furthermore , why is it that a lot of you are referring to them as "addicts" ?

You can partake of , and not be an addict . So , if one smokes a blunt and it stays in his system for the next 30-45 days and he smokes nothing in between , does this make him an addict ? Of course not .

And besides , there are numerous ways to beat a drug test , it is not fool-proof . So the only ones who would be getting punished are the ones who don't know how to beat the tests .

And , as has already been pointed out , there are ingredients that also cause false-positives .

If you promote the use of drug tests , then you should also be promoting the use of alcohol tests and tobacco tests .

As has been said , where would it stop ? Where would all of you drug test proponents draw the line ?

Stop supporting further government intrusion into your lives . Today they came for the pot-smokers , tomorrow they will come for the beer-drinkers , the next day the cigarette users will be the villains . Where will it end ?

Just say NO . To drug tests .



[edit on 28-8-2010 by okbmd]

reply to post by Hellas

Yep and a drug addict can take tax payers money and do what ever they want with nothing to show

I can see where you are coming from Canadian.
The only thing that I think is flawed with testing all welfare recipients that some are elderly and some having just a run of bad luck. Thats why its not possible to test them all ethically. I would say more stringent background checks to try to weed out the bad apples.

reply to post by okbmd

And where did the money to buy the "Green Leafy" come from

Second line

reply to post by hillbilly4rent


I knew that was coming .

It's none of my business where it came from , nor is it the business of anyone else .

How would you like it if I questioned where all of your money came from ? Would you tell me it was none of my damned business ?

reply to post by okbmd


I know its none of my business.

But when you buy drugs with money that was give to you by the tax payers like my self then IMHO you should have to show where it went. Hell I work and slave and I have to show where my money gos so why shouldn't they.

If you dont want to be tested dont sign up its that simple

[edit on 28-8-2010 by hillbilly4rent]

[edit on 28-8-2010 by hillbilly4rent]