canu

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB... SO I AGREE 100%. Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don' t have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their A**, doing drugs, while I work. . .. . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though . . .. Something has to change in this country -- and soon!

fmb

Seems like you may have posted an email about drug tests, work, taxes, and welfare. I'm on the stick saying everyone should have to pass a drug test. Why not? It would simplify many things and be fair to everyone.

Don't like the drugs being tested for on the screen? Complain to your congressman and get the law changed. I think many of the drugs against the law are BS, but the law is the law. Change it! Write, email, sidewalk chalk a message, or tag your local representative/senators car.....

canu

BINGO that was a e-mail and I will start to complain to the congressman

ddoubleez

your taxes do not go towards welfair, if that makes you feel any better.....

and the urine tests were a way for pharma companies to make more money and they do not pay taxes, because of current policies..... YOU ARE PAYING taxes when big companies do not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and you are upset that 5% of americans that can not get a job have the government to fall back on............ ??

Also the congressmen you are going to complain to just gave themselves a raise to 166k per year and they do not go to work most of the year.............

FattyJJ

This e-mail has been around for awhile.

I can see what your point is, you work your ass off to survive, you want your money going to help people who deserve it, and you think that people who don't have to work are getting the easy deal. Getting drugged out all day while you are doing something productive.

I can say I completely agree with that.

Where I have the problem is that this also punishes the people who use drugs responsibly, and still contribute to society in a positive way.

As one of the latter, I would have to say I do not agree with mandatory random drug testing. BUT, as fmb says, if you don't agree with the drugs tested, do something about it. Unfortunately there are still to many people in the government who turn a blind eye to logical reasoning and discussions about responsible drug use. I will have to try his sidewalk chalk idea though, hmmmm.

I think that positive work is now being done to learn how to handle the drug problems, but we have a long way to go to undo the damage started by people like Anslinger and his ideas of demonizing drugs. Thinking that they will just disappear. As you can see in my sig, I believe in the idea that education is better than just sending someone to jail and hoping that will teach them a lesson. If anything, jail perpetuates the problems by locking you up with other people with your problem, and no one with a solid head on their shoulders to talk to. Then when you get out, you have a mark on your life that everyone will see when you apply for a job, basically allowing you to work at McDonalds or some other low end job.



As far as what DD says about taxes not going to welfare, I will need to see that in writing, as I dont know much about the system.

shiiboi

All drug screening for employment should be banned. Period.

Does no one remember that the right of habeas corpus was one of the primary goals the American Revolution?

For the uninformed, habeas corpus, a constitutional right, is the requirement that there must be evidence that an actual crime has been commited before commencing an investigation, and that there must be reasonable cause to believe that a particular individual has committed that crime before he can be detained or otherwise investigated.

Screening urine or blood as a condition of employment is a demand that an individual provide evidence that he hasn't committed a crime even though there is no evidence that any crime has been committed at all. This is an unconstitutional and immoral violation of your civil rights.

It's remarkable to me how quickly everyone has rolled over on this issue. Next, you will have to prove that you don't steal by allowing random searches of your home and providing bank account and other private information. Wake up, people.

onlyalad

First since I am about to write a bunch of opinions laced with a few facts, I should state I work for one of the largest labs in the World and one or the biggest labs that does employee drug testing. Although substance and alcohol testing is not done at my site, I deal with questions all the time. BDJ worked there as well, but not in the labs.

Drug testing was started in the workplace because our government was awarding contracts to companies and then having to pay big time when some accident occurred. Since the government was paying a contractor a fixed amount, the contractor would save money (so to pocket more himself) by hiring cheap labor. The issue was that many of the accidents happened when some low level dude was drunk. So the government made a condition to bid on a contract was that all employees needed to have alcohol screening. This cut down on people being drunk at work while moving heavy machinery. Well if it worked with alcohol, it will work with all drugs.

In fact, it worked really well. So insurance companies started giving breaks to companies that had their employees tested. The larger the company the better the discount. There are studies, many put out by my work, that show that absenteeism and low productivity are reduced because of drug testing.

Most of these have studies that don't show any improvement. If there are studies on both sides, why do companies still do it? One reason, as I have stated earlier, is insurance costs. Another is why chance it? It is cheap to run the tests and it is better to be safe than sorry. If the tests were to cost more, companies would take a closer look if they were really needed, but at less than $20 for most screening test (some companies get 80% off list price) it is cheap and easy.

As far as habeas corpus goes, If you don't want to take a drug test then don't. Find another job. There are many companies that don't make their employees take the tests. However; while being an African American or being a women in the workplace gives you rights, there is no protection under the law for being a drugged American.

shiiboi

Oh, then of course we'll be happy to suspend citizens' constitutional rights of habeus corpus and protection against illegal search and seizure if it'll help CORPORATE PROFITS.

A company is within it's rights to make intoxication on the job, or commission of a crime outside of work hours grounds for termination. It's reasonable to ask an existing employee so accused by a witness of violating this policy to take a test as a way to demonstrate their innocence. But making drug testing a precondition of being hired in the first place is a violation of both the 4th and 14th amendments to the constitution. The potential financial benefits to the employer do not outweigh the constitutional rights of the employee.

Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave.

I don't use drugs, but on principle I don't apply for any job which requires me to take a urine test. I am a dedicated, loyal and hardworking employee and the loss of my contribution to potential employers whom I didn't apply to because of their drug-test requirements has been far greater than any insurance savings.

It's not just heavy machinery operators anymore it's office workers and messengers and everybody else.

Furthermore, I have taken urine tests as a substitute for friends of mine who do use drugs occasionally. It's ridiculously easy to get away with, and I know that this goes on all the time.

Some companies have begun requiring potential hires to take lie detector tests also. This is how police states get into power-- incremental erosions of civil liberties for apparently innocuous reasons.

Krasch

I would beg to differ.

Making drug testing a precondition of employment could very well qualify as an expression of freedom of association, namely that the company does not want to associate itself with illicit drug users.

And the Supreme Court has held that freedom of association is an essential part of Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment.

Just as a company can deny a person employment in certain jobs if the person is not bondable, surely they have the right to decide whether they want illicit drug users working for them and representing their company.