"I have to get drug tested for my job, so why shouldn't people on welfare be tested, too?"

[Comrade Grumpy]

There are bills afoot in about two-thirds of the states that would require recipients of public benefits (welfare, unemployment, Medicaid, TANF, or combinations of the above) to undergo mandatory, suspicionless drug testing in order to qualify for benefits.

Opinions like the one in the thread title are common are commonly heard in discussing those bills, but I think they betray a fundamental misunderstanding of how our system works. The federal courts have held that forcing a drug test on someone is a search under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, meaning that it requires either a search warrant or probable cause. The courts have carved out limited exceptions--for police involved in drug law enforcement, for truck drivers and others who impact the public safety, and for students (sorry, kids, fewer rights for you!). But for other than those exceptions, the government needs probable cause to force you to take a drug test.

The federal courts have already ruled mandatory, suspicionless welfare drug testing illegal in a case from Michigan. Similarly, they have ruled the drug testing of elected officials illegal in a case from Georgia (I think). A federal court in Florida earlier this year issued a temporary injunction blocking Florida's welfare testing law, and will, I predict, shortly rule it unconstitutional.

We have constitutional rights that protect us from government overreach. We have no such rights when it comes to our employers. The only rights you gain from your employers are the ones you negotiate. If you have to be drug tested for your job, it's because you let your employer get away with demanding it.

If you think having to submit to drug tests for employment is wrong, your only recourse is to pressure your employer. Having a union to represent you would be helpful.

That is all.

[Sherman A1]

1. .........

[mainer]

2. Because it's a vast waste of money

Research shows that welfare recipients are no more likely to test positive for drugs than the general population. And the costs for drug testing are a huge drain on state coffers.

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. There is that, too. But faux populist poor-bashing is good for stirring up the base.

[csziggy]

11. Actually in Florida welfare recipients were found LESS likely to test positive

For drugs than the general population. Gov. pRick Scott convinced the Legislature to pass this claiming that since the people who failed the test would have to pay for the test it wouldn't cost the state much. First off, if they could afford to pay for a test, they wouldn't be desperate enough to apply for welfare. Second, so few failed the state is on the hook for millions of dollars.

Of course, pRick Scott doesn't care because his cronies who own the drug testing companies are making lots of money with their contracts with the state and they will happily spend part of their profits donating to his campaign funds.

[newspeak]

36. isn't the governor of florida making money off of his policy

of drug testing those undeserving poor people? it seems the great tax payer sucking sound comes more from the so called "deserving" for profit corporations over those who have lost their decent jobs and now are considered the "working poor."

Hey, but ronnie's cadillac driving undeserving welfare queen is still alive and well in the minds and hearts of the compassionless ones in this country. Somebody somewhere is getting something they don't deserve and I'm paying for it. Isn't that today's attitude?

I know some people who are working; yet still must be on foodstamps in order for their children not to starve.

[tsuki]

43. So is his medical company, Solantic. nt

[csziggy]

45. Thanks - I couldn't remember if was the Gov or his buddies

Safer to say cronies and be non-specific.

[Bennyboy]

3. Well if you hadn't given up your right to bargain....

then you too wouldn't be drug tested at your workplace. Don't blame other people for your own stupidity.

ORGANIZE< restore the rights of the workers.

[titaniumsalute]

4. Florida tried this with welfare recipients

Guess what? It didn't work. Gov. Scott said it would save the state millions if we could either deny or kick off of welfare drug users. The problem is that less than 1% tested were positive for drugs. It cost the state millions in testing and saved ony a few thousand bucks. A complete waste of time, resources and money.

[mick063]

6. I am drug tested for my occupation.

I must wait until I retire. I can't touch the stuff now, but I look forward to long afternoons in my shop, tinkering with tools, and a smoldering joint in hand. As for now, I don't have the faintest idea of where to find it and it has been that way for 20+ years.

Just as I feel bad about my gas dollars fueling terrorism in the Middle East, I will feel similarly bad about my recreation dollars fueling mass murderers in Central America.

Legalize weed now.

[PearliePoo2]

21. mick...I am also "random" drug tested because I work in public transportation.

and ya know what? I'm ok with that.
IMO, if you are impaired and cause an accident that impacts someone's life, you should go to jail. There is public trust. The public should trust me to do my job to the best of my training and ability. That's what I'm paid to do.
It's been 25+ years since I smoked a joint.
Now then...when I retire...let's see...where are my old Stones and Dylan albums?? LOL!

(where to find it? I've got a "friend", who is waiting. Don't think the green now-a-days is like the old "dirt weed" full of stems and seeds I had for $10 a lid in the late 60's early 70's...probably put me on my ass!)

[PavePusher]

31. The problem is that for most non-alcohol drug testing.....

they are not testing for an impairment level, but mere existance. So you can't fairly make that assumption of impairment merely due to a positive test for, say, THC.

Having said that, I work in a government job, am disallowed, by law, from having a union, and must undergo manditory random and non-random drug testing. If I have to do it for actually earning a paycheck while contributing to society, I'd say welfare recipients should smile and pee in the damn cup.

The only real concern I have is: Is it actually cost effective? Many people claim it isn't, but I haven't seen any actual numbers on money spent vs. money saved.

[2ndAmForComputers]

47. My answer is: Take a look at Kestrel's question in post 7.

[Comrade Grumpy]

48. If you don't mind my asking, where do you work?

Government job, can't have a union, subject to random suspicionless drug testing. Only certain strictly delimited government employees are subject to drug testing. Are you one of those?

The concerns I have about suspicionless drug testing are not limited to cost effectiveness. I find the presumption of guilt disturbing ("prove you're clean by peeing in this cup&quot and the actual procedure itself degrading and humiliating.

And you have actually paraphrased the title of the OP in your response. Dang.

[PavePusher]

49. Active Duty U.S. Air Force. n/t

[kestrel91316]

7. What physical danger would testing welfare recipients protect the public from,

as opposed so someone in the workplace who might have an effect on public or workplace safety?

It's fine with me provided we test all elected officials and corporate board members also.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. I don't like that "let's test elected officials, too" argument.

First off, it's already been held unconstitutional without probable cause.

Second, it seems to widen the net on drug testing, which I'm not fine with. Suspicionless mandatory drug testing is not "fine with me."

I will leave you with Sen. Fritz Hollings' response to his Republican challenger in a 1986 debate when the challenger demanded he take a drug test: "I'll take a drug test," Hollings responded, "if you'll take an IQ test."

[2pooped2pop]

18. Right

especially since the only drug they are likely to find is pot. The dangerous drugs leave your system within a day or two. So unless you are an addict, it won't find anybody but the poor old pot smokers.

Now if I smoked a joing two days ago or even 30 days ago it will still show up in my stystem. Does that mean I am high at work?
Of course not.

This is just another way to keep the poor people down. Even if you are an addict, you need fucking help.

Many of the welfare recipents probably do smoke pot and the powers that be ought to be damned glad they do. Coz when they stop, and end their quest for munchies, they might see how they have been treated. The pot mellows them. This whole fucking country is ready to riot and our reps are worried about the pill and pot. They need the pot heads to fill their soon to be private prison.

[B Calm]

29. Freedom

[B Calm]

32. Unemployment comp is not welfare!

The employee when working pays into the fund weekly. The employer matches your contribution up to approx 9%. So if you are paying yourself back when you are unemployed, why in hell do right wingers call it welfare?

What gets me is the little amount the employer pays into it vs the employee and the employer has the right to deny you from ever collecting.

[unapatriciated]

34. My mother thought along the same lines.

She never contested a claim for unemployment benefits when she owned her restaurant. Another reason she did not contest was as she put it...You pay the money in and do not get any back so why not let the employee use the funds when they need it. The worst that can happen is if you have too many claims in a year, your matching dollars goes up by a few pennies.

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. What really kills me are the drug testing for unemployment benefit bills.

If you're eligible for unemployment it's because you've been working for several quarters and were laid off.

If you lost your job because you did drugs, you were fired "for cause" and are not eligible for benefits.

So, why assume that laid off workers are drug users who need to be tested?

This makes no sense, except as ideologically-motivated poor-bashing.

[The Genealogist]

9. I think the "logic" goes like this

Poor people are evil
Drug users are evil
Therefore, poor people are drug users.

[aquart]

10. Because you are going to give them the money ANYWAY.

Because you don't want them driven to murder and robbery. Because it's nasty when you stumble over the corpses of the starving in the streets.

[csziggy]

17. The Republicans only want to spend the money on police and prisons

Not welfare or drug rehab or education or any programs that might reduce drug use.

And they won't be the ones being murdered and robbed or tripping over starved corpses because "those people" would not be allowed in their gated communities.

[Turbineguy]

13. How about this:

You volunteer to work in a job that requires drug tests (I did it for years). Nobody volunteers to go on Welfare. And I never worried about welfare recipients or the unemployed living high off the hog on all that free money.

[rustydog]

14. Our Governor, senators, Representatives must be tested too

random testing of all elected persons (and thir staff). Taxpayer dollars support them, we must make these hypocrites live the life they demand others live.

[Comrade Grumpy]

20. Except that would be unconstitutional. But...

that hasn't stopping Florida legislators from approving a bill to drug test state employees. The Florida Republicans did, however, strip out an amendment that would have required that they be drug tested, too. So, yes, hypocrites.

Gov. Scott tried to drug test state employees earlier via an executive order, but that, too, has been blocked in the federal courts.

[rustydog]

30. Iam surprised at the hypocritical "concern" about drug use

by people who receive taxpayer dollars. But the people who receive 140 thousand dollars a years in taxpayer dollars (and, therefore, more able to purchase illicit drugs) and their tax-payer funded staff do not have to meet the same drug-testing requirement.

Hypocritical to the bone.

[Spanky32]

15. Because...

It's unconstitutional. If you mandate people receiving government benefits of one type are required to take a drug test than you must drug test ALL recipients of government benefits. This means people receiving WIC, GI BILL, Social Security... Etc would all have to be tested.

[left is right]

22. Am I the only one that feels disconnected every time someone says this

They are testing welfare recipients they want to test unemployment insurance receivers. So therefore why can’t we demand that our congress critters be tested. Yes, I know SCOTUS says it is unconstitutional to demand this if a congressman or senator but why isn’t it just as unconstitutional to demand testing of welfare/unemployment beneficiaries

[ClassWarrior]

16. Cuz you can change your job. You can't change your welfare.

NGU.

[FarLeftFist]

19. Yeah, go after the little people. Let the real welfare addicts off the hook i.e. Big Oil, Wall St,

THEY take HUGE amounts of federal money. Btw, in Florida 98+% tested clean, costing the state millions of dollars.

[Sparkly]

23. And if they have drugs in their system, then what?

Send 'em to jail, and a long drawn-out court process?

Or offer them treatment?

Or what?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

46. What does (did) the Florida do to them if positive

other than not give them back the money they paid for the drug test and refuse to give them benefits for a specific period of time?

Also, I have to ask: Why does there some to be different standards regarding drugs in this country? If the police show up at somebody's house and finds them doing drugs, more than likely they will be arrested and, if convicted, sent to prison or, at the very least, ordered to some kind of drug treatment (which they will have to pay for out of their own pocket). If, however, a woman delivers a baby that tests positive for drugs at birth, the state steps in (sometimes removing the child) and provides, at taxpayer expense, drug treatment for the parent. Likewise, with the Florida drug testing law, people simply don't get benefits but they don't go to jail nor do they gain any access to treatment services. Why can't we figure out whether we believe that drug use/addiction is a crime or a medical condition that needs treatment and act accordingly? It's very confusing.

[B Calm]

24. So what would it cost

tax payers to have the drug testing of welfare, unemployment, Medicaid recipients to all come back positive?

[sce56]

25. Ok That is fine by me as long as the pompous A$$'s demanding it are tested regularly also!

Lets start by demanding all Pundits on the Airwaves are tested regularly starting with Oxycotin Rush Lamebrain.

[Drahthaardogs]

26. Screw it, test everybody.

EVERYONE gets tested twice a year-no exceptions!!! All foreigners entering the country have to take a drug test too, no diplomatic immunity either. Then maybe people will shut up and we will quit spending millions of dollars to put Tommy Chong in jail.

[mother earth]

27. If the aim is to save money on "welfare", it might make better sense to take the money which would

be spent on drug testing and put it into actually making drug rehabing a priority in this country & sinking money into R & D on that issue alone. At least that would be a job creator.
The fact of the matter is the war on drugs was another failed program. One can debate the reasons why this was/is so.

There's a lot of outrage that there are people who game the system & rightfully so, but the ways to deal with this is not through BS drug testing which has only been the flavor of the day because the GOP wants to cut unemployment benefits. Why weren't they this hot on ending the Bush tax cuts? That would be to the point & highly effective, but we don't want to talk about corporate welfare or the obscene growth of the 1%.

Anyone who doubts the 1%'s unprecented money/power grab needs to read "Winner Take All Politics" by Hacker & Pierson.
That's been the real war all along, the middle class are losing and dwindling in numbers.

I just love the outright inconsistencies in the GOP stances regarding having small gov't and limiting the role of gov't in our lives
I'd like to see Congress submit to drug testing myself...they are doing absolutely nothing, while the country is in economic limbo.
I want to see them submit to annual reviews & have across the board pay cuts, since they aren't doing what they were hired to do.

They argue about birth control while we direly need job creation. They argue about cutting spending, but have no problem continuing tax cuts for the wealthy. This shit is unprecedented and is outright blatant economic nepotism for themselves & the corporate keepers.
What a joke our political system has become. I'm so tired of their lies & kabuki theatre, and that's on both sides. Action is long past overdue and there will be none of that until next year, if then.

[B Calm]

28. What happen to Probable Cause?

Oh yea, I forgot. .

We the people gave up that right when we allowed employers to drug test us.

[yellowcanine]

33. A lot of people on welfare have to take the bus. Why shouldn't you have to take the bus also?

Turn your car keys in now, schmuck.

[mainer]

35. I wonder if medical labs doing the testing lobbied for this

They'd stand to make MILLIONS.

[Johonny]

38. most likely

They've conned so many companies into this. Yet I've never seen a report that drug testing effectively improves the bottom line.

[cynatnite]

37. My husband is drug-tested regularly and we're okay with that...

He is a truck driver and this is done because of the risk to the public. His health is regularly checked as well. This is because his state of health and use of drugs has a direct impact on public safety. The same goes with pilots, cops and other occupations where what they do dirctly affects the public.

I have a real problem with drug testing welfare and unemployment recipients. It's done so for one reason only. The assumption is made that they are criminal. This is shameful.

[Viva]

39. In order to get welfare you have to be broke and Drugs cost money

The chances of being able to afford drugs if you qualify for welfare are slim.

This is stupid

If you want to know who does drugs -- well, it is people with money.

This is about funneling government money to private companies -- those that make and process drug tests.
Also, making people afraid to apply for the help they need. Remember, in most states,only those with children can qualify, and really that is what welfare is now for, assistance to children.

[ckimmy57]

40. Just my opinion

I really don't think the problem is what is showing up in their systems but IF it is showing up. The Dr. I work for does drug tests on patients to be sure that the medication he is prescribing is actually in their system. If it is not then they must be selling it and not taking it for their "symptons" such as xanax for anxiety, vicodin for that "severe back pain" etc.

[iverglas]

41. the premise really is the elephant in the room

"I have to get drug tested for my job ..."

Up here in Canada, that premise does not apply. Unless there is some direct connection between the job and drug use (e.g. truck driving or air traffic controlling, where drug use is a safety hazard).

Here's an example - the Ontario Human Rights Commission's policy on drug testing:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/Policies/PolicyDrugAlch/pdf

Introduction

The Code states that it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination. The provisions of the Code are aimed at creating a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and feels able to contribute to the community.

The OHRC recognizes that it is a legitimate goal for employers to have a safe workplace. One method sometimes used by employers to achieve that goal is drug and alcohol testing. However, such testing is controversial and, especially in the area of drug testing, of limited effectiveness as an indicator of impairment. It is not used to a significant degree anywhere in the world except in the United States (the “U.S.”).

It is the OHRC’s view that such testing is prima facie discriminatory and can only be used in limited circumstances. The primary reason for conducting such testing should be to measure impairment. Even testing that measures impairment can be justified only if it is demonstrably connected to the performance of the job; for example, if an employee occupies a safety-sensitive position, or after significant accidents or "near-misses," or if there is reasonable cause to believe that a person is abusing alcohol or drugs and only then as part of a larger assessment of drug and alcohol abuse. It is the OHRC’s view that by focusing on testing that actually measures impairment, especially in jobs that are safety sensitive, an appropriate balance can be struck between human rights and safety requirements, both for employees and for the public.

It seems to be a common phenomenon in the US for people to complain not that their own rights are being violated (or that they are not getting a benefit they deserve, for instance), but to attack people whose rights are being protected (or who are getting a benefit they deserve).

If someone feels that they are being mistreated by their employer by being required to undergo drug testing when there is no justification for it, why is that not the focus of their complaint, and why are they not trying to do something about that?

Of course, if they think their employer's drug testing is completely legitimate, even absent a safety concern for instance, then it sounds like they're in the crowd that thinks that if you don't have anything to hide, you don't need to worry about {wiretaps, internet privacy, airport body scans, suspensions of habeas corpus ...} -- i.e. they just don't really give a shit about other people's rights anyhow.

[onethatcares]

42. I've been volunteering to get drug tested every week for

the past two years but my employer won't do it, says it costs to much and if I get injured and drugs show up

in my system it's so long job and workers comp so testing whenever is a moot point.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

44. That sort of thinking *seems* reasonable

until you stop and consider just how necessary/appropriate drug testing for most jobs actually is. It certainly makes sense in a job where you are operating machinery/equipment and/or caring for children, etc. but in other jobs like, say, random desk jobs, nobody is (usually) going to die if you show up for work high/intoxicated. Likewise, nobody is going to die if welfare recipients are using either. It's not desirable, of course, but "because other people have to take drug tests for EMPLOYMENT" isn't (shouldn't be) a good enough reason IMHO for welfare applicants/recipients to have to do it. In fact, people should really stop and think more about why THEY should HAVE to take drug tests just to get a job as well. Most people, I'm sure, do it because, well, they need a job and relatively few of us can afford to be picky about such things but sometimes I think that we all should start paying a little more attention to our rights and freedoms and how they're slowly being whittled away by things like drug testing for employment (in all but a few circumstances).

[KatyMan]

50. Do people even know who is on welfare???

Welfare is correctly called TANF. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families-- you cannot get on welfare unless 1. You have a family and you are below a ridiculous poverty level. Single adults cannot get on TANF.

The other form of welfare is Medicaid. You MUST be disabled to be on Medicaid. I am a community health nurse (this is KatyMan's wife) and have been for 20 years. I work exclusively with Medicaid recepients. I have seen maybe one or two clients in my twenty years whom I might have thought were using drugs.

I don't know who these idiots want to test....the quadriplegic that I saw this morning; the 85 year old with 12 different prescribed medications that I saw this afternoon????


People are woefully uniformed when it comes to the term Welfare.

[Indiana]

51. That's exactly the mentality

That is exactly the mentality.

These weak lawmakers and their cronies are not interested in your liberties. I think, therefore, these issues must be addressed from a practical point of view. The evidence showing drug testing is ineffective and not cost effective is plentiful. Governments and companies have now outsourced the task of personnel managment. It is now passe to have a conversation with your worker, look in his eyes, and figure out his state of being at any point in time. There will be people who tell you this is not possible with all the people they manage. If that is the case, then they are poor managers or the organization needs to be adjusted.

I have supervised and have seen first hand the sham of drug testing. There is no replacement for interacting with your employees. There is no replacement for the good knowledge and skill of supervision. You simply can't outsource this work to labs.