[98falstaff]

I work for a great company, pay my taxes for our country's benifits and programs. Here we are randomly hair folicle drug tested, no big deal, probably the best thing that has happened to me. Then shouldn't people getting crazy checks, welfare, food stamps, etc. have to do the same thing? I understand a lot of people honestly need a hand and programs are in place for them, that's what makes this country the best in the world. Is testing them feasible or P.C.? Fail the drug test, lose your freebies, get off your ass and go to work like the rest of us. Just my two cents. Any thoughts?

[skull2007]

no one should be tested. drug testing is wrong, and no one should have to put up with that crap hanging over there heads . no hard working person should have to worry about losing there job over something that has nothing to do with their work place

[AFNurse]

I like the idea of drug testing for welfare....you test pos, you loose it.....if you have enuf money to buy drugs, then you don't need help from the state to buy food, housing, etc. Why should I as a tax payer buy your food so that you can spend what few $$ you have extra to buy drugs....?? That would be a serious revamp of the system! Flip side of that tho, is that the sudden implamentation of that would create some short and long term problems that would compound the social ills of the nation. it is a double edged sword. Of course, most people recognize that the social programs system needs an overhaul, but nobody is willing to do that, as it will create these same type issues.

[voodoochild]

I have to disagree with Skull, well, sortof.....I'm not really in favor of drug testing because I believe what I do on my own time is MY business, not yours, BUT, if you work for me and what you do on your own time affects the way you perform on your job, then I have a real problem with that. Hell, I've done mountains of drugs in my time but I was never impaired when I came to work. These guys (or girls) go party all night long and then come to work f*cked up, and that's not cool. Example: What if somebody was out all night boozing it up and then came to work and got in my truck (that I own) and left to go to a customers house and crashed into somebody and killed them. Then the cops show up and he blows the breathalizer test. Then what, I get sued and lose everything? This is where my issue is. JMHO that's all, and I ain't trying to offend anybody here. Now as far as the welfare system......whew, do we really want to debate that here?? We know that it needs to be revamped but where do you start?? There are generations of people on welfare and that ain't right, there's plenty of work out there for everybody. Ok, I better stop before I piss somebody off. Sorry.

[98falstaff]

I'm not pumped about drug testing either but that's what my company does and for good reason. I'm an electrician in an oil refinery so it's kind of a double danger for me at least. Now I've smoked my share of green over the years and might still twist off once in a while after hours but making a safe living is priority one. I'd like to but I can't. Hell around here they drug test at some high schools. Nobody wants more authority control. I'd like to count on personal responsibility and common sense to rule but we all know the answer to that dream. Helmet laws, seat belt laws, you name it. But welfare recipients? Why not.

[Red Rider]

I think it is ridiculous that you have to be drug tested to work at Wal-Mart or Home Depot, but are exempt if you work in just about any position in public education. A frickin' sad joke.

Being pretty libertarian but also a long-time veteran of military counter-narcotic ops, I have mixed feelings on the drug war. But I don't on testing. Even if it becomes your choice to legally use, your use should be an employer's right to know. That said, all testing by employers should be voluntary by the employees. If they don't volunteer, though, they shouldn't whine if they get fired. If you don't like employee testing, become an employer - it's a free country, and you make your success through your own efforts and choices.

Of course, ya may find your attitude changes if you decide to employ a bunch of inattentive, reckless, forgetful, aggitated, dazed and confused drug zombies! roflmao:

[skull2007]

i don't believe anyone should work or do anything worth while while impaired. but testing doesn't address that sort of situation it covers everything for the past several days,days which likely had nothing to do with work. most testing being done is "random" in other words they do it for no reason at all pertaining to job performance. this also affords the company an opportunity to ask what legaldrugs you are taking. think maybe they'll use that info later on? maybe start looking at your prescription use as a liaibility

[voodoochild]

Good point Skull, I guess like shown here it's always a double edged sword. In one way you want your employees to be safe on the job but employers could always push it too far. What you did several days ago obviously won't affect your performance at work the day you were tested.

Red, (I'm just asking here so please let's not get offended or anything) are you suggesting that if an employee doesn't agree to a drug test that they should be fired?

This is a very tough subject to debate, as I am an employer, and former....uhh, shall we say "smoker".

[Peyts]

I think that drug testing those on social assistance is an AWESOME idea! And I agree 100%... you got money to use dope, then go find something else to do with yourself! My opinion is in line with AFNurse's.

I also don't have an issue with drug testing in the workplace, depending on the job and the drugs being testing for. But there is a caveat, as Skull as pointed out... testing for drugs SHOULD NOT allow the workplace to have ANY access to your medical history, etc. Privacy must be protected with legal drugs... as for illcit drugs, go for it.

[skull2007]

when it comes to public asst. there are 3 elements:

cash asst.
food stamps
medical asst.

not all people are on all 3 at the same time. alot of people on public asst. do work but are unable to make enough to survive very well, and often low paying jobs offer no medical benefits or are cost prohibitive for these people. many of these people are unable to obtain higher paying jobs due to having low IQ's or are mildly to moderatle retarded. also some of these peolpe worked all they lives, but are unable to survive on their so-called retirement incomes.
Then we have the "welfare bum". they are on all three and could care less about about helping themselves. but i have some good news and bad news. good news is that these slugs won't be on all three for very long. now the bad news. the system will put pressure on these slugs to get out and do something for themselves. and they do. they go see a psychologist who will turn their lazyness into the the Diagnosis of depression. then they will get social security disability. see how the cycle goes.

[chucktx]

Originally Posted by Red Rider

I think it is ridiculous that you have to be drug tested to work at Wal-Mart or Home Depot, but are exempt if you work in just about any position in public education. A frickin' sad joke.

Being pretty libertarian but also a long-time veteran of military counter-narcotic ops, I have mixed feelings on the drug war. But I don't on testing. Even if it becomes your choice to legally use, your use should be an employer's right to know. That said, all testing by employers should be voluntary by the employees. If they don't volunteer, though, they shouldn't whine if they get fired. If you don't like employee testing, become an employer - it's a free country, and you make your success through your own efforts and choices.

Of course, ya may find your attitude changes if you decide to employ a bunch of inattentive, reckless, forgetful, aggitated, dazed and confused drug zombies! roflmao:

hey red, the last times i have shopped at wally world or home depot, i thought is was a requirement to have a buzz on. have ya ever tried to get a bit of help at these places?????

[FlynDutchman]

[quote=AFNurse;26085]I like the idea of drug testing for welfare....you test pos, you loose it.....if you have enuf money to buy drugs, then you don't need help from the state to buy food, housing, etc. Why should I as a tax payer buy your food so that you can spend what few $$ you have extra to buy drugs....?? QUOTE]


Amen, couldnt have said it better myself.

[Red Rider]

Yeah, I agree that if an employee accepts that he can't use drugs during the time of his employment, he should be fired if he declines a test later. I'm not as keen on a company initiating that policy AFTER hiring - there should be significantly different rules for that. But I guess I'm a fan of employer rights. Believe it or not, employers actually need to make money, too. If an employee doesn't like it, there are other jobs. It is a big investment to start or even continue a company, so why should an employer have to risk it due to an employee's "lifestyle" choice? I've no problem that someone who chooses to use drugs also chooses to be unemployed.

Don't even bother arguing how wonderful people can perform even though they use. I'm too old to buy that. I was in the Navy before drug testing, and saw the waste and carnage because of drugs. We were losing more Sailors from drug-related accidents than in operations, and readiness was crap - ruined equipment, loss of combat capability, sunken morale. Thank God the Soviets were always a bunch of drunken losers! Once we cleaned it up, in the early '80s, we became as good as it gets on the high seas. Huge change.

And I've had no problems getting help at our local Super Wal-Mart - even get help without asking - especially when I walk in with the groggy, hung over glaze in my eyes. Maybe not from the brightest bulbs, but they always are at least trying to be helpful. No beef from me against W-M, and some of my best hunting buds work the counters there, too, and are OK with it. They only complain about the usual crap (stupid co-workers, even STOOPIDER customers, dumb management moves, lack of good restocking of the prime fishing lures or guns). That, and they hate the way the media makes their company out to be the next Evil Empire! They actually like working there.

[fittykick]

I'll go one farther than the drug testing......how about a fathers name on the birth certificate (and a DNA test to prove it) and proof that he is paying child support, then you can apply for welfare!! I'm tired of hearing about these guys with 7-8 kids with different women. Take every penny from his pockets before reaching into mine. Maybe if his pockets are empty he'll stay at home and keep his pants on. I don't know about where you guys are from, but you drive in the subsidied housing around here and there are an awful lot of new cars in there and cell phones galore!!

[wvak47]

Originally Posted by fittykick

I don't know about where you guys are from, but you drive in the subsidied housing around here and there are an awful lot of new cars in there and cell phones galore!!

Might have something to do with the drug issue that was brought up earlier . You want to put a crimp on the low rents, legalize drugs. At that point they are no longer unemployed, don't quallify for "ASSistance", and can pay taxes like the rest of us. And if we can keep the politicians from voting themselve's a raise to eat up the new found source of income (lack of spending on low rents, reduced cost of public zoo housing <jails for non-violent drug crimes> and increased tax revenues) maybe we could cut the tax % a bit on everyone. RIGHT what was I thinking? Sorry.

[bikerjim1]

My take on workplace drug testing is, if something warrants the need for a test to be taken, then do so, but random testing, I feel, is sort of like an intimidation factor.
I don't do any drugs myself, so I'm not making any excuses for the masses that do, but rather am stepping up to the principals of the matter. To me, this is just another step towards losing some freedom of choice.
Don't take me wrong, I'm not condoning the usage of drugs within the workplace, and if I found out that any of my employees were under the influence on MY watch, I'd take the proper disciplinary measures in a heart-beat, but just the thought that my Administrator's could approach me for no reasoning at all to submit a test would chap my hide! I guess it's sort of an employee / employer trust issue to me.

As far as the drug testing for welfare folks and others on public assistance, yep, if they are riding the financial coattails of other taxpayers, test them! There should be a bit that they need to ante up for that assistance to prove that they are worthy of that assistance. This is simply my take on the matter.