Here's a thought I just had. Many people, in the US at least, have to take a piss test in order not to be fired. That is, in order to get paid, one must first prove that they aren't taking any illicit substances. (The results of these tests are somewhat dubious, for example, it IS possible to test positive for heroine by eating enough (~2) poppy seed bagels. On the whole, however, these tests are accurate.) Would it be too much to ask that people on welfare take the same tests? Let's ignore the logistical hurdles involved, and the small chance that the test returns a false positive, and talk solely about the issue. Is it wrong to deny those who fail a uring test their welfare benefits? Would it be ok to deny them benefits untill they enrolled in some sort of rehab program? I can think of several arguments both ways, but I am wondering what the SciForums Intelligencia have to say...
Yes, I am SciForums Intelligencia.... you are accurate in this... I see this as a rational and highly logical request, thus most of the society will ignore it in favor of their stupidity... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Perhaps, but I never said what I believe in all of thisPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Either way, simply posting this thread should be evidence enough that I think it is a good idea, despite the hurdles involved. It doesn't seem unreasonable to require someone to obey the law while taking public money.
Testing without suspicion is an invasion of privacy, and furthermore, welfare recipients show no greater levels of drug abuse than the general population.
So you don't mind that the welfare money is used for drugs instead of food and housing for the person? ...and worse, probably for their kids? You don't mind that? Baron Max
Baron, we must rid ourselves of the past by incinerating the people of today. Those who are homless, ill, and weak must perish. There should be a cookery thing where they are all incinterated and we can breath the ashes...
What little jsutification has been offered for the completely unwarranted intrusion of corporate power into private lives that mandatory piss tests represent depends completely on some alleged legitimate interest of the public in seeing that certain responsible and skilled jobs are done safely and well. Unless someone can argue that receiving welfare is a skilled or responsible job that must be done well for the safety of the public, I don't see the analogy. It's bad enough that private corporations can fire someone (never, we notice, upper echelon execs) on such grounds. Government has coercive force.
But I claim that it is no different than you having to take a mandated drug test at your job. Your employer is legally within their rights to require you to take a urine test, whether or not there is suspicion of use. Further, the claim that those on welfare don't show a greater level than the general population is irrelevant. I never claimed that welfare recipients exhibited a greater level of drug use than the general population---whether or not this is true, I don't care.
Suppose one person on welfare used their money to buy drugs. What the government has done is, unknowingly, funded that drug use. Now let's assume that the level of drug use of those on welfare is the same as the general public. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm So, let's say that 18% of welfare recipients are actively using marijuana. Do you want your money funding that behavior?
The piss test is required for many jobs, not just ones where there is a public interest. http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/NEWS/702060387/1039 84% of all employers (see link) require urine tests for new employees, and 40% of all employers test their employees regularly. The point I was attempting to make is that I am very weary of money that I pay in taxes funding illicit behavior. I have no problem with people taking welfare, and there is a larger issue in how addiction is viewed by Americans.
Really? No greater levels of drug use. That's crap. When I was in school, I worked at a 7-11 in the bad part of town. Damn near all the customers were on welfare and stoned all the time. When you have a job, you can't be stoned all the time. You've got shit to do. But when you're on welfare.....You've got nothing better to do then watch TV, have a couple of brews (and joints)Furthermore, if you're going to live off the public tit, you ought to have to jump thru some hoops. Drug test 'em. Make 'em excercise. Make 'em get damned haircuts. If they look halfway presentable and aren't stoned all the time, maybe they could get jobs and get off welfare!
Well...I don't know about that. But I do think that it is reasonable to require that someone pass a piss test.
Yeah, but there's no justification for it. It's something that a reasonable bunch of free people should have reacted to with tar and pitchforks. You wonder how we got this manure pile of grifters for a government? The same people who think Wal Mart should be allowed to monitor what its employees do on weekends and make them all piss in little jars at its corporate whim voted for their favorite candidate, that's how. What are you planning to do with the people who flunk your little privacy invasion ? Cut their kids off Medicare? Kick them out of ther substandard housing ? Do you have any idea what this kind of testing will cost? Don't forget the court battles. How to make welfare more expensive, while delivering smaller benefits - sounds like a plan. How about this: we piss test, in public, once a month, the chief executive officers and major stockholders of every major defense contractor. They're costing me a lot more than welfare recipients, and I don't want to be supporting their drug habits with my tax dollars.
iceaura--- Ignore for a minute that I specifically requested that we discuss the issue of testing people, not the implimentation, in the original post. I'll also ignore that you're deliberately trying to derail the discussion. If your objection to this testing is solely on the grounds that it is an infringement into personal liberties, the so be it. This is the one point that you raised that follows the discussion. But I fail to see how ensuring that welfare recipients obey the law is an infringement on personal liberties. It's simply a requirement---if you want public money, you will obey public laws. A contract of sorts. If you want a job for company X, you will be required to pass random drug tests. Otherwise you can seek employment elsewhere. Please construct your arguments along rational lines, and stick to the issues.
Your question assumes that welfare recipients pay for their drugs using welfare money. In fact many of the ones that I know pay for their drugs via their work in the black economy. They buy drugs with their wages, just like legitimate drug users. Their welfare money tends to pay for little more than a night on the town (in the UK welfare cheques are nicknamed 'beer vouchers').
I work for a US company, but overseas. I visit the US frequently. If on one of these visits I was required to take a drug test (as has happened, randomly, to colleagues) I would quit on the spot. I would then take the test to demonstrate that I am 100% drug free. I shall not tolerate presumptuous invasion of my privacy under any circumstances, by governments, corporations, or individuals. From this you may deduce my view on the matter.
