You know what else it means? It means it is a program that has to be put in place and kept up. It means that besides the costs of the drug test, you have the administrative costs of the people and infrastructure that track the program. It also means that people over the long haul get tested more than once. When you consider that most of the people will test negative, you have increased your cost with them for absolutely no reason at all. Now you are paying for both their unemployment, and their drug test, thus increasing cost and making the program more expensive. If you can't get that, maybe you ought to go back to second grade, and learn to add again. Secondly, you can't random test people on unemployment. These people are not employees of companies, they are citizens. Citizens must all be treated equally under the law, which means if one person is tested, they all have to be tested. Lastly, you make the assumption that people on drugs are not productive. That is not true. There are plenty of people who take drugs who have good jobs, and when they don't have a job, they look for work just like everybody else. Just because they do substances in their spare time does not make them any less responsible.
Have any data to actually back your shit up or are you just pulling it out of your ass? I don't give a fuck about the $$$$, I don't want people on drugs to get unemployment benefits whatsoever so your rant on the financial aspects are useless. What are the costs of unemployment average per person, until you can come up with that number I suggest you shut the fuck up about the realized costs of it all. SO find it, how much does one person on unemployment collect. compare that to your number of how much drug testing costs. You're the big math wiz I assume, I failed out of 2nd grade. Unemployment benefits are conditional. If you refuse a job, I believe you lose your benefits. They should be conditional on passing drug tests. Yes, people on drugs can be productive. I still think they should not be paying for their drugs with their unemployment benefits.
I don't know how to answer that, since it seems like a complete non sequitur. The government can also go to war with other nations...what's the difference? The government can't require drug tests of private citizens, either randomly or as part of a government program/benefits. The government can, I believe, require drug tests of government workers. These are two unrelated things.
Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can or cannot put in my body? People pay into their own unemployment and have every right as you to recoup the benefits when they lose a job. You don't want them spending it on drugs, so what if they want to spend it on prostitution? Are you going to support undercover agents tracking each and every citizen to see who they are sleeping with? Oh, that's not feasible? But it's the same fucking moral difference. What about people who use their unemployment to pay speeding tickets? Or to buy ivory trinkets? Or blood diamonds? Where does your moral high ground end?
Spend it on hookers, i don't care. Drug testing should be mandatory for all public benefits IMO. From welfare to unemployment. I have visions of unemployed stoners laughing their asses off about getting free money.
This proposal has damn near everything wrong with it. Cost has been mentioned. Also, any positive must be confirmed by even more expensive GC/MS - unless you figure that if someone's poppy seed bagel gives a false positive for opiates they should just be SOL. Since prescription drugs can cross-react, the state would have to maintain a database of every person's prescription medication. You want that? It singles out working people for conditions that do not apply to the wealthy. We spent far more in bank bailouts than all unemployment compensation, but the bankers who used our money to give themselves billions of dollars in bonuses, go on cushy golf trips and organize anti-union seminars are not drug tested. And they are the ones who failed. But some working stiff who loses his/her job through no fault of his/her own should be? If a person who is unemployed has a beer while watching the game, would you jump to the conclusion he/she was spending all his/her time sitting around getting bombed? Probably not. But a person smokes one joint and we hear he/she is spending all the time sitting around getting high. Even if you think drug use is so heinous a person should be liable to any and all punishment, including starving to death, what about family member? Should the kids also starve because a parent smoked a joint? It is part of the "war on drugs" that has resulted in ludicrously disproportionate punishment for recreational drug use, with mandatory sentences on first offenders of 15, 20, 25 years, and convictions based solely on the word of an accusor, often a drug dealer. It is now federal regulation that a person convicted of any drug offense, even simple possession, cannot get food stamps, federally subsidized housing, or student financial aid - ever. Ever. Not in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years. Ever. But a person convicted of murder, rape, armed robbery, once he/she gets out of prison, is eligible for all these benefits. And Florida is not barring convicted murderers who are laid off from getting unemployment. Only someone who smokes weed! And that person need not even be convicted of a crime. It does not address real conditions that lead to drug abuse. Just punishment for even the most casual recreational user. Enough reasons or you want more?
The reasons you provide are more excuses than anything. I aim to kick off people on public assistance and unemployment "benefits" as possible, so I support whatever reasons it takes to do so. Drugs seems sufficient enough, I don't feel they should get money from the government while they are on drugs (although I do advocate legalization of all drugs without any restriction).
Excuses? You mean, like it's OK to be a murderer but not smoke pot? Or that a person is considered guilty until proven innocent? Hmm. Ever been laid off. If you were, would you turn down unemployment? And why put it in quotes? It's not really benefits? You do realize that while working we all pay into it? That's why they call it unemployment insurance, right?
I don't believe you. My wife makes the minimum of unemployment right now. That's $128 a week here in Washington. The cost of a drug test kit (6-panel) is http://www.drugtestyourteen.com/order_products_here $15.00. Pay someone $10 an hour to administer (woohoo, created jobs!!) and an average sample time of about 5 minutes, you can get about 100 people per administrator per day for 1580. Their minimum unemployment checks come out to $12800. Again, if it passes, cool. If not, fine. The military does "random" drug sweeps of the entire reserve every drill weekend of between 25-75% of the force, and sometimes does a complete unit sweep. Sure, we're volunteers, so we can get tested anytime they want. Guess what? Getting unemployment is voluntary, too.
yes, and the less people on it, the lower the costs are. shit, might be pretty clutch to be unemployed, free money, smoke weed and fuck around at home in bed all day. sign me up!
Don't do drugs. Any questions? You get laid off, and decide to smoke "just one"? Your starving kids are on your head, and there are more than enough social services in every state I've lived in to take care of them for you. Don't want that? Don't do drugs. If you think that the punishment for drug use is ludicrously high, don't do drugs. If you think convicted murderers shouldn't get unemployment, I agree with that slightly less, but would probably support that bill. Convicted murderers have paid their debt to society. Drug-testing failures have not. If drinking a beer was illegal, and someone was caught drinking one watching a game, I would have no problem with them getting their unemployment revoked as well. Don't do illegal things.
You have to meet the requirements for doing so. In WA, it's sending out a certain number of resumes/getting interviews per month. If you don't do that, it doesn't matter how much you've paid in. And in 6 months it runs out, no matter how much you've paid in. Don't kid yourself into thinking unemployment compensation is your right.
i think in Cali it goes on for along time. we had an ex-exmployee who was fired about 2 years ago maybe....still getting benefits. i think she's working under the table or commision only now.....i know she did drugs, we'd go to happy hour and she told me about toking out and shit all the time.
People on illegal drugs have proven they are less responsible. If you deliberately choose to break the law, you are by definition less responsible than one who doesn't. It doesn't get much easier than this. My wife was diagnosed with Adult ADD. She was prescribed a Class II amphetamine. It made her more productive. If I had taken one, I would be subject to court-martial, jail time, loss of pay and benefits, a dishonorable discharge and a whole bunch of other things the ACLU can't complain about.
yeah, just talked with HR, 3 people last year were still getting unemployment. all 3 were druggies...one actually sold drugs or was a drug runner as his "side job" while at our office (he owes me a few hundred bucks that I loaned him after he got shit-canned...i was seriously considering going to his house and fucking him up for not paying me back..kind of a waste of time though).
can't test for someone going to a prostitute. If you could, I wouldn't mind that either. If you want to collect the cash, don't break the law. Kind of simple to me. No "moral equivalence"...no humility issues.
Re: Pos I've already been there, done that and worked my way the fuck out. I've hit rock bottom and it sucks, but I dealt with it. Just against assistance in general. Moreso if they are drugged up all day. should. ban. it.
But they can randomly drug test their employees. I view unemployment as a form of employment where you're receiving income in a temporary job to find another one. If you're taking drugs, then you forfeit that ability to get that money. I have zero problem with it.
So, now the test is whether or not it will be profitable for the government? Okay, finally we agree. Let's eliminate every non-profitable program the government runs.
