remind me not to apply there...
I don't think we'd tolerate that over here... the debate about legalising drugs is a growing issue over here so it seems that would be a large step backward...
Should people on welfare have to take mandatory drug tests?
- Thread starter Ripper
- Start date
remind me not to apply there...
I don't think we'd tolerate that over here... the debate about legalising drugs is a growing issue over here so it seems that would be a large step backward...
hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe....... I remember when we were 'enlightened'... Well, somewhat....:24:
I don't find it criminalizing or humiliating at all, there are drug problems in every part of the planet, nothing wrong with them wanting to make sure they aren't about to hire a meth addict or something, especially if this person will be operating any type of machinery as part of the job.
but it doesn't make sense because in so many ways you are - the US attitude of personal liberty is spot on. Why have corporations been allowed to take that away?
Do meth addicts often apply for jobs then? :24:
hehehehehehehehe........... ah, cuz we're all sleeping in front of American Idol? :24:
Tho, someone smarter than I should know the answer. My guess is back when they changed the rules to where a 'corporation' gets the same rights as a 'human'.
But what do I know? I'm a ditz.:nod:
actually yeah, they've got to support their habit somehow, I saw quite a few people test positive for it where I worked.
lol you're not a ditz
yeah I remember reading about that, that may very well have something to do with it.
If someones drug taking isn't affecting their work, I see no reason why it matters. If the're showing up for work drunk or stoned though, then a company should be able to just sack them on the spot, seems much more logical and fairer to me that testing everyone, that mentality is like saying "lets lock up everyone in the country so we make sure we lock up all the criminals and dont miss any of them."
I think they should be applauded for trying to get work rather than slipping into crime. Do they get reported to the police for testing positive?
no, I don't think they are, they can actually get their job back if they are willing to go through a rehab program, one of the supervisors there has been fired 3 times for testing positive for meth.
Now see that's a very good incentive to kick the habit right there. I suppose in that sense, provided they are offered the job after rehab, drug testing is actually doing them a favour.
yeah, they'll work with you if you're willing to get help for it.
that makes it seem far less draconian and for addiction, very sensible. If it was just a bit of marijuana, would the same apply?
I don't know for sure on that, they definitely wouldn't make you go through Rehab for it,I know some places will fire you for it, some places might just let you off with a warning.
yeah rehab would be a bit much for that.
No. There's a difference here. I don't believe welfare should exist. However I fully support disability and unemployment benefits.
But thanks for judging me before you had all the facts. :smiley24:
Last edited by a moderator:
Yea, I'm employed by the state of NY which does the same thing. If a worker on campus is found to have drugs or alcohol in their system while on the job, they have to be offered treatment before they can be fired. If they refuse treatment or are caught with the stuff in their system after being offered treatment, then they can be fired.
Erm...disability and unemployment benefits are welfare. Anyway, same thing goes, you think people who are unemployed through no fault of their own should be left to starve.
Not here they aren't. They are all separate and different. Get your facts straight before you try to debate on American policy.
I think people who are unemployed because they get handouts and don't think they have to work (i.e. most people on welfare) shouldn't get handouts. At the very minimum there should be drug testing and a time limit.
I think people who are unable to work because they are disabled should get benefits (from disability) and those people who lose their jobs for reasons other than their own negligence should get benefits (from unemployment).
Please don't presume to tell me what I think Peter.