• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Welfare drug testing, maybe I was wrong

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
So it was recently shown in Utah that they only caught 12 people in their attempts to test people based on their likelihood to be using drugs. many people called that a failure number, but what also happened was that when informed they would have to be tested a couple of hundred of the applicants stopped the process. Over 200 of them did not procede. That is in a set of 4000 applicants who were not all tested. They shook out over 200 people from that process who were unwilling to stop using drugs while collecting benefits.

before i go here I do believe in things like SNAP, and though I support an idea like TANF I have to say it needs to be fixed. If these sorts of numbers of people are being shaken out of the public assistance system for doing something voluntary and purely recreational perhaps it working and saving money. 12 people was not a lot, but when you find 200+ people dropped the process because of the tests it becomes more substantial. Plus it does show us that in a few cases of the people who were caught some actually went through the test and asked for rehab help on the other side. Before I thought that those people might not have been dedicated to rehab so they might be wasting money there, but it would seem lots of people who were on drugs were shaken out of the system or discouraged from continuing and the people who got to that point might be a bit more likely to get through rehab.

With an option to have benefits dependent on rehab and remaining clean and seeing all of this I actually think this sort of program does have it's place and should be implemented. It would help clean up the welfare system of people who just want to do drugs and collect. I am a huge advocate for personal choice in drug use, but when you are begging for assistance the money is being given to you for survival and need and it is wasted if those people use it on drugs. As a responsible working member of society you should be allowed to enjoy the recreation of drugs. It is recreation, and therefor we do not need to pay for you to do it.

The only opposing point I can see is in the case of something like weed where if it were legal you could grow it for free. Right now it is illegal and even if it were free you should not be using what is pretty much charity to do an illegal act which could cause you further problems. This in conjunction with limiting what can be purchased with TANF benefits would be a good start. I have to say the argument that it is not effective just got blown away for me because it does deter people from applying. We can see that here.
 
If you have a citable source for that 200 who did not proceed, that's some good ammunition.
 



This is very apparent in business, also. When I used to be in a hiring capacity, people would submit applications for employment and the confirmation of the appointment to interview would clearly state that clean results from a drug test would precede any actual employment. This may or may not have been responsible for about half of the scheduled interviews being no-shows.

I work with client right now that has a very large distribution operation that is seasonal with two employment peaks through the year. They need to add about 100 people twice and then reduce that same number twice per year. Both an HR and an Unemployment Insurance nightmare for an employer. The HR manager had a Gestalt Revelation one night the week before the semi annual termination process occurred: Drug testing.

At the end of the busy season, now, the HR department conducts universal drug testing for all employees. Those who don't pass the tests or who refuse to take the tests are immediately terminated under the Zero Tolerance Policy.

This corrects the workforce to the right size and avoids the Unemployment Insurance cost increases since the terminated employees are not eligible with a just cause terminations.

Interesting bit of allowing a self selecting termination to occur in this process.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If you have a citable source for that 200 who did not proceed, that's some good ammunition.
Click to expand...

I was trying to find that part of the study. The number came from

Welfare Drug Testing Catches Only 12 Users In Utah! - YouTube

Which is one of the guys from TYT doing his own show on their network. That clip actually argues against the idea, and doesn't take into account the point of my argument, but if people want to backtrack it from there, the turks are usually pretty good about getting their sources right.
 

The argument is similar, and yes it would filter a lot of drug user applicants from the stack. OTOH it does depend on the job and certain jobs I do not see being a problem doing stoned or high. Some of us actually improved our performance on helpdesks greatly when we started doing drugs. I did not tell my boss at the time, but there was a little chuckle in my head when she asked me to tell her how I was able to improve so much in such a short amount of time. Of course, my biggest concern was crashing my rolling chair into another person.
 
That supports my argument ever since such practices were spoken of. I have always argued on these things that many people will stop the process when they realize they will fail the given requirements. Those opposing this idea only use the data of those who think they will somehow pass, and turn up positive in testing.
 

Yes, I get quite a response of "can't trust them" when I have linked a TYT, but they do appear spot on with their facts, even though they color things with their agenda.

If I gleaned the information correctly, they asked 466 of 4730 applicants to take a drug test before continuing. If the 466, 247 did not return to complete the process. Of the 219 who continued on with the process, 12 were tested positive.

I think this is great. If these 247 + 12 wish to try again, they will have to work on being drug free and employable. Maybe once they get off drugs, they will choose to pass an employer drug screening instead.
 



I have a feeling that if drug tests are proposed as a hurdle to clear in order to gain benefits, those proposing the test will be branded as racists.
 
code1211 said:
I have a feeling that if drug tests are proposed as a hurdle to clear in order to gain benefits, those proposing the test will be branded as racists.
Click to expand...
They have in other states.
 
Lord of Planar said:
They have in other states.
Click to expand...



This constant accusation has got to be wearing thin.

How in the world can it be racist to test universally to qualify all individuals for benefits when this particular test shows who is disqualifying voluntarily for employment?

If people want to work, they should be preparing to work. If they are avoiding work, that is fine, but should not be rewarded for their avoidance.
 
I actually support the way Utah is doing it--if you test positive, you can still get benefits, but you have to go to rehab. It definitely makes sense that if someone has to receive government benefits, they shouldn't be spending the money on drugs.

I do not support drug testing for most employers, however. The practice ought to be made illegal. I can see it for people working as, say, pilots or surgeons. But bank tellers? Grocery-store clerks? Insurance adjusters? What should matter is whether the employee shows up on time and performs. If they smoke pot on their own time, why should that be the employer's concern?
 

It makes a difference because someone who chooses to break the law in one regard is reasonably considered to break the law in other ways as well. I certainly wouldn't hire a drunk or a druggie to do my clients bookkeeping because if they screwed stuff up it takes me more time to fix it or, worst case scenario, they get into a situation where they are aiding in embezzlement. My E&O carrier would not be impressed.
 
ashurbanipal said:
But bank tellers? Grocery-store clerks?
Click to expand...
Really? Employees who are privy to large amounts of money? You don't think that a crackhead teller wouldn't be constantly thinking of how much money they can skim off their till to feed their crack habit? Some little 20-year old grocery store pothead who thinks "The Man" isn't gonna miss this $20 so he can go buy a dime bag?

Insurance adjusters?
Click to expand...
Someone finds out about your little coke habit, and they offer you a little bribe to "adjust" that insurance quote?

What should matter is whether the employee shows up on time and performs. If they smoke pot on their own time, why should that be the employer's concern?
Click to expand...
If you're only talking about a little hippie lettuce, then yeah...I see your point. But if I'M a business owner, you bet your ass I wanna know whether a new hire is a crackhead. Especially, if their little crackhead fingers have direct access to my liquid capital.
 
Lutherf said:
It makes a difference because someone who chooses to break the law in one regard is reasonably considered to break the law in other ways as well.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is the case, at least in any relevant sense. Someone who jaywalks is also likely to be a murderer? Moreover, you reach this conclusion because they jaywalk? I think the error is obvious. Someone who smokes pot probably doesn't also rob banks/molest children/murder people/invade homes/etc.

Lutherf said:
I certainly wouldn't hire a drunk or a druggie to do my clients bookkeeping because if they screwed stuff up it takes me more time to fix it
Click to expand...

I would agree that someone who shows up to work drunk (or high) is more likely to make errors. However, you surely don't need a drug test to tell whether the person who just walked in the door and clocked in reeks of whiskey or marijuana. Conversely, I think it's probably obvious that someone might be able to get roaring drunk on Friday night, but come in Monday and do perfectly competent bookwork. If someone arrives drunk or stoned, fire them.

Most people who do drugs and hold jobs separate the two. Employer drug testing is, for the most part, about employers with certain ideals wanting to screen their employees to hire the 'right' kinds of people--not based on how well they can perform, but on how well they conform to the same ideals (I have been an employer, and worked closely with a large number of employers in my life). This is what motivates things like spousal interviews, polygraph testing, and even psychological batteries, all of which are becoming increasingly common in the hiring process.

The problem that we face is simply this: the only way human societies work is if nearly everyone is included in some way. Some people (about a third of our citizens, last time I saw statistics) like to smoke pot on the weekends or at night in the privacy of their home. We have to employ them, and do so in an apparently meaningful and fair manner. Failure to do so will have disastrous consequences in the long run, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Really? Employees who are privy to large amounts of money? You don't think that a crackhead teller wouldn't be constantly thinking of how much money they can skim off their till to feed their crack habit?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. I don't know if you've ever worked at a bank. I haven't either, but I have consulted with banks both large and small. All of them have a close-out procedure in which the teller and a supervisor have to audit their drawer before they can go home. Banks will search a teller's person and personal effects, including their car, and etc. if money is missing. Most often, the drawers are reconciled to within five cents. Some require there to be no discrepancy of any kind. This is why tellers run at least two separate tapes--one that shows the monetary value of transactions, and the other that shows the physical inventory of currency. Most banks these days also film the tellers. If a drawer doesn't reconcile, the teller sits tight while the manager reviews the tape.

Velvet Elvis said:
Some little 20-year old grocery store pothead who thinks "The Man" isn't gonna miss this $20 so he can go buy a dime bag?
Click to expand...

This is a little more common, though when I managed a grocery store, it was much more common that a cashier would try to steal $20 to buy new clothes or some such. Greed, and the larceny it sometimes engenders, aren't confined to people who smoke pot (or do other kinds of drugs, for that matter)

Velvet Elvis said:
Insurance adjusters? Someone finds out about your little coke habit, and they offer you a little bribe to "adjust" that insurance quote?
Click to expand...

Again, this seems unrealistic because it ignores that even non-coke-heads take bribes.


Well, I will say that I've known two genuine crackheads in my life, and they were both crazy. I never hired either of them (didn't know them that way), but I think I would have known there was something wrong about five minutes into the first interview. I also don't think either of them could have shown up for work on time, or, for that matter, put together a coherent resume so as to get to the first interview.

That said, I would agree that you raise a point with some validity. I think if we had a well-reasoned drug policy in this country, I'd have less of a problem with employer drug testing. People who use certain kinds of drugs are, frankly, dangerous. They also make up a small percentage of drug users (except methamphetamines in some parts of the country, but that's a whole other story). I think that such people are likely to have mental health issues which can be deleterious to an employer's operation. An employer does have a legitimate right to know before hiring such a person. However, I think the vast majority of drug use is mainly marijuana and alcohol, and the former is what usually gets people to flunk a drug test.
 
That depends if one thinks people should get drug tested for also collecting unemployment and/or disability or for anyone wanting to collect money from a check. Is it governments business to know what we are doing before we can eat?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
That depends if one thinks people should get drug tested for also collecting unemployment and/or disability or for anyone wanting to collect money from a check. Is it governments business to know what we are doing before we can eat?
Click to expand...

We are the government, welfare and food stamps is our money, so yes, if they want to collect it, whether they use drugs or not is our business.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Totalitarianism isn't my thing.
Click to expand...

Well, government employees need to pass a drug test to work for their money, so why do you think people who get our money without doing anything shouldn't have to pass a drug test?

Private sector employees who fund welfare and foodstamps with their tax money have to pass drug tests to work as well. Why should welfare and foodstamp recipients be exempt?
 





In all businesses there is Workers Compensation Insurance to be maintained and accidents occur.

In all business there is the threat of discrimination based on treating one employee or group of employees differently than another employee or group.

The employer, to reduce claims, needs to have a drug free workplace and to reduce exposure to lawsuits claiming discrimination, needs to have equal and indiscriminate policies that make sense to the legal eagles trying to shut them down with outrageous lawsuit settlements.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
That depends if one thinks people should get drug tested for also collecting unemployment and/or disability or for anyone wanting to collect money from a check. Is it governments business to know what we are doing before we can eat?
Click to expand...



Only if you want to be supported by the government.

If you want to support yourself, go ahead and light the fatty.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Totalitarianism isn't my thing.
Click to expand...

Really? You seem to support the totalitarian idea of robbing the productive to fund welfare and food stamps. Yet you oppose those whose wealth is confiscated the right to place any rational limits or standards upon those who are recipients of this free cash. Something is amiss in you thinking here.
 
It stands to me as a no brainer that drug testing, which is a requirement for ALL public service employment, and most private employment, should also be a requirement for ANY safety net benefits.
 

I'm against government workers being drug tested too. As I already stated, I'm not into the totalitarian type thing.
 
code1211 said:
Only if you want to be supported by the government.

If you want to support yourself, go ahead and light the fatty.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone should have to be subjected to drug testing by the government. I don't care if you are rich and famous or piss poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…