Drug Testing for Jobless Benefits

Are you for, or against it?

I dont really have an opinion yet (still reading up on this topic).
I know that some states are now forcing drug tests in order for a person to receive certain types of public assistance. I suppose I have to question the reasons behind the drug testing. I've read that (for unemployment benefits) that everyone won't be tested - just those who were fired because they refused to take, or failed a drug test. I've also read that some states are requiring them for people who are in industries that normally require them.
What is the reasoning behind this? Is it to make certain that people are drug-free and and will be able to find employment?
I've read a few articles on the drug testing for social programs, but it seems that the reasons provided vary.

Yeah, sure... if they pay for it for people on assistance or w/e. I understand the reasoning behind it, and think it's a good idea but then after a year or two of clear tests, maybe that person shouldn't need one since they have proved themselves "clean". How many times would they need to be tested per year?

Yup all for it

Not that I've done it, but there are ways to pass a drug test -- even if you are abusing drugs.
Unless they are using other drug-testing methods aside from urine, like blood, hair, etc -- which they most likely wouldn't because those tests are a bit more expensive.

Gotta ask yourself -- who's going to pay for the tests to test the mass population of the unemployed?

I think i am going to go into the drug test manufacturing business.

Absolutely. I'm already pissed that my tax dollars are helping support baby making machines. Let's go to the next extreme and require mandatory implanted birth control if you're on public assistance for the duration until you're back on your own feet.

I am for it. Plus i think that those who are capable should actualy work for their check, we always need people to keep the city clean. Work at soup kitchens, etc,

I updated it to provide a poll.

LonelyInAtl said:

Absolutely. I'm already pissed that my tax dollars are helping support baby making machines. Let's go to the next extreme and require mandatory implanted birth control if you're on public assistance for the duration until you're back on your own feet.

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Mandatory vasectomies for young, sexually active men who are on public assistance!

Knee-jerk reactions aside, programs like this are generally not economically viable. Typically, a recipient has to pay the cost of the drug test and they will be reimbursed for the expense if they pass. But the problem arises in the simple fact that the vast majority of people receiving state aid are not on drugs, so the state has to reimburse a lot of people for a lot of passed tests. And this ends up costing a lot of money.
Florida is an often cited example of this situation - they implemented mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients and it proved to be a rather substantial net loss for the state (and only a very, very small percentage of those tested failed). They had previously implemented a similar program before and scrapped it because it too was losing them money a decade ago.

And unless adequate state support exists for rehabilitation, I find it unconscionable that anyone would wish the safety net be pulled out from under anyone who does fail. A failure and the cessation of assistance will not make someone get clean or decide to get a job, but it would send them to the depths of poverty which typically leads to a host tremendously worse social problems. "A hungry man is an angry man" after all.

I am against it. Programs like this don't save money - but they certainly seem to make people not receiving assistance feel better.

tangerinedream said:

LonelyInAtl said:

Absolutely. I'm already pissed that my tax dollars are helping support baby making machines. Let's go to the next extreme and require mandatory implanted birth control if you're on public assistance for the duration until you're back on your own feet.

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Mandatory vasectomies for young, sexually active men who are on public assistance!

Click to expand...

Interesting argument.

im ok with it. i think you should be drug tested and not be allowed to purchase alcohol or tobacco products while receiving government aid. i dont want my taxes letting you pay for things that you dont need and that could potentially kill you. if you want that stuff then fine you have the right, but get it on your own.

Would never effectively work and probably be a waste of time and money.

We are also assuming everyone on government aid is a drug user, therefore we would be putting many genuine people through unnecessary embarrassment.

It is often easy to see ideas like this as a simple way of combatting the lazy bastards who don't work etc. but it never really does go to plan.

I don't think barbaloot could have possibly put that any better. Well said!

Men are the barbarians at the gate.

Women are the gatekeepers.

Don't hate on the barbarians for doing what they do.

Especially when the gatekeepers fling the gate wide open and invite the mayhem!



On a serious note, I don't think the use of mandatory birth control is on par with mandatory medical procedures that may not be reversible. Everything has inherent dangers - vaccines, food, pesticides, birth control, etc...

Now, if they could create male birth control in pill form I would be all for that too.

I am not sure what is being referred to here. The thread title "for Jobless Benefits" makes me think of the unemployment insurance program. The poll label "who receive Government aid" makes me think Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, WIC, food stamps and the like.

While programs vary greatly from country to country, this drug testing obsession seems to be largely from the States. There I don't see the programs as being comparable in that unemployment insurance is collected on the each worker through a payroll tax while the person is working, in the event that she/he becomes unemployed through no fault of their own.

+1 - I was thinking the same thing for the past couple of days - at any rate, I do not think someone should be tested for jobless benefits because they paid their taxes already for it, invasion of privacy, etc - besides, government studies and our own health insurance data (I am a data analyst for health insurance) suggests it is a 3:1 ratio for the number of people, the number of claims, and the amount payments for alcohol or tobacco as compared to ALL of illicit drugs - I ran the data myself the other day to see if our data was inline for the national data - the only thing that cost more to society is illicit drugs as compared to alcohol or tobacco is the amount expended for crime; however, there is a comparison between three things and one is illegal which makes sense.

Minus said:

I am not sure what is being referred to here. The thread title "for Jobless Benefits" makes me think of the unemployment insurance program. The poll label "who receive Government aid" makes me think Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, WIC, food stamps and the like.

While programs vary greatly from country to country, this drug testing obsession seems to be largely from the States. There I don't see the programs as being comparable in that unemployment insurance is collected on the each worker through a payroll tax while the person is working, in the event that she/he becomes unemployed through no fault of their own.

Click to expand...

tangerinedream said:

LonelyInAtl said:

Absolutely. I'm already pissed that my tax dollars are helping support baby making machines. Let's go to the next extreme and require mandatory implanted birth control if you're on public assistance for the duration until you're back on your own feet.

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Mandatory vasectomies for young, sexually active men who are on public assistance!

Click to expand...

Seriously?!?

How does that song go again, you know the one... "And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave, O'er the land of the free"

So mandatory hysterectomies for the ladies too I assume, lose your job lose your right to any babies? So social cleansing through the choice of forced sterilization or starvation... well...Sieg Heils!!

I do hope that was tongue in cheek.