Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 Dec '11 01:46
    In the House, Republicans have proposed a bill that would slash 40 weeks from the duration of federal unemployment compensation and allow states to require the unemployed to pass drug tests in order to receive benefits. Should passing a drug-test be required in order to receive unemployment compensation?
  2. 10 Dec '11 02:15
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    In the House, Republicans have proposed a bill that would slash 40 weeks from the duration of federal unemployment compensation and allow states to require the unemployed to pass drug tests in order to receive benefits. Should passing a drug-test be required in order to receive unemployment compensation?
    If you show up for work under the influence, you ought to be canned. Other than that I don't see any employer interest in drug use or government issue with it either.

    The issue is can you work. If you show up high or inebriated, the answer is probably no.
  3. 10 Dec '11 02:24
    Originally posted by normbenign
    If you show up for work under the influence, you ought to be canned. Other than that I don't see any employer interest in drug use or government issue with it either.

    The issue is can you work. If you show up high or inebriated, the answer is probably no.
    So you are so saying that you should not have to be tested to receive unemployment benefits? How about Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid? Why should my tax dollars go to your Social Security check if you are going to sit around high all day? Do you think you have a right to government money if you're going to use it to purchase drugs?
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    10 Dec '11 02:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    In the House, Republicans have proposed a bill that would slash 40 weeks from the duration of federal unemployment compensation and allow states to require the unemployed to pass drug tests in order to receive benefits. Should passing a drug-test be required in order to receive unemployment compensation?
    I'm not sure how it works with retail politics in the U.S., but if this announcement/proposal had been made in the U.K. by the equivalent political entity, it would have little or nothing to do with the drug tests themselves, and everything to do with inserting - into the public domain, tabloidlike - the notion, the insinuation, that the high level of unemployment is perhaps caused by undeserving people spending money on drugs and loafing around, too high to work, rather than by problems with the economy and the performance of politicians.
  5. 10 Dec '11 03:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    I'm not sure how it works with retail politics in the U.S., but if this announcement/proposal had been made in the U.K. by the equivalent political entity, it would have little or nothing to do with the drug tests themselves, and everything to do with inserting - into the public domain, tabloidlike - the notion, the insinuation, that the high level of unemployme ...[text shortened]... too high to work, rather than by problems with the economy and the performance of politicians.
    Yeah, Republican politicians are saying that long-suffering businessmen report that half of those showing up for interviews can't pass drug tests. If that is true then surely we should extend testing to every level of government interaction. Why should you be issued a driver's license if you test positive for drugs? Why should you get government assistance of any kind without being tested?
  6. 10 Dec '11 03:45
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    In the House, Republicans have proposed a bill that would slash 40 weeks from the duration of federal unemployment compensation and allow states to require the unemployed to pass drug tests in order to receive benefits. Should passing a drug-test be required in order to receive unemployment compensation?
    I think we should start by having posters from RHP drug tested first.

    How about it?
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    10 Dec '11 04:33
    Originally posted by whodey
    I think we should start by having posters from RHP drug tested first.

    How about it?
    Do you think people should not be allowed to use drugs in their own homes?
  8. 10 Dec '11 05:10
    Originally posted by FMF
    Do you think people should not be allowed to use drugs in their own homes?
    Think of what your saying man!! If the government stopped that, there would be revolution!!
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    10 Dec '11 05:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    Think of what your saying man!! If the government stopped that, there would be revolution!!
    You don't want to commit to an opinion on this?
  10. 10 Dec '11 05:39
    Originally posted by FMF
    You don't want to commit to an opinion on this?
    No, I'm not much for revolution.
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    10 Dec '11 06:05
    Originally posted by whodey
    No, I'm not much for revolution.
    Committing to an opinion would hardly constitute a "revolution", whodey.
  12. 10 Dec '11 09:42
    No, because using drugs is not necessarily an inhibition for working or finding work. Besides, adding up all those who occasionally (or more frequently) use alcohol, cannabis or caffeine already gives you nearly all the unemployed (or employed for that matter) so it would just be an excuse to cut benefits.

    A better idea is to have the government provide mandatory jobs for the long-term unemployed, and cut benefits in case they don't show up.
  13. 10 Dec '11 16:03
    Originally posted by whodey
    No, I'm not much for revolution.
    Or for actual opinions - just trolling.
  14. 10 Dec '11 16:04
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    No, because using drugs is not necessarily an inhibition for working or finding work. Besides, adding up all those who occasionally (or more frequently) use alcohol, cannabis or caffeine already gives you nearly all the unemployed (or employed for that matter) so it would just be an excuse to cut benefits.

    A better idea is to have the government provide mandatory jobs for the long-term unemployed, and cut benefits in case they don't show up.
    But why should the government give you cash if you are only going to use to buy drugs?
  15. 10 Dec '11 18:32
    Yes I think so. Most employers now have mandatory drug testing for newly hired employees. If someone is un-employed you would have to assume they are at least looking for a new job, one that would require a drug test, which they would need to pass to get off unemployment.