Originally posted by boonon
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.

I've never been drug tested.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
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?

If I chose to use drugs, which I don't, I probably would save the government money in the long run by dying earlier.

I just don't see that the government has any need to tell people what they should eat, drink, smoke, or shoot up. If drugs were not illegal, they wouldn't be so expensive, cities, states and the federal government would save bundles of money we pay cops and for prisons.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
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?

It is a bit slippery on that slope isn't it.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
But why should the government give you cash if you are only going to use to buy drugs?

Why should the government give you cash, period?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I've never been drug tested.

Not sure of where or who you work for but 'most' employees drug test. Unless your working for a relative I would say that almost all employers test now.

Originally posted by boonon
Not sure of where or who you work for but 'most' employees drug test. Unless your working for a relative I would say that almost all employers test now.

Nope! Not working for relatives. I've worked for many different companies and individuals in my time.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Nope! Not working for relatives. I've worked for many different companies and individuals in my time.

Didn't mean to say you were working for relatives, just saying that most places test these days. So if most places do test, a person on unemployment ' looking' for a job wouldnt be able to get hired if they were using drugs.

Originally posted by boonon
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.

And the massive false positive rate doesn't bother you at all?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I've never been drug tested.

I took one once, I scored very well because I studied. 😕

















































alot 😞

Originally posted by googlefudge
And the massive false positive rate doesn't bother you at all?

That wasn't the original post question. We could also talk about ' should it be legal' among other things like false positive tests. I agree.

In the state that I live in a person can collect unemployment benefits for up to 93 weeks. If they were to apply for a job where I work they would ( I agree not every company has drug screening ) have to pass a drug test. If they sat around those 93 weeks getting high and didn't get the job, then that means that I paid for the whole thing. The weed and everything was on me. Let them get a job ( pass the drug test ) then buy all the weed they want with their own money that they earn working.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
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?

Do you think you have the right to government money if all you're going to do with it is prop up banks and bomb third world countries?

I'd rather pay for you to be high.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
But why should the government give you cash if you are only going to use to buy drugs?

No one uses all their money to buy drugs. But a good reason is that you don't want to punish people who do use drugs but are perfectly able to work. Cutting benefits for these people would just make it harder for them to get a job. And of course there are a number of problems associated with poverty that I am sure you are well aware of.

Originally posted by boonon
Not sure of where or who you work for but 'most' employees drug test. Unless your working for a relative I would say that almost all employers test now.

I find it odd that people would accept such a thing. Around here or in my home country I have never heard of employers drug-testing prospective employees.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I find it odd that people would accept such a thing. Around here or in my home country I have never heard of employers drug-testing prospective employees.

It is the American way. It lines up perfectly with the 'libertarian' philosophy. You can do anything that you want - and so can we. The 'we' being the 'corporate' persons in America. They can test you at will or fire you at will (and deny you benefits as well.) The current federal law has some exceptions for things like religion, ethnicity and gender but I suspect those will soon be ditched as well. After all, why should I have to hire atheists if I don't have to hire drug-addicts? Shouldn't the state be able to deny you unemployment compensation or social security payments? How do you get unemployment or social security anyway? Isn't it just bald-faced theft from the producers? I work for a living - why should any of my hard-earned cash go to support unproductive old people or drug-addicts? Why should my state allow drug-addicts to get a driver's license? Presumably, they'll just use it to go buy drugs. If the goal is get rid of the old and drug-addled then wouldn't it be simpler just to deny them any assistance? Contributing to their habits (like breathing) is just encouraging them to continue their naked theft of my resources. I suspect that some left-wing politician (like Newt) will propose that we institute camps where these people can be put to productive use. We could certainly manage our resources better this way and it would make it easier to ultimately eliminate these societal problems. What say you?

Originally posted by shavixmir
Do you think you have the right to government money if all you're going to do with it is prop up banks and bomb third world countries?

I'd rather pay for you to be high.

Are you a 'job-creator?' If not, why is it any of your business?