drug testing!!

I don't know why it has taken so long for them to suggest it! I guess it took our state (and country for that matter) to be a hair's width from bankruptcy for anyone to notice.

I hope that it's not one of those things that gets tossed back and forth between government sectors and then challenged in court like everything else seems to be nowadays. I honestly can't think of any more fair way of doing this. Point plank - if you can afford drugs and alcohol, you don't need public assistance. Period. </story>
 
I hav'nt seen any info on the retesting if they pass or random testing after the initial test
freebies-vik-battaile-politics-1356175987.png.jpg
 
One reason I've heard from the liberals against this is that it might stop peeps from participating in the work first or job training program?? WTF ?? This should have been standard a loooooooooong time ago. I think DMV records should be checked too to see who's getting welfare right now, while driving expensive new cars.
 
ManglerYJ said:
I don't know why it has taken so long for them to suggest it! I guess it took our state (and country for that matter) to be a hair's width from bankruptcy for anyone to notice.

I hope that it's not one of those things that gets tossed back and forth between government sectors and then challenged in court like everything else seems to be nowadays. I honestly can't think of any more fair way of doing this. Point plank - if you can afford drugs and alcohol, you don't need public assistance. Period. </story>
Click to expand...

It's taken so long because it was/is politically incorrect for politicians to even discuss possible abuse of the welfare system and what to do about it.
 
I will test their drugs, they need only to call me:D
 
Only downside I can think of are the innocent kids that may be losing some food money, because their parent/parents can't or won't pass a screening.
 
There will be some kids that suffer from their parent's mismanagement. However, I bet those parents will still have beer, cigarettes, big speakers, big tvs, and big rims.
 
sgtbriangreen said:
There will be some kids that suffer from their parent's mismanagement. However, I bet those parents will still have beer, cigarettes, big speakers, big tvs, and big rims.
Click to expand...
And still covered in tats
 
Dylan W. said:
Only downside I can think of are the innocent kids that may be losing some food money, because their parent/parents can't or won't pass a screening.
Click to expand...
if they are in school, school gives them breakfast and lunch.
 
tw89yj said:
If someone fails the drug test, who has to pay for the drug rehab program? Taxpayers?
Click to expand...

This, as well - who is going to pay for the drug tests in the first place? There is a significant cost associated with enacting/maintaining such a program
 
i read that there was an upfront $10 charge for the test, if they pass the test cost will be reinbursed by the state

scared to death!!!!!
 
that would not cover, well, anything. think of all the personnel associated with it, the extra time, the shenanigans associated with drug testing... I'm not sure that $10 would even cover a test kit itself.
 
tw89yj said:
If someone fails the drug test, who has to pay for the drug rehab program? Taxpayers?
Click to expand...

Why should the taxpayer have to pay for rehab? The idea behind this is that if you fail the test, you don't get welfare or other entitlement programs. The applicant pays for the test and if they fail they do not get it reimbursed. Nobody is saying they can't do drugs or drink.... they are just trying to say that if you do, we (the taxpayers) aren't going to help you buy them.

I notice an awful lot of people that come into my church asking for help with their power bill, gas money, etc. reek of cigarette smoke. Not saying that there's anything wrong with smoking, but if you are that hard up for cash, you might consider quitting smoking. Just saying - I have yet to see "free" cigarettes. You can about buy a gallon of gas for the price of one pack it seems.
 
D'Mann said:
if they are in school, school gives them breakfast and lunch.
Click to expand...
Yes, while school is in session. Hopefully they're school participates in some form of backpack program that sends food home with them on the weekends too. It's really sad that some kids have crackers & beans to get them through the weekend. Next time anyone complains about "why does my kid have to even go to school after a two hour delay?" Remember this is the only chance at a meal for some children.

Yes, people need to be held accountable, but it's never as simple as it seems. It does sting when your trying to do everything you can to gt by on your own & others abuse a system. I leave that up to God & try my best to help where I can.
 
Anybody seen the article in the NY Time about "The Decline of North Carolina"? It's an article basically saying that Republicans are destroying the NC that the Democrats worked soooo hard to "fix". Seems to me that they're the ones that f'ed it up along with Beverly Perdue and Mike Easley. To me, that article was basically like asking a sea lion how it feels about killer whales.


The idea of drug screenings for welfare recipients seems like a good idea. It may or may not work, I just think it all depends on how they structure and set it up. I don't think there's much chance of it not passing since NC has a Rep. majority in the courts and senate.

I like how the senator said she thinks the 10 dollar charge is a burden to those receiving help. :rolleyes: If you have nothing to hide and are actively working to make your own life better, then you should pass the screening and be refunded your money. Where's the burden? I suppose logic and common sense elude those in politics.
 
OK so for the sake of discussion I'm going to throw out two major roadblocks that will have to be addressed.

First, this kind of thing has been proposed many times before, in other states, and even enacted in FL, only to be ruled unconstitutional (violation of 4th amendment rights) and tossed out. So we really have to ask... what is so different about this proposal that will not just be another dead-end road and big waste of time? Perhaps if it is only food stamp collections and not all unemployment, or if it is clearly known up front so that the participant can make a clear, informed choice? I don't know.

Second is the thing everybody ignores - the "false positive" problem. All drug tests... and this is moreso the case w/ cheaper tests, so you have a financial tradeoff... incorrectly come out positive X% of the time. Its small, 0.01% or better. But if you do 100,000+ tests a year, you WILL have false positives. What happens in those cases? What is the provision for those people? Do you always follow up a positive with a 2nd test? That's more $$ (who pays that?) Or have some rule that if they fail within X% of the margin, they get a free 2nd test to make sure?
It only takes a few lawsuits for this to become very expensive for the state. Of course... the upshot is that by definition the applicants can't actually afford lawyers or to fund a lawsuit, so the state is safe o_O
If the rule is not "everybody get a test", but is instead" you get a test if we "suspect" you are using (as this suggests) then the actual testing rate may be pretty low, only a couple thousand per year. But then the question is... who defines what makes you suspicious?

The general theory and idea behind this sounds great... hence it has "collaborative support"... but there's a lot that has to be worked out first to be implementable.
 
You can not legislate human behavior.

Matthew 22:37-39 NWT
37He said to him: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’38This is the greatest and first commandment.39The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’

This will take care of every thing.
 
The solution is to get rid of all the programs, reduce taxes, and watch business flourish and peoples generosity take care of those ACTUALLY in need.
 
I wonder how many North Carolinians ( correction ) or % of the rest of the Nation, give a flying fornication what the new yauk times says about anything , I sure don't.
 
Last edited:
RatLabGuy said:
OK so for the sake of discussion I'm going to throw out two major roadblocks that will have to be addressed.

First, this kind of thing has been proposed many times before, in other states, and even enacted in FL, only to be ruled unconstitutional (violation of 4th amendment rights) and tossed out. So we really have to ask... what is so different about this proposal that will not just be another dead-end road and big waste of time? Perhaps if it is only food stamp collections and not all unemployment, or if it is clearly known up front so that the participant can make a clear, informed choice? I don't know.

Second is the thing everybody ignores - the "false positive" problem. All drug tests... and this is moreso the case w/ cheaper tests, so you have a financial tradeoff... incorrectly come out positive X% of the time. Its small, 0.01% or better. But if you do 100,000+ tests a year, you WILL have false positives. What happens in those cases? What is the provision for those people? Do you always follow up a positive with a 2nd test? That's more $$ (who pays that?) Or have some rule that if they fail within X% of the margin, they get a free 2nd test to make sure?
It only takes a few lawsuits for this to become very expensive for the state. Of course... the upshot is that by definition the applicants can't actually afford lawyers or to fund a lawsuit, so the state is safe o_O
If the rule is not "everybody get a test", but is instead" you get a test if we "suspect" you are using (as this suggests) then the actual testing rate may be pretty low, only a couple thousand per year. But then the question is... who defines what makes you suspicious?

The general theory and idea behind this sounds great... hence it has "collaborative support"... but there's a lot that has to be worked out first to be implementable.
Click to expand...

I don't see how the 4th Amendment has any bearing on this. This isn't an unlawful search or seizure. This is not random testing. It's point blank - if you want taxpayers to continue to pay for your butt, prove to us that you aren't using drugs. Real simple. False positives? OK.. I see the potential for that. Bear in mind, this is the same test that just about all of us have had to take for employment screening at some time or another. Do you hear a lot of griping about false positives there? Me neither. And as far as their frivolous lawsuits becoming expensive for the state, guess what, supporting drug users with our tax dollars already has.

Oh, and before anyone brings up the "I wasn't doing drugs... I went to a Metallica concert the other night and the people sitting near me were and I just got a contact buzz from them" blah blah blah BS, if that's REALLY and TRUTHFULLY the case, wait a few days to go apply for your food stamps until your munchies wear off a bit. Again, a failing drug test only means you don't qualify for an ENTITLEMENT program. The idea here is that we reward people who abide by the law and not reward them if they break it. Lack of a reward is not the same as a punishment.
 
ManglerYJ said:
Oh, and before anyone brings up the "I wasn't doing drugs... I went to a Metallica concert the other night and the people sitting near me were and I just got a contact buzz from them" blah blah blah BS, if that's REALLY and TRUTHFULLY the case, wait a few days to go apply for your food stamps until your munchies wear off a bit. Again, a failing drug test only means you don't qualify for an ENTITLEMENT program. The idea here is that we reward people who abide by the law and not reward them if they break it. Lack of a reward is not the same as a punishment.
Click to expand...


I am a federal employee (Army). I am subject to random drug tests. I have friends that occasionally use recreational stuff. If they fire one up, I move upwind. It is that simple. I know I can be given a whiz quiz any day. I just move away or upwind.
 
ManglerYJ said:
I don't see how the 4th Amendment has any bearing on this. This isn't an unlawful search or seizure.... blah blah
Click to expand...

Read for yourself.
Some examples of drug testing being ruled unconstitutional:
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/...pre-employment-drug-testing-unconstitutional/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/u...drug-testing-order-unconstitutional.html?_r=0
http://jurist.org/dateline/2013/03/ilan-wurman-drug-testing.php

So if you're going to support this, better be prepared to either find a creative way to not get it shot down in court, or to waste a lot of $$$ on litigation.

I'm not saying it's right, just being realistic.

BTW most of the time if you fail a test for a job application, there is an opportunity to appeal and re-take the test.
 
Back
Top