Drug Test for Unemployment

It makes a lot of sense to me. Why should someone collecting unemployment benefits, use it to buy drugs? We all know addicts will get money anyway they can to support a drug habit. I don't want my tax dollars used to support addicts.

Maybe you should ask Rush Limbaugh why an addict buys illegal drugs?

I really do not want any of my tax money spent to keep anyone in jail for marihuana law violations. I can remember a lady whose husband was dying from cancer. They had a severely handicapped son & she went back to college to secure a teaching certificate to be able to support the son. After graduation she was unable to get a teaching license at 54 years of age, since she had been busted with a little amount of pot when but 18 in college. That ought to teach her a lesson. The law can screw you even after that many years, so watch out & let the system take care of the handicapped son that you could have had you been given the chance. Teach the system a lesson.Let georgia suffer for the pot bust. Well, georgia got rid of the indians & took their lands, but they got stuck with the freed black slaves who they also did not want. haha

Are you kidding?!?! Kick a guy when he's down?!?! Well, sure I just love my tax dollars going to a welfare bum pill poppin' meth head. It just warms my heart to know that I'm helping them get his/her unemployment check and that money is going right back into the 'local economy'. And now the benefits have just been extended, so now all those crackheads can keep binging that much more, thanks Barry!!

Oh, funny headlines...right...heres some

http://www.oddee.com/item_96156.aspx

Are you kidding?!?!

Yes, in the sense that I think the headline is funny, because it reads as if you have to be drug tested to become unemployed.

But no, I am not kidding when I say that many people who become unemployed are down, and should not be treated as criminals. I've never had to draw unemployment, but would find it degrading to be treated as a criminal immediately after having been laid off. I have had to take one drug test in my life to work as a consultant for a large health insurance company, and to be honest, I found it degrading. It use to be that people would treat you as innocent until proven guilty.

A requirement for collecting unemployment is that you loose your job through no fault of your own. Toyota could be thinking about layoffs again, and the people they lay off will not be "welfare bum pill poppin' meth heads". Re an old Toyota layoff:

• Leslie Acord and her husband are among the 370 employees being laid off at the Toyota plant in Gibson County. Acord says it's a major loss, "Within an eight hour span, I cried, I was angry, I was complacent and I really didn't care so you go through the grief stages just like you would if you lost something else that was important to you."
  

Should she have been be strip-searched on the way out of the plant to see if she was stealing anything from the plant, and perhaps hiding it in a body cavity? Why not? In the system you seem to favor, people are guilty until proven innocent.

I enjoyed your headline contribution.

I never said that there was any problem with folks getting unemployment. I just don't want the money they get being used for drugs. So what if you've got to pee in a cup to get your unemployment check, it's nowhere near as degrading as those full body scanners that are being put in airports now. How's this for a warm and fuzzy feeling, some guy out of view looking at you wife and small children naked and if your wife is pregnant and doesn't wish to go through the scanner she can opt for the 'pat down'. Life is not fair or equal, entitlement is a fallacy that this country has a big problem with. If you are not looking for work you can loose your unemployment check, but if you are doing drugs you aren't going to pass a drug test to get a decent job anyway. It is incentive, it is not cool or popular or fashionable but most realistic things aren't. The fact of the matter is that there are way too many out there working the system and with the rapid excess of job losses that are occurring in this country the only way to keep the system alive for any amount of time will be to weed out those who do not deserve to be there. Like it or not, things will get a lot worse before it gets better, if it ever will...

On a lighter note, today is the first day of the rest of your life, enjoy it and help your loved ones enjoy it as well!!

There is a control standard and a reserved sample.

Never had a false positive show up in our testing.

I never had a positive test contested.

I did have folks try to add the magic drops to their samples or whatever.

FAIL.

4% is laughably low.

My friend is a judge who established a drug court to try to rehabilitate nonviolent drug offfenders in our community in Ohio. In a recent program for our citizens community police academy, he brought some of his particpants to tell us about their life experience etc.

They said 25% of kids in High school use marijuana at least occasionally.

All of them said they would have no trouble finding drugs with in an hour no matter where you sent them, no matter what town, No matter what state.

That implies a hell of a lot more than 4%.

I grew up in the 60's and 70's I know what my fraternity brothers and sisters were smoking.

I knew what my hippie friends were consuming.

It wasn't Player's Navy Cut.

4% is more likely the ones who 'didn't inhale."

It is a free country, take drugs if you can get em and want to.

But don't expect compensation payments predicated on ability to work to continue if you do.

Unemployment compensation is not an entitlement.

Those who hand out the bucks make the rules.

Follow the rules.

milo PS I'll be happy to ask my friend the judge how many false positives they have encountered in the years they have been doing it. That will help us figure out how "very fallible" this is.

Milo,

I've liked many of your posts over time but I think that you've dropped the ball here in grasping what I'm saying. So would you kindly explain a few things in your reply.

1. Why is my cited (aka referenced) explanation considered laughably low? I do not dispute at all that one can find sub-groups (high school and college students, 12 step members, defendants in drug courts) that will have a much higher true drug user percentage. But unemployment will not be selecting just from these groups. Your selection of groups known for this activity immediately shows a bias to your analysis. If you wish to refute my cited percentage source that I carefully chose to likely agree with an unbiased population that will be unemployed, please cite a source and explain why it is a better choice.
2. Positive false testing is a real problem. Mythbusters confirmed that this as a problem. Cincinnati University as I cited attempts to dismiss it by calling 1.5% to 2% rare. (Oh excuse me, I'm citing things again.) Just because you've never had a positive test contested really doesn't mean anything without knowing any of the circumstances. Your population may have a much more likely positive population. The repercussions of a positive result may not make contesting worth while. Anecdotal information is not relevant.

Didn't see anything particularly compelling in your citation (the drug testing 101 here that explains either the high incidence of false positives or the 4% users estimate. Sorry: http://deltabravo.net/custody/drugtest.php. )

Do false positives exist. sure. my experience is more than a single anecdote, and most of us judge what is presented to us through the lense of our experience. To ask us to dismiss a lifetime of personal experience because it is "anecdotal" is to place us all at the mercies of "Whoever posts whatever for whatever reason on the web.".

I did see plenty of advice on how to drink plenty of fluids, schedule test late in the day and such in that citation, and found that connotation interesting ...

The Mythbusters poppy seed citation / issue is a straw man; the chemicals in poppy seeds are quite similar to drugs of abuse (Heroin), given a population of poppy seed eaters another test would clearly be indicated. But Poppy seeds don't give a false positive for cannabis. And if the folks being tested have other medications that could interfere, if they followed the advice in your first citation, the issue would be moot by disclosing all the potential interferences.

In the end, each of us makes our decisions based on weighting the information presented to us, and assigning credibility to the various sources.

I respect your citations, but they do not contain any new information compelling enough to abandon my experience.

The first point of my personal moral compass is to first do no harm; to protect the customer (and or employee) from the organization and himself. Based on the occupational risk and hazards in the steel mills and laboratories I have managed, I would not subject anyone likely to be impaired to those risks. My insurance carriers and the Bureau of workers comp agrees. Thats why we tested.

That the Unemployment people see the logic that I outlined in my prior post, well, occassionally even the bureaucrats get it right.

Thanks for the great discussion.

milo

Hello there, Milo.

You tell us "The Mythbusters poppy seed citation / issue is a straw man; the chemicals in poppy seeds are quite similar to drugs of abuse (Heroin), given a population of poppy seed eaters another test would clearly be indicated. But Poppy seeds don't give a false positive for cannabis. And if the folks being tested have other medications that could interfere, if they followed the advice in your first citation, the issue would be moot by disclosing all the potential interferences."

I don't agree that redfred's reference is a straw man. I do agree that poppy seeds do not give a false positive for cannabis. However, if given a wide spectrum pre-employment drug screen and you piss hot after eating poppy seeds, the issue of a job becomes moot. The appeal of "Gee, whiz... I just had a poppy seed muffin! Come on guys, just test me for pot, and that's all! I can probably pass that one" should bring howls of laughter. And an employment rejection.

As Jerry Reed said, "When you're hot, you're hot!"

But the results aren't just "you're hot" they are by specific classes naming samhsa class of drug.

They spell out the component, the specie that is its proxy in the test, the value etc so if Someone O'd on mommies deluxe poppy seed rolls, it would show as opiates a specific name and a specific reading in excess of 2000 ng/ml. See this link:

http://www.workplace.samhsa.gov/DrugTesting/Files_Drug_Testing/Labs/Drug%20Cutoff%20Concentrations%20-%20February%202005.pdf

The initial test if positive is mandatory confirmed by a gas chromatograph test.

Here's how it worked for me: We put the signs up in the lobby, talked about it when applicants for employment handed over the application and then scheduled them for an appointment that afternoon or the immediate following afternoon. Same drill if we went through a temp agency.

If they didn't show up for the test, they self selected. (If they can't keep an appointment to qualify for employment, how likely are they to show up for work? is a Not guilty until proven innocent way of looking at their failure to test)

Everybody who tested passed.

We then did two random tests over three years, Our VP scheduled them, even I didn't know when they were scheduled.

45-50 people. No challenged positives. Several positives. Several employees got into treatment programs. MOST WERE CLEAN. A couple lost their probation with the court and went back to jail. (But we were in double digit % wise...)

We also had test done whenever someone was transported to hospital for first aid.

Again no positives challenged. Not all first aide cases involved employees exhibiting detectable drugs in their system.

We had lowest accident rate in our company, and lowest workers comp charges in our division.

A couple of years after I left, we sold that plant and I went back and ran the place for about a year. New buyers gave plenty of warning about their rehiring process.

Remarkably, some folks didn't pass the drug screen.

I had $12 million dollar plant investment on the line the health and welfare of about 50 people, and probaly 200+ family members counting on mommy and daddy to work safe and bring home a paycheck.

I have no regrets about creating for all of these a drugfree workplace.

Every kids' parents came home alive on my watch.

milo

Thanks, Milo. For all of your participation in this thread. It is turning into an interesting exchange. I don't think this is what Blink had in mind...

Well, I checked your link and discovered an aspect of drug testing I was (sort of) aware of, but only had to deal with once. And that protocol followed, I agree there are more answers besides simply 'Hot' or 'Not'.

I watched the television episode referenced by redfred, and have a question that was not covered there, nor at your captioned site: Can the gas chromatograph test differentiate the opiates in my system (after a breakfast roll) from the opiates in the system of a chronic abuser? If I have seen the answer to that here, I do not recall.

Most drug screens I have been involved in seemed more of a circus than a fact-finding mission (this is a personal observation, not a critique). My interest piqued here, I went to Wiki (pretty interesting): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_test

From there... "On-site instant drug testing is becoming more widely used in states allowing it as a more cost-efficient method of effectively detecting drug abuse amongst employees, as well as in rehabilitation programs to monitor patient progress. These instant tests can be used both in urine testing, as well as saliva testing, and the accuracy of the tests depends on the manufacturer, but there are some kits out there that are extremely accurate, holding a 99% correlation to the GC/MS laboratory testing."

These tests are the ones I have seen, and (I understand) they are a 'Hot' or 'Not' result, with no indication of detected substance. For drug tests I have taken myself, or ordered for my employees, this was the 'Red Light' or 'Green Light' being asked for. This is what I was referencing before.

You asked "Can the gas chromatograph test differentiate the opiates in my system (after a breakfast roll) from the opiates in the system of a chronic abuser?"

I am not a GC expert (its been years) so I will stick with the Samhsa three proxy indicators from a QUALITATIVE point of view.

Quantitatively, how many grams of poppy seeds do you think one would have to injest to get to a 2000ng/ml blood opiate level?

I'm thinking that the daily gram level+injections of heroin directly into bloodstream of is quantitatively FAR higher than the nibble on a 2 grams of poppy seeds via digestive and alimentary system route...

But I'll leave that to experts in the field.

Thats like saying the vanillin (artificial vanilla) in the cupcake caused the breathalyzer to blow "hot." could it, yes, redfred showed cases where it wasso found.

but i would say we better check those cupcakes...

As i mentioned in last post to redfred, the attribute type tests you mention could be used for a prescreen, but I would never make a firm decision based solely on attribute data. The follow up with standard lab would be needed from an immediate or reserve sample in the case of any positive reading, from my point of view.

My employees deserve the respect and duty of a variables level test and professional administration and analysis of results. I ain't about cheap.

milo

Hello again Milo.

Well, I checked a number of sites and found a little bit about my question "Can the gas chromatograph test differentiate the opiates in my system (after a breakfast roll) from the opiates in the system of a chronic abuser?"

The short answer seems to be 'kind of'. Internet information is mixed, but most lean towards "Yes, there is a difference, but it is a very, very subtle distinction".

In 1998, the 2000ng/ml blood opiate level replaced the previous limit of 300ng/ml. This change was a response to this particular issue. I should have paid better attention... I think I saw that ingesting about 25 grams of poppy seeds would raise the blood level of an 'average' person to about 2000ng/ml. That is about as much as I put into an entire poppyseed pound cake!

At least anecdotally, the question "Quantitatively, how many grams of poppy seeds do you think one would have to ingest to get to a 2000ng/ml blood opiate level?" is answered. Your estimate of a whole bunch seems spot on!

Hmmnmnm... was the Mythbusters episode filmed 10 years ago? Or were they using some outdated tests, or mission specific tests for some private industry? Dunno.

It seems that, as with most things, EXCESS should be avoided. Do not eat the whole cake, do not chug the vanillin... if you expect to test clean.

Now you provide some useful information that some prediction and analysis can be done.

You have a statistically small sample size. The size of your sample is considerably smaller than the minimum population size to be considered a representative of the 4% of the world marijuana users distribution that I mentioned earlier but that just means that if you get different results you should not be surprised. (By the way this is an asymptotic calculation that for 95% certainty requires 1065 samples. Much smaller than the unemployment number but much larger than your sample group.) So from your sample group you would expect no more than 2 true positives and 0.72 false positives.

So with your population size, one would not expect more than the infrequent single event false positive. I'm certain that had a false positive claim happened, you would have gladly granted a retest or accepted medical proof for the single event cause. ("Of course I tested positive for an opiate. Here's my dentist's prescription for the Vicodin I took two days before the test.") But your results should not be considered representative of a population of 10,000 with even a 10% error.

My point is that without looking at the statistics, one shouldn't just expand the sample size without reflecting what all of the random expected results will be.

Again, thanks for keeping the conversation thoughtful.

My sample size, if you refer to my employee sample, is small. It is representative of the working adults in a small southenr community in the 1990's . It would have no representational claim on say high school students or urban non appalchian communities.

My additiional sample is from my friends work as judge in drug court, and what i am told by Law enforcement at national statte and local levels through our community policing academy.

I am not making claims about world maijuana use- I make no claims at all for that. The world just inflates the denominator. Do i think that 1.3 billion people in China have access to marijuana / No . World is wrong denominator. This discussionwas about us, In general, and I thought Georgia in particular based on example and my shared experience.

But based on monies spent on DEA enforcement, number of people incarcerated, and what I have experienced, 1 in ten is too small a number by far. and 4 in one hundred is substantially underestimating the problem. It is my sincere belief that if you look about one in four, even though the following dat cuts that number in half for most ofthe urban areas.

In the dakotas, yeah, i'll give you a couple of percent typical.

I agree with your expected frequency claim based on my report of my experience. I still hold to the fact that false positives are rare.

And You are correct in that I would consider all the facts and not treat such a test as mere attribute data (red light green light).

When I do a test i am not lookin gfor cheap. I am looking for accuracy and repeatability.

I learned that shooting.

milo

I usually try to eschew obfuscation in my responses here. But you seem to be relishing taking any possible tangent in my arguments here.

The report you cited about marijuana usage in the United States by region showed a 12% expectation for the Boston area and a low of about 2.3% for parts of Iowa. That's nice. You will notice though that in your own reference about Georgia, the state in question, has a range of 3.4% to 5.2% for anywhere but Atlanta which has an expected higher range of 5.21% to 6.65%. So my global average value wasn't that far off. I'm a little surprised that you'd cite a statistics reference that agreed with my estimate. But then again if you won't take the time to read and comprehend my analysis, there's no surprise you don't understand your own source.

In my first statistical analysis I pointed that the number of true positives did not matter when testing such a large volume of people as the entire group of individuals getting unemployment compensation in the state of Georgia. The harm from testing such a large group is more than just the embarrassment to peeing in a cup for all the true negative individuals that did nothing wrong, but the false positive individuals that one should expect to find in testing such a large group of people. These people who have also done nothing wrong now must fight the system to get the below poverty payments that have been paid for and that they anticipated. This is the equivalent harm of kicking somebody while they are down.

I fully understand that in the sample group that was your employees you did not have anybody that claimed a false positive. I fully understand that in your drug testing you used exceptional equipment to minimize a false test. That's nice, it really is. I'm glad you had such a good work experience. But this does not matter. Telling us your favorite dog breed is just as relevant as your experience. Your experience does not scale to this size.

Doing large scale drug testing of people who are down on their luck will harm people.

Come on guys, when you run out of money for luxuries, and vices are luxury items, you stop buying them. Doesn't mean you ought not have bought them when you had the money, especially something like pot, which is no where near as addictive as cigarettes or alcohol.

Drug testing is reserved for the masses. No CEO is subjected to it.

It is a prima facia violation of your 5 amendment rights. Insurance Companies like it for it might let them off the hook for an accident.

Had pilot physical myself one time and the doctor asked me if I smoked pot.

I said, "Yes."

He said, "Don't smoke it when you're flying do you?" I said, "No."

Got my physical.

Last three US Presidents have been known to have used illegal drugs. Current President can't quit smoking cigarettes.

Sometimes, yeah, it's justified to fire somebody for showing up to work drunk or stoned, or do an intervention when they are obviously out of control with something, but if people handle their affairs and perform on the job, on time, show up, and work hard, well, let 'em do what they want on their own time.

Well all I can't help but go ahead and weigh in on this Drug War discussion.

The reality is that just like alcohol, or cigarettes, drugs are vices.

They are also folkways.

People are not robots, and some like to get high, and others don't, and some people think it is their right to tell others how to live, and how to spend their money.

It is convenient that drug usage leaves in the blood, evidence of its use.

We could also find plenty of other things like plastics in blood tests.

There simply is a big difference between being drunk or high on the job, and getting drunk or smoking some pot at a wedding party, or off duty.

Alcohol effects wear off, and so do the effects of pot, and some other drugs that leave some evidence, that alcohol doesn't.

When I was a Security Guard for Rochdale College where all the hallucinogenic drugs were legal in the building, I only had to fight with speed freaks and drunks.

Want to go on and on and on with the Drug War, well go on and on with it.

Discussions like these have been going on and on for over thirty years.

For a commercial drivers license you are legal at .O4. To private pilot a plane you are legal at 8 hours from bottle to throttle. For commercial it is 24 hours since the US Air Pilots got so smashed 8 hours wasn't enough.

There are drugs, and then there are drugs, and like most everything else like food, or plastics, or ideology, moderation is key.

Want to go on with the Drug War, go on with it.

It's done nothing but rip out the heart of the social fabric and replace it with a world mean and unnecessarily dangerous and corrupt for decades.

Yeah, I can see the afterschool special now "Methanphatamines and moderation, they go together like peanut butter and jelly". Who do you think should star in it? We really need some big name actors so it will get the recognition it deserves.

It's like this, it sems that most of the folks on this thread think that the use of illegal drugs is okay as long as it only affects them. It NEVER just affects them. Besides that, it's ILLEGAL. If you want to change that then contact your local government or run for office and try to change the laws, otherwise, pee in that cup.

it sems that most of the folks on this thread think that the use of illegal drugs is okay as long as it only affects them

Your use of the phrase "most of the folks" seems unsupportable. Perhaps one or two think using illegal drugs is OK, but most appear to fall into two groups: 1. the proposed tests are OK, or 2. unreasonable search is not OK, and violates constitutional protections -- the fourth amendment guards against such "police state" practices. I can't see that most people responding to the thread are advocating the personal use of illegal drugs.

try to change the laws, otherwise, pee in that cup.

Obviously illegal drugs are illegal. If those laws need to be changed that is a separate issue. Requiring peeing in the cup for people whom are not under suspicion of having violated drug laws would require a change in laws in a direction that weakens fourth amendment protections. More reasonable (but still too extreme in my view) would be to require random alcohol blood level tests of drivers: if you are driving, you should be suspected of driving drunk, perhaps. This could actually have a beneficial effect... there is clear danger associated with drunk driving, and this would help to get the drinks off the road. But this is too far in the direction of a police state for most patriotic Americans.

there is clear danger associated with drunk driving, and this would help to get the drinks off the road. But this is too far in the direction of a police state for most patriotic Americans.

Thay already do this to an extent, it's called a 'road check' and they do them about a dozen times a year at random places throughout every county in the state. The State Tropers block off a two lane road and to pass through you have to have liscence registration and insurance. If they smell alcohol during any of the back and forth discussion with the officer you're going to have a bad day. But like I said before, pee in that cup and get your check if you haven't been using.

Here is a tidbit:In the US, we spend huge amounts of money attempting to stop illegal drugs using interdiction,eradication,prosecution & encarceration & not rehabilitating anyone after the fact & we have failed miserably. We have spent huge amounts of money making this problem worse & our government is still attempting to proceed in the same manner. Freud would call this crazy, trying to solve a problem in the same manner that failed before. When half of the citizens are behind security gates or protected by alarms/weapons & the other half cannot be employable because of a drug conviction like marihuana will we finally decide to change the manner that this so called drug war is conducted. When the hundred year anniversary is celebrated maybe then we will be able to look back & find the solution to this drug problem in education & rehabilitation, out of the control of the police state who only abuse everyone they touch. Imagine where the trillions of dollars could have been better spent & the really great nation that this money could have produced,but no let us waste lives & destroy the economy first. As we borrow 3 billion dollars a day to promote our way of life on earth, the day will fast arrive when we will be forced to face this problem in a constructive manner & maybe the world will follow us & of course we will say we were right all the time. Gotta love this homeland for better or worse.

Please consider this statement. I wish that I could use marihuana each evening to relieve the pain of arthritis, so I could sleep comfortably. Even with a prescription, this drug cannot be allowed as I operate heavy equipment. I know & so do millions of other marihuana users know that this drug stays in the bloodstream much longer than the "HIGH" ever will,up to 6 weeks, so there is the problem. There is no accurate manner to measure a high dose (as just used it versus used it last week)or low dose, just that you used it & you are denied claims for an accident claim or VA claim. I claim that marihuana is less harmful than alcohol & tobacco,never killed anyone as in overdose & even though it is packed with carcinogens, there is no trigger as nicotine in tobacco. Nicotine prevents epoptosis(defective cell self destruction)from taking place & the def cell continues to grow into a tumor & maybe at some point turns malignant. I smoke marihuana most every friday, taking only 2-3 puffs & there is no residue by monday if there is a random UA, so I retain my job. What a bunch of s**t this whole drug war has become.

I just don't want the money they get being used for drugs.

Nor would I. I don't want to see the money that they deserve* being used for alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, movies, eating out, prostitution, unnecessary luxuries like a car with a value in excess of $1000 or any house with more than 200 sq ft per person, ice cream, cookies, or any other unhealthy foods that might make these despicable people wards of the state, costing us, the good people, even more. I'd also not want to support tax evaders, so perhaps we should do full IRS audits of all unemployed people, going back the full seven years. I'd think that, at a cost of perhaps less than $20,000 per unemployed person, we could implement a system to deny benefits, based on behavioral monitoring, private investigation, background checks, etc. Most of these slime balls have to be doing something wrong, right? How naive to treat them as innocent until proven guilty.

Obviously, overweight people should be denied both unemployment benefits and healthcare benefits. If we are going to make it out of this depression, we need to be both lean and mean. Fat people do not move around fast enough to be productive and take up too much space. It takes more energy to move them around in the transportation system, and they consume more than their fair share of energy for heating and cooling.

* Most employed people, by virtue of having paid taxes and by virtue of having worked for less than their value would otherwise be if their employer did not have to pay unemployment insurance, deserve to get unemployment. In the same way, employed people deserve to get health care, because it is part of a benefit package that comes with having a job -- the employee effectively pays for it, because the employer can pay a higher salary if they did not provide such benefits. If an employee becomes sick, per your logic, then we could cut costs by denying claims by anyone who eats ice cream, because they are wasting our money (that we have paid into the insurance system) in irresponsible ways that could make them sicker, thereby costing us even more.

I don't want to see the money that they deserve* being used for alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, movies, eating out, prostitution, unnecessary luxuries like a car

Although I don't think the money should be used for alcohol or cigarettes, they are legal. The lottery is just an idiot tax. but when you start throwing things out that are illegal such as prostitution and drug abuse you cross a line that you must not see. The whole rant about overweight folks I didn't bother reading because it has nothing to do with this, but I might read it later.

I said it in an earlier post and please get this...life is not fair or equal.

What that means is your life might suck, a lot. But that does not mean that I HAVE to pay for it to be better. If it is of my own free will to give then so be it. I have insurance because I work at a good facility with decent benefits. A year from now I could be out of work and homeless living under a bridge somewhere...that is life and it happens everyday. And if I am stupid enough to not pass a drug test to get my unemployment check then I don't deserve it. That last part about the person eating the ice cream, let them eat as much as they want but don't expect me to pay for the gastric bypass. Besides any person with sense that is on unemployment doesn't want druggies getting checks either. If the system was weeded out of the meth heads then in ten years the unemployment check would not be something that would cause shame, now it's mostly associated with bums, how's that for hope and change?

This thread use to bother me but the more I look at it, I'm starting to like the idea. I like the idea that if I am offended by how my tax dollars might be spent after giving it to an individual, I can have the funds withheld.

I don't like the idea that some of the tax refund checks will become donations to church charities. This is against the constitution rule about the separation of church and state. Wait a minute that's the refund checks so it's not tax money. Well how about the military. Some of them will be committing illegal acts overseas. I want every member of the military to prove to the local authority that they did not commit a criminal act before getting paid.

Wait a minute, somebody said that prostitution is an illegal act here. I want all Federal funding to Nevada to cease immediately. Their defying my laws against prostitution. Those perverts can't use any of my money for their lascivious activities. But what about all those evil doing people that travel to Nevada, we'll link the Travelocity travel information to their refund checks. This is good, if we keep this up kristallnacht will just look like a frat party. Wait a minute fraternities are at Universities. Universities get tax funding and Universities hire grad students that are fraternity brothers. Have you seen those disgusting fraternity videos on the web...

You make a great point.

http://massmoments.org/index.cfm?mid=214

milo

You can say what you want and joke but that's the beauty of all this. Go ahead and try to withhold your tax dollars, give it to some druggies and see how it turns out for you. as for me, I'm going to vote for the man/woman that spends the money the way I want it spent (well at least mostly, they always do something I don't want), and I'm going to speak out against stupid spending. Committing illegal acts cost you money. Run a stop sign, if you don't get in a car accident (which would cost you a deductible at the least), and are spotted by the fuzz, it will cost you money. Try to not pay your taxes because you don't like where it's going and you lose money and they'll throw your butt in jail (as a side note, isn't there something wrong when you can commit murder and get off easier than tax fraud/evasion?). So why is this any different? Use illegal drugs=lose money by not getting check. I guess the only difference is they don't have the money to lose yet.

I got it, let's lock up all of the unemployed,feed them according to a prescribed diet.Make them listen to talk hate radio; Rush or Beck.Maybe we could disallow tobacco,ice cream,gambling,drug use(in jail it is readily available though)no comfortable bed,public toilets for everyone to see,make it a family time where the whole family is jailed & then they all can be denied for being out of work(food stamps would be unnecessary). This way will almost guarantee that there will be a change of administering laws that disallow what is necessary for life & nothing more.When half of the population is behind bars & the other half is behind security gates backed up with alarms & guns, then we will be sure of our security in the homeland.

I wonder what the days will be like when I am perhaps, on chemo for a cancer that can be cured & I think of the difference between driving myself home after a treatment while eating a sandwich versus being driven while I vomit out the window. During this regimen of drugs one must eat well to keep their energy levels high so the body might heal itself. If you live in a state that does not observe medical marihuana, you will not find any other drug that aids improvement of appetite like marihuana. What if I am out of work along with a curable cancer, should I die, commit suicide to avoid the almost unbearable suffering or step forward to be sent up the chimney. What happened to compassion in the Homeland. Illegal drugs are best dealt with by using logic, but that will be too difficult for most of the idiots who think with a closed mind. This drug war needs to end before the unintended forming of new gangs as in Mexico,9 new cartels formed to share in the profits. Now ,when drugs are legalized, where will the out-of-work find employment. You will find it hard to put Romeo back on the farm after he has seen Paris. They will resort to other criminal activity to support the lifestyle & that will be a further problem. This drug war has been implemented for almost a hundred years & it is insane to continue to conduct something using standards that have never worked to any degree. Why must the hurdles be so very high in order to overcome the prejudices that prohibit the logical remedy for the recreational use of drugs? Decriminalize, regulate & tax them with all of the taxes going for education & rehabilitation instead of interdiction, eradication, arrest, prosecution & incarceration. The homeland has been funding a loosing battle against cartels that sells drugs to fund their abilities to fight our armed personnel.If drugs were plentiful & legal there would not be any cartels except as in "organized crime".

Just remember, it was the homelands appetite for these illicit drugs that caused these additional gangs in Mexico. NOT

A memorable headline ran a few months ago in the the local rag (said newspaper may not even be suitable for wrapping fish):

China Sensors Internet Access

"China Sensors Internet Access"

Gee... I wonder which Spill Choker they are using?

As it exists currently,a newspaper is not good for very much these days, but I definitely never develop any opinions from the printed news except maybe on the internet...

What a wonderful level of compassion we have here. So what will happen to the guy on unemployment who has a tooth extraction? Will he/she have to make his medical records public to explain why he failed that drug test, or must he suffer to get half a paycheck that taxes are not taken out of. What about all of the false positive results that this large scale testing will produce. Maybe this politician has stock in a medical lab that will be given these tests. I have an idea, the next time this politician suggests this again somebody should ask him to do an immediate random drug test with the results published before election day.

I think all public servants should have to submit to random UA as a way of supporting the damned "Drug War" that is breaking the bank & homeland apart.

I don't want a job as a drug tester.

Past few Presidents have been drug testers.

Think the current president tested some.

Testing drugs is an honest job.

What's wrong with some rules? Stay drug free and report for community service at the church/city hall when you're not actively seeking employment.

Would a technical class be out of the question?

I collected unemployment compensation years ago here, and all you had to do is call in once a week.

Excuse me but I get the idea that you seem to think that as soon as somebody becomes unemployed they immediately are suspect for recreational drug use. I'm not saying that there aren't people out there that work the system, but why should everyone be immediately labeled as a drug user until proven innocent. I don't know what fascist country you grew up in, but where I'm from there has to be some reason for that kind of a privacy invasion. Now if a person arrived at am unemployment office obviously wasted to discuss their attempts at finding work, then a social worker has grounds to insist on a test, particularly if the person drove to the office.

It bothers me also that after somebody paid their taxes to support unemployment you wish that they have to meet a new hurdle to get some back.

(Why am I so grumpy lately. I really don't like this. )

Never mind. I'm gone.

Actually, employer pay into unemployment fund. Not regular citizens.

Georgia has a plan to reduce workers comp costs and accidents to impaired employees. It was called "Drugs don't work in Georgia" When I was an employer there.

To be hired, one had to be drug free.

To collect unemployment, one has to be able and willing to work.

If one has drugs in system then they are not "able" to work under that program. Its a pretty simple syllogism:

Must be able to be hired to collect unemployment.

Drugs disqualify one from being hired.

Therefore, drugs disqualify one from collecting unemployment.

The object of the act (providing unemployment assistance) is to provide compensation for unemployed persons ready and willing and able to obtain employment.

Druggies are none of those according to the "Drugs don't work in Georgia" program. Sorry to stomp on your last non grumpy neuron pair. Maybe tomorrow will be abetter day, for ya, redfred.

Say is that a Cheshire moon out there due west?

milo

I see no need to enforce marihuana laws where the drug tests indicate a concentration low enough to allow productive & safe work to be performed. It is a known fact that pot can remain in the system for up to six weeks & certainly nowone can be high for that period of time. I for one see marihuana as a drug that is less harmful than alcohol & tobacco, that kill on the highways & in the cancer wards. ZEven though smoke from marihuana is packed with carcinogens, there is no trigger like nicotine in tobacco. Pure nicotine sulfate can dissolve skin. The high from pot is for a very short time & then there is no hangover. What a great drug for relieving tension, pressure from glaucoma, nausea associated with chemo therapy( the difference is leaving the treatment eating a sandwich instead of puking out the window)relief from the seizures from epilepsy. Hemp, that cannot produce any high can make great cloth,paper,sound deadening material,hemp oil & many more products & this is without any herbicide,pesticide or chemical fertilizer or crop subsidies(for cotton) as in the homeland. Only in america can such problems exist concerning a drug that never killed anyone & where there is absolutely no chance of overdose.

I think we understand "what you see." You've been pretty clear.

May I politley ask you to try to "See from the point of view of the employer" that He has all the risk, and so takes steps to control that risk.

Employer is morally responsible to his employees to maintain a safe workplace.

Employer is held responsible by law to maintain a safe workplace.

In the absence of your medical or pharmacological credentials, employer will use societally and legally accepted standards for evaluating risk.

In Georgia, Employer also gets discount on workers comp coverage for enforcing "drug free workforce."

Discount on workers comp means lower cost base. Possibly more profits for him and to share with employees.

Drug free workforce means don't have to guess whether or not a low dose is going to impair or not.

I appreciate your passion and your efforts to help us to see your side of this.

If I ever start a legal Medical marijuana company I will Hire you instantly to be our spokesperson.

Until that day comes, your opinions remain just that.

And by the way, America is not the only country that has difficulties with drugs that never killed any one. Try your marijuana enterprise/hobby/therapy in say, Turkey. Cambodia, China. Yemen.

Let us know how that goes.

Best regards

milo

ps: Sue, sorry no head lines.

I see most of the posts here seem to be firmly on one side or the other. Not too much fence straddling.

I hold two distinct views on this sort of thing... I hold neither of these with a rigid grip.

First, I do view this sort of thing as more government intrusion (interference, regulation, heavy-handed dictum). How much government is enough? How long until we tell the government ENOUGH of you! We are able to function as a society without all of this regulation. You cannot have an aquarium in a barbershop; this is a law in Tennessee (http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=12030941). Huh? Who thought that guppies and goldfish were such a danger to society that they needed to be regulated?

But second, I don't want a stoner to collect. I have a suspicious nature, and I do feel someone with an addictive inclination will spend the (read as all of our) money in the pursuit of an illegal habit. An Illegal Habit. How does society know a guy is a stoner? Drug Test, that is how. Yet, how do we test for chronic gamblers? Alcoholics? Child or spouse abusers? Prostitutes, or their purveyors... or customers thereof? Should they be allowed to collect unemployment unfettered, and exclude the recreational drug user from the compensation system?

Perhaps we are not able to function as a society without all of this regulation.

<sigh> Sticky wicket, this.

Well, I think it's a wonderful idea to test recipients of our tax dollars. We start with UC folks, then congressmen, mail carriers, farmers in the soil bank, tobacco growers, investment bankers, all school kids and about 80% college students, military personnel, everybody on social security or medicare, anyone caught driving on an interstate highway, boaters on inland waterways, hunters on federal land, grazers on federal land, ... oops. Maybe I just try figuring out who doesn't have to pee.

Don't forget those slackers on Medicaid and Medicare. One positive drug result and we can pull all of that wasted money away. That'll keep the cost of healthcare down.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if a veteran who needs VA help can be denied with a positive UA for any illegal drugs. Yes, I do not want any veteran "stoner"getting my tax money, besides they have enough time on their hands at the underpasses holding signs that they are veterans. If they do not want to go to jail, then they should move out of Houston city limits where they arrest them for loitering. There is not enough compassion in the homeland any more for those who just do not fit in.

Thats a nice way to pull the plug on expensive life support. Sorry, we discovered that you smoked some pot before you fell down the stairs, but it must have been a while back, but sorry anyway we are pulling the plug because it is the law."no help for druggies"

What a novel new homeland, where everyone will pea in the cup & then we will finally be free of the druggys(as in jailed) who will suffer when they need medical marihuana or maybe an opium tea to relieve severe pain that legal drugs will provide some very expensive & patented, undesirable side effects,like organ failures & assorted other great side effects, but don't get me wrong, it must be legal to be good. NOT

I really believe that I could earn more money by begging, especially if I was earning minimum wage. I would need to select the right corner or intersection where the cop on the beat would not harass me as a vet with a sign. Maybe a crutch or wheel chair would be handy or maybe a limp & a beard. that's the key to success. Of course, I would still want benefits that I earned thru my employer. that is a given.

Now, there's a wonderful idea. We should think about making the homeless take a urine test before allowing them to sleep under bridges. If they don't pass, they have to live in a house instead. And, astronauts - have you ever noticed they seldom seem to go to the bathroom. What are they hiding? "OK, buddy, hold the cup above your head and pee in it!"

Guess no one found any funny headlines. Oh, well.

I could put in the ones from a local paper, if I had saved them, that had a local business relocating for lack of workers and unemployment hitting a 30 year high but I wasn't sure it was funny?

Or the governor wanting to use lottery funds to treat gambling addiction?

With the exception of alcohol-testing, most drug testing methods do not actually test for the presence of drugs. This is because most drugs break down very quickly in the body. Therefore, the test looks for the chemicals that remain after the drug breaks down.One of the easiest ways to pass a urine sample drug test is to use a high-quality detox drink i also recommand to try synthetic urine . When it comes to learning how to pass a urine drug test, you’re actually spoilt for choice, as long as you know what to do.For more information about this way check out this site www.lpath