Drug Testing the Jobless

Hi Everyone,

I thought you might find my latest blog post interesting, "Drug Testing Unemployed Kansans." I compare current policy thinking to New Deal policy action. The difference is remarkable.

http://nddaily.blogspot.com/

--Brent www.wpatoday.org wpatoday@gmail.com

substance abuse is a health issue, not an act of moral terpitude....

just couldn't resist the oppurtunity to use that word/phrase....one of my favorites

I have absolutely no problem with drug testing anyone, employed or going for employment. This world is weird and any way my employer can reasonably and within reason secure my safety and that of my co-workers is most welcome.

What's the issue?

Hi Smindles,

For me, the two main issues are (a) privacy, and (b) singling out the poor to test.

With respect to privacy, if I've been working for a company for, let's say, 10 years, and I am then laid off, I do not feel the government then has the right to coerce any bodily fluids from me (blood, urine) for testing, before I get unemployment insurance benefits--benefits I've paid for either directly, or indirectly through suppressed wages.

With respect to singling out the poor, I think it's unfair to test people receiving TANF or unemployment insurance, and not also test people receiving the mortgage interest deduction, child tax credit, etc., on their tax returns, because those people could also be using their public-bestowed benefit to buy and use drugs (some % of them most certainly are).

Remember, this is drug testing to receive a benefit, not drug testing for a job. If an employer wants to drug test a person they want to hire, or periodically test existing employees, they can.

--Brent

Drug Testing is all police state nonsense.

Unless someone is a pilot, it serves no real purpose to the public.

About a decade and a half ago, i was in a predicament that involved "Drug testing"...here is what happened

i repeatedly was found with positive results for all kinds of stuff, which eventually forced me to go to a private lab and pay for my own hair samples...

I got 3 hair samples each with a three month look-back, i got these with a week or more overlap so there was no time period unchecked..

60$ each time s 3 = $180 cost..

the testing agency (urine) told me that they were aware that tests were not perfect, however they would use there "flawed" results anyway...

i theatened to sue the agency, and the whole issue quietly disappeared
leaving me 180 dollars poorer

so, even though false positives are indeed rare, they do exist, and they put you on the spot of proving your inocence....i dont want to go through that again, if anyone else wants to subject themselves to such a thing, then "god bless you"