Not at many of the places I have worked, LOL. I am amazed how many places will have one thing in the employee handbook but so long as it does not affect the job, don't care what you do when you leave for the day and therefore not test upon starting the job.

 

That is the calculated risk you take. If they do decide to test and you are using you have no one to blame but yourself. But most white collar jobs for big corporations do test. Union jobs normally tie testing into accidents at work or showing signs of use.

 

There is zero reason why someone collecting social welfare benefits should not be expected to be drug free. Heck I don't even care if they all were legal. Even then if you are collecting benefits from tax money no drugs for you.

So long as the dope is being paid for out of their pocket, I don't think most people really care. Now, if the dope is being paid for with a welfare check, I would say most people care. Do you not agree?

I think you're on the right track. Then again, if drug habits escalate, as they often do, then one frequently sees the user turn to a life of crime in order to fuel his or her habit. So I think there's more to this than simply trying to define the argument in terms of public money vs. private money.

You can slice it and dice it any way you want, but a subsidy is a subsidy -- whether the recipient is on welfare or Dick Cheney at Halliburton.

 

Should farmers receive subsidies?

 

Should colleges and universities receive subsidies/grants for research? All those grants are is funding something that the government feels is beneficial to the public at large, in the case of universities, knowledge. The government also gives oil companies incentives to search for new supplies of oil whether that be in the Gulf of Mexico or else where. The incentives lower the financial risk of doing such exploration should the areas explored turn up nothing but encourages oil companies to keep looking for new sources to lower the US dependence on foreign oil. Justified or not?

 

What about research hospitals? Should they get grants? The hope is that new cures and preventative medicine and procedures are found. Or are the high salaries research doctors receive (generally much higher than doctors who practice on patients) not justified and such grants should be ended.

 

Again, what corporate welfare is justified and what is not? It is not as black and white as many assume it is.

Not at many of the places I have worked, LOL. I am amazed how many places will have one thing in the employee handbook but so long as it does not affect the job, don't care what you do when you leave for the day and therefore not test upon starting the job.

 

We just changed our policy to where everyone has to pass a drug test before being hired. We even use temporary employees, and once their hours are worked, they have to pass a test before we will hire them full time.

Should farmers receive subsidies?

 

Should colleges and universities receive subsidies/grants for research? All those grants are is funding something that the government feels is beneficial to the public at large, in the case of universities, knowledge. The government also gives oil companies incentives to search for new supplies of oil whether that be in the Gulf of Mexico or else where. The incentives lower the financial risk of doing such exploration should the areas explored turn up nothing but encourages oil companies to keep looking for new sources to lower the US dependence on foreign oil. Justified or not?

 

What about research hospitals? Should they get grants? The hope is that new cures and preventative medicine and procedures are found. Or are the high salaries research doctors receive (generally much higher than doctors who practice on patients) not justified and such grants should be ended.

 

Again, what corporate welfare is justified and what is not? It is not as black and white as many assume it is.

I'm not up to speed on farm subsidies, set-aside payments from the ASCS, etc. If such helps the family farmer stay in business, then that's different than giving breaks to corporate mega-farms. If Exxon makes $9.5 billion in a quarter, they don't need federal subsidies. Research grants are fine. Wouldn't put them in the same class as food stamps or corporate welfare, though. You're right, Bert. It's not as black and white as many assume. No-bid contracts -- like we saw in Iraq -- are also a form of corporate welfare.

I'm not up to speed on farm subsidies, set-aside payments from the ASCS, etc. If such helps the family farmer stay in business, then that's different than giving breaks to corporate mega-farms. If Exxon makes $9.5 billion in a quarter, they don't need federal subsidies. Research grants are fine. Wouldn't put them in the same class as food stamps or corporate welfare, though. You're right, Bert. It's not as black and white as many assume. No-bid contracts -- like we saw in Iraq -- are also a form of corporate welfare.

 

I really don't think how big and profitable or small and feeble should enter into the equation. What should be entered into the equation is, how confident are we that the the subsidy investment will yield a greater amount back to the country than the dollar amount of the subsidy or grant itself? I tend to be somewhat critical of farm subsidies. I often wonder if such subsidies are simply keeping inefficient farm operations afloat when the market alone should be determining prices and farms having to reform their pratices. I just don't quite get paying taxes to the government so that money can be given to farms so the prices of food stay lower at the grocery?? Now if organizations like Farm Aid want to support the small family farm, great! I have supported Farm Aid myself. In that case, it is people spending their own money how they want to not the government spending our money regardless to the wishes of tax payers.

 

Also, I tend to find it inconsistent how some people find one type of corporate welfare acceptable (farms, university research, hospital research, etc.) but other unacceptable (large corporations given incentives to explore oil reserves regardless to their size or profitability). Let's not kid ourselves, regardless to being not for profit, many of today's universities have become LARGE corporations with multibillion dollar endowments which officers (presidents, vice presidents) who earn corporate officer type compensation but rarely do people belly ache over even more tax dollars going to them. Take a look at the highest paid State employees. The top ones will be Pitino, Cal and probably Strong. You won't have to go much futher to find the doctors in the university research hospitals making very large salaries. Not for profit or not, these are LARGE corporations with high paid officers but no one bats an eye at grants they get.

Everyone gets some sort of support from the government.

Agree with this also. If you test positive for a prescription drug, you better have an Rx for it...

 

I would imagine that's the case. For people who know how to "work the system" so to speak, I'd imagine that they know a crooked doctor or even how to "work" a clean one to get around this though.

 

I grew up in Eastern Kentucky, where people were third and fourth generation welfare recipients and though some people might not be the most educated, the tricks of the trade for things like that which were passed down would surprise people.

 

Working in a law office and in a legal aide type setting now, I'm amazed at how poorly some people spell, yet they can spell the name for pharmaceuticals perfectly fine.

 

Was looking at this newspaper for another reason, but thought this link was relevant.

Edited October 15, 201312 yr by JokersWild24

I'm all for helping those who can't help themseleves i.e. kids or the elderly. Let's not act like drugs stay in your system to long . I don't think you should be rewarded for bad decision making. I think you should be able to retest and reapply. But if you fail the test I see no reason to get you benefits. If that means you can not support your kid then maybe they should be moved to a different enviroment.

 

At the end of the day the only person who can be blamed is the person who broke the law. Now in a perfect world the law wouldn't exist as currently written.

 

It all goes back to personal responsibility. I understand we are a civilized society and a wealthy one at that. But there are laws and we can't let people abuse them. If we don't think certain drugs deserves equal punishment then lets first fight those laws.

 

 

Depends on the drug and type of test. Some drugs, like benzos stay in urine for over a month.

 

If it's a hair test, you can detect most drugs for around 90 days.

Joe made his bed now he has to lay in it.

 

I've stated on here many times I'm against he war on drugs. But if drugs are illegal and private companies have testing , then people who recieve benefits from the tax payers should have to pass a similar test. I don't care if there is only one person caught a year. No person should be able to use the welfare system and take drugs.

 

I'm tired of the excuse of what about the kids. If his own father doesn't care enough why should my pocket book be hurt.

 

 

I can respectfully disagree with any of the posts on this or any other topic and understand where you might be coming from. I will never respect the thinking that kids are being used as an excuse. To take it further anyone truly disabled and cannot help themselves or the elderly. My moral compass just will not allow that and I truly believe the vast majority of citizens don't either no matter your political, religious, or social outlook life. In fact, what we do in this country that makes no sense to get them out of generational poverty is put them in sections of cities and isolate them from the genearal population, have the kids attend schools in those neighborhoods and then in the schools put them in leveled classes to isolate them even more. Then we wonder why crime is high, schools underperform, and it just cycles through because it really is all they know.

 

Instead of being inclusive, we are very exclusive. It will never change with that model because throwing money at the problem is easy and gives the false illiusion of helping more than it does. We need to invest more in an inclusive environment. Much more difficult and imposing on everyone. I think it would be great if we could change these kids environments, but not many of these kids get adopted and are they truly better in foster care ( that's a real crap shoot), plus the costs for that is enormous. It just isn't an option that is feasible. Our country has outstanding and many very effective charitable organizations, companies, and individuals that go way beyond what they have to and we still cannot and will not help all those truly in need without government assistance.

 

Adults that have made poor choices and not taken the opportunities this country offers is definitely another story and can and should be debated. Our children are not excuses, they are real.

 

Absolutely! The condition that returning to drug use would immediately suspend benefits would have to be part of the equation. My big thing is if someone is using and they are paying for it on their own dime, I dont' get too bent up about it. When they are doing it on others taxes, that ticks me off.

 

I guess I just always assumed you leaned similar to Rockmom but oh no, I was wrong. Lol. I fully expect an retort from Rocky soon. Lol

 

It's not like I'm Cindy Sheehan or something. :lol: I don't really have TOO much issue with drug testing anyone for any reason.

Some states have decided to drug test adults who qualify for welfare. Statistics that I read prior to this showed that this was going to be a bad idea. Experts who do these things believed only 6% of welfare recipients were frequent drug users and the cost to test would not outweigh by a long shot the savings in denying benefits to those that are frequent users.

 

The early results are out in at least two states Utah and Florida. In Utah only 2.6% tested positive and 2% in Florida. Now there is the variable that some did not apply due to the testing and we only have a few months of data, which leads me to believe the 6% number is probably pretty accurate.

 

This is an idea that let a value system of some, many, a lot, I don't know has gotten in the way of good fiscal sense...I am not saying there are no problems in the welfare system, we all know there is abuse, but it appears drug use is not one. States should think really, really hard before doing this. It just doesn't make sense no matter how obvious we think it might be.

 

One question....is Joe's drug of choice cocaine? I mean...Joe Blow.....

I would imagine that's the case. For people who know how to "work the system" so to speak, I'd imagine that they know a crooked doctor or even how to "work" a clean one to get around this though.

 

I grew up in Eastern Kentucky, where people were third and fourth generation welfare recipients and though some people might not be the most educated, the tricks of the trade for things like that which were passed down would surprise people.

 

Working in a law office and in a legal aide type setting now, I'm amazed at how poorly some people spell, yet they can spell the name for pharmaceuticals perfectly fine.

 

Was looking at this newspaper for another reason, but thought this link was relevant.

 

There will always be people that try to cheat the system, regardless of what that system may be. That's just how some people are wired. It's virtually impossible to eliminate that.

I'm not up to speed on farm subsidies, set-aside payments from the ASCS, etc. If such helps the family farmer stay in business, then that's different than giving breaks to corporate mega-farms. If Exxon makes $9.5 billion in a quarter, they don't need federal subsidies. Research grants are fine. Wouldn't put them in the same class as food stamps or corporate welfare, though. You're right, Bert. It's not as black and white as many assume. No-bid contracts -- like we saw in Iraq -- are also a form of corporate welfare.

You're sure stuck in Exxon, they must be the flavor of the day for thinkprogress. Since you broth them up its funny you fail to mention what they pay in tax. Let me help you...in 2012 the paid $30+ billion in tax. So enlighten us, when you pay $30 billion in tax and get less then a $1 billion in "subsidies" where is the issue?

One question....is Joe's drug of choice cocaine? I mean...Joe Blow.....

 

That made me laugh, Cindy.