Remember Florida drug testing welfare recipients? Yeah...about that...

Inre: drug testing and pay; As an engineer who got a job as such in 2009 and twice in 2010, I ended up pissing in cups three times in 13 months. Full time employment, not contracting. Working in the aviation industry, for what it's worth. And one of these jobs was in a city that has a fairly thriving medical marijuana situation.

I don't know how many of my fellow engineers in the city I live in working in the industry I work in do drugs. But I know a number of engineers here that drink. A lot. Different drug of choice I guess, and one of them seems like a bigger source of problems but that isn't the one people get tested for.

If I have to take one to get the job that pays for welfare they should have to take one to get my confiscated money.

fritzsch wrote: To an extent I agree. However, something doesn't sit right with me in that if you take a $5 hit, you are no longer eligible for help to get food, heat, clothing etc. At the same time , you bear the responsibility of your decisions. Also not providing aid doesn't exactly solve the problem either, and I don't think those people should be written off. And then how do you tell from a drug test whether its addiction or not...if you are addicted to drugs, its in the best interests of everyone to get that person help. But I am also not exactly for legalization of marijuana, but maybe it should be. Suffice to say I do not know what is the correct route. This certainly is not a black and white issue, and I don't think this law was the best solution. Problematic to say the least And what of the kids? If a parent tests positive, does that mean no food for the kids? Seems like its not their fault but are victims.

Go research how Portugal has handled the drug problem over the last decade.

Can't believe I didn't post the link! ARGH!

I've posted one from the Miami Herald. It's not the article I read when I posted this but the news is the same.

If welfare recipients should be drug tested shouldn't politicians? Hell, they have more of an effect on my life than welfare recipients. Why do politicians get a pass?

Here's the link. I added it to the initial post as well. Florida drug testing costs state more money than it saves.

Up here it's pretty common knowledge that the state government and legislature is full of party animals. One example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Ravenel So yeah maybe these guys should be tested right along with state employees and welfare recipients. State law covering state employee testing: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess111_1995-1996/bills/3778.htm

carguy123 wrote: And I'm sure they haven't all been tested yet, plus what are the odds they can continue to test negative. I have very little faith in the welfare system or recipients and that comes from personal experience not a baseless prejudice.

Carguy and I rarely agree on much, but on this, we are 100% agreed...

akamcfly wrote:

Volksrodden wrote: Odds are the people doing the testing where not using there own piss. sad thing is that it is real easy to use some else piss for those test. if the person conducting the test does not do this right, the test subject can easily pass with using some one else piss.

I've had to do random piss tests for work - your comment is laughable.

and Ive seen people try to fake it, and pass...so yours is just as so

You can buy fake pee on the internet to pass a test.

And those "cleaning" solutions, all they do is make your pee yellow and raise the specific gravity, so when you overhydrate to pass the test, it isn't as obvious.

The easiest way to pass is to drink HUGE amounts of water, so you dilute your piss below the ppm they test for.

Xceler8x wrote: Can't believe I didn't post the link! ARGH! I've posted one from the Miami Herald. It's not the article I read when I posted this but the news is the same. If welfare recipients should be drug tested shouldn't politicians? Hell, they have more of an effect on my life than welfare recipients. Why do politicians get a pass? Here's the link. I added it to the initial post as well. Florida drug testing costs state more money than it saves.

Agreed, but it isn't going to happen.

I don't agree with this blatant violation of the 4th Amendment period. But if I have to be subjected to it to keep my good job that the gov't takes a roughly 1/3 of what I earn, then people on the receiving should be clean as well.

I wonder if more or less than 2.6% of the people posting on these forums would fail a drug test. I'd have no problem believing that 3% of your average non-welfare citizens smoke pot.

Mitchell wrote: Yeah, because the poor are pretty much animals, right? Might as well treat them as such!

Umm...have you ever taken a serious drug test? They watch you take your junk out and pee in the cup.

z31maniac wrote: You can buy fake pee on the internet to pass a test. And those "cleaning" solutions, all they do is make your pee yellow and raise the specific gravity, so when you overhydrate to pass the test, it isn't as obvious. The easiest way to pass is to drink HUGE amounts of water, so you dilute your piss below the ppm they test for.

You also should gather your sample from mid piss. The first bit usually has a higher concentration of whatever.

Josh wrote: But a guy mopping floors at the piggly wiggly smokes weed once in a while, maybe he gets fired for it, and then can't find another job because of that on his record. You want to tell him he can't get food stamps to feed his kids on top of that? Yeah, I know all the BS about how he deserves it because he knew it was illegal when he toked up blah blah self righteous blah.

Step 1: With the first part I quoted, seek help and if not, where is CPS. But for the love of god, don't come asking for money I've been forced to pay into the system.

Step 2: With the second part, you've agreed with the rest of us in a sarcastic witty sentence.

Its the same as everything else in this nation......if you don't like the consequenses, DON"T DO IT.....That is all this conversation is, not about legalizing whatever or arguements for that.

If it was a serious drug test they'd have you go to a medical facility and use a hair sample.

pres589 wrote: If it was a serious drug test they'd have you go to a medical facility and use a hair sample.

thank you.....been there done that, thrice......lol

MrJoshua wrote: Lol-Mitchel-I had to drug test when I got my job at Winn Dixie, didn't you? Edited to try to be a little less snippy.

Of course I did, and I could have taken a drug test at any point during the last nine and change years (since I began my employment there) and I would have tested clean. I may be okay with marijuana, but that does not mean that I am a participant. Even if it was legal, I would not mess with it.

rotard wrote:

Mitchell wrote: Yeah, because the poor are pretty much animals, right? Might as well treat them as such!

Umm...have you ever taken a serious drug test? They watch you take your junk out and pee in the cup.

Thankfully, the one test that I have taken in my life did not require a guard checking me out, so I guess I haven't ever taken a "serious" drug test.

It really doesn't affect me one way or the other..but the strangest thing I've found is that when I was a middle-class professional making $50K a year, there was no testing at all. I applied for a $8 an hour job at Big Lots, and they want me to pee in a cup if I'm hired. What's up with that?

The reason "we" have to take a piss test to get hired is for workman's comp insurance. The liability of having someone on drugs at work is bad. If an accident happens and the worker at fault tests positive, you're fired with no benefits. My wife works at a warehouse store, if a forklift driver drops or just damages a pallet, bam, straight to a piss test. My co-worker got in accident in a customer's car and he was also required to go straight to a test clinic. If he was dirty, our insurance might not have paid the claim. It's all about (insurance) liability.

I don't see the insurance liability of an out of work person using drugs. In other words "I have to piss in a cup to get a job, so you have to piss in a cup to get welfare" is not a valid argument. Completely different scenarios.

Making the assumption that the druggies just didn't piss or they faked it is a HUGE and unfair conclusion to jump to. The fact is the testing is costing more money than costs saved by cutting off the users. And since "saving taxpayer dollars" was the argument used to start the testing = FAIL.

how many people were applying per month for welfare participation vs how many are applying after the public notice about having to pee in a cup? If there are less people applying now because they know they will get caught, then Id say its doing its job.

Whenever I read an article specifically saying something is "wastefull" or "thrifty", and the topic is state/local/fed budgeting, I immediately turn on suspect mode - they can turn ANY cash stat on its ear to make it do whatever the reporting groups agenda wants...

In reply to Cone_Junky:

I'd like to see conclusive proof of how much $$ that 2.6% off saved......46k is approx 2.75 people for a year where I'm from.

Edit: Otto, it is "TOOK ERRR JERBS!!!!"

I think the argument isn't "I have to piss test for my job so you have to piss test for welfare", it's "You'll have to piss test for a job so if you can't do that, no welfare"

In reply to bluej:

and your second point is just as accurate for myself......if they can't/don't want to work to get paid due to an addiction, why should taxpayer money that could be used better pay them for sitting at home?

The kids are either placed with a family member, or the benefits are given to someone else living in the household if the person tests positive.

Cone_Junky wrote: The reason "we" have to take a piss test to get hired is for workman's comp insurance.

How does testing me before I'm an employee, or had an accident at work, make any sense? How does that ward off any future liability?

Drug testing AFTER an accident at work. Sure, no questions or concerns with that.

Just the start of the erosion of the 4th Amendment.