Got this in my e-mail today....

"Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?"

If you had to try to feed your family and get by on $350 a month you'd get loaded too.

Or maybe get a job???????

Besides without the checks they'd steal from us tax payers anyways. Or go to prison where we pay again. Should have done a draft and sent the meth heads into Iraq first. They'd strip the place or die trying.

For some people with not so much as even a high school degree, it aint easy to get a stable job, thus making it difficult to get by....

I get that, welfare should be there to help people that try to get back on there feet. I am not heartless, but have a hard time seeing people that get subsidies from the government just continue to live the way they are living.

I would feel no different if it were my son or daughter. I will help anyone who is trying to help themselves. I just don't believe in a free lunch for life program.

A few bad eggs give the entire welfare system a bad name.

Welfare is usually for children. The question is whether we are willing to take the children away from a parent based on that drug test, since they obviously have all ready proven they need assistence from the state to care for the children. I personally think it is a good idea. Its the question of where they are getting the money to buy the drugs from that bothers me. Most likely they are using the money the state provided for their children. That is the real problem.

If only it were that simple. I did an internship several years ago for the social services department for the county I lived in at that time. After seeing my millionth teen mom with no job skills, no husband, and drug or alcohol problems, I still don't know what the answer is to prevent all this in the first place. I don't like the idea or the actual act of anyone sponging off me either, but Like Irie said, you'd be gettting high too.

Well then maybe they should have stayed in school, instead of spreading there seeds. basic education is free, last time i checked.

Maybe we should go back to the days of Debtors' prison, the Workhouse, and the Orphanage.

...Because THAT worked out so well.

How about an extra tax on registered republicans and other religious fanatical organizations who are against birth control?

Here's a novel idea, why don't employers base evaluation of employees on performance at work instead of prying into their private life? Unless they want to pay you for a 24 hour day, put in an honest eight hours and what you do on your own time is nobody's business but your own, I say.

Finally, a reply that makes sense.

My employer doubts I could pass a drug test, therefore he never gives a second thought to wasting hard earned dollars on a test that has nothing at all to do with my sales performance.

ISO

Against birth controll??? WTF? Or against giving minors birth controll without the consent of parents?

How about both? "preach abstinence isn't working".

The only people who should be subject to work related drug testing are those who affect public safety (airline pilots, etc.) and professional athletes whose organizations prohibit drug use as a condition of playing.

My ex works in transit, and because all the bus drivers are subject to drug testing, everyone else who works there is as well, secretaries, janitors, managers and desk jockies . . .

I'm fortunate to have bosses that are friends outside of work, and we have an understanding. I give them an honest day and they don't hassle me about my politics after 5:30 PM. A couple of years ago I turned down a job that payed $100,000 through the front door with three weeks payed vacation, but turned it down, among other reasons, because they required urine testing. There's more to life than money. Keeping those who are willing to have your back in close proximity and distancing yourself from those that don't is where it's at. That includes wives.

While I hate intrusion into privacy, I do think a employer should have the right to require drug tests if he wants to. Not because he should care what a person does on their own time, but rather because it could be an indicator of an up coming problem, an explaination of unsual behavior or an easier way to rid themself of a liability. I have known of more then one blue collar worker that started embezzling and clost their companies dearly. One guy I know who had his own company worked up to a coke habit of over a $1000.00 a day (I thnk he said he was up to $10,000 a day at the very end) before he collasped his own company into bankruptcy and lost everything. In that case it only hurt himself and his family, but amazing he had so much energy he was doing twice as much work as before. Until the very end, no one knew what was going on.
There is also a question of liability involved. What would happen if an employee comes to work stoned then gets hurt on the job. What if he delivers a package and hits and kills someone. I never have had enough employees to justify it, but I have had an employee embezzle from me and another (who drove a company vehicle) relapse on a bad cocaine habit and end back up on the street. I got lucky in that I wasn't harmed financially much, but either situation could have ended up ruining my company.

Krijack,

Then prosecute for embezzling or poor work performance and stay out of the guy's private life. Screening for drug use by employees as a warning of potential problems begs the question of where does it stop? Don't hire overweight people cuz they'll use more medical benefits due to poor health? Don't hire diabetics, don't hire young women who get pregnant and take maternity leave. I'm not advocating drug use. I'm just saying I don't think you have a right to interfere with an employee's life if he or she is effectively providing you the labor you hired.

Sg

BTW: My wife was the ONLY person in my life that did not back me up on that decision. Big F'n surprise.

Salmo,
I tried to prosecute for embezzling, the county refused even look at the evidence. All she did was collect the mail, sign the checks that came in into her own name and walked out the door at the end of the week with $10,000 of my money. I sued and won a judgement. Big deal. Now I was out more. Luckly she got her life together and had to pay me back when she went to buy a house later on.
Sometimes its not that easy to fire someone. If they are union it can take forever to prove they are not doing their work or shouldn't be driving a vehicle. Without drug tests to back you up, it could be near impossible.

Anytime an employee gets into a truck, the employer can be held liable. To say an employer can't take action to protect himself when he is liable is unfair. I also wonder what the liability to a employer is if he suspects an employee and does nothing and the employee hurts himself on the job. In reality, there are few jobs out there where an employee cannot put his employer at risk through drug use. An engineer uses the wrong calculations and noone catches them until after a project is started or something goes wrong. A fast food worker thinks it funny to toss something into the deep fryer that then explodes. A teacher or caretaker leaves some pills around and a kid steals them and overdoses. A doctor or nurse makes a mistake. Part of owning a business involves taking on risks, but it also requires a person to take means to minimize them. Suspecting drug use may not be enough to legally allow an employer to take action (and shouldn't be), proving can be.

I am not suggesting that anyone who uses drugs is a bad employee or a risk, only that some drug use in some people can have that effect. It should be up to the employer to decide what risks he is willing to take and the employee what he or she should put up with. In the case of government workers and large corporations, the unions have a big part in what is allowed. In smaller industries, the employees have a choice of leaving or starting their own companies.

In employment, I do not feel this is an intrusion into private affairs. It s harder in terms of other government services and such. Most people would agree that a drug test for marijunna would be unreasonable to get a drivers license, but what about evidence of a heavy heroin or crack cocaine addiction. What about for foster care, adoption or running a daycare. I think most people would like to know if the person taking care of their kids is a crack addict or Meth addict. And don't think it is that easy to tell. It often isn't until the very end. The whole question is a murky one. I for one am against any testing other than for employment purposes, but can easily see arguments going the other way.

I will never agree that an employer has the right to delve into your personal life and we, as a whole, are weak for allowing it. Now they check your credit too. Why should bad credit bar someone from being hired as, say, a truck driver? Because he "may" get desperate?

I say test all CEO's and politicians on a daily basis. Notice they whom are responsible for yet another erosion of our rights are exempt?

Myself, I've worked for many major corps and never been subjected to a drug test.

"I am not suggesting that anyone who uses drugs is a bad employee or a risk"

That's exactly what you are saying via drug testing.

For approx 20 years Alaska Airlines tests for and refuses to hire anyone who has smoked in the last six months. Even if you wouldn't smoke at work. A perfectly legal, so far, product. It used to be a blood test but last I heard it was via hair sample. Where does this stuff end? Sugar intake? Body fat percentage? Cholesteral count?

How about a stupidity test. How many people could pass that exam?

Well Steelhdr,
would you allow a crackhead to babysit your kid. If there was a simple test to tell if your kids teacher was a child molester, would you want him to take it. The reason employers are doing these tests is because they feel it reduces their risk. In the free work place, you have the right to work somewhere else. That's what Sol said he did and his potential employer probably lost out because he chose to walk away.
Doesn't the right to make your own decisions pass on to employers? It is wierd how liberals only want rights for themselves but not others. I think we all agree that school districts shouldn't have tp hire people with child rape charges, but what about hiring a truck driver that has an alcohol or heavy marijaunna use addiction? The credit checks are pushing it, but probably have to do with employee theft. I would guess that a company would have to come up with a legitimate reason or risk being sued.
A corporation is nothing more than a person or group of people choosing a manner of setting up a company. Stockholders choose who they think best will represent them and the representives make decisions that they feel are best for the stockholders. In the end, deciding to have tests are nothing more than individuals making decisions that they feel best protect their interests. If they make bad decisions regarding the tests they will suffer the consequences. But since it is their money at risk, they should be able to make that decision.

If you fog the mirror you are hired unless you inhaled, pretty lame if you ask me.

If you fail a piss test you can't be that bright to begin with.

I've passed a surprise & unexpected one the morning after taking knife hits, and if it's the kind where a guy with a badge stares at your dick in the basement of the Federal Courthouse while you pee you'd better be well prepped ahead of time and have done your homework for an airtight story.

Tests taken=4
Tests passed=4

"I would guess that a company would have to come up with a legitimate reason or risk being sued. "

That's just it. They do not have to justify these actions more than the "insurance reasons""health reasons" ..whatever. It's pretty easy to think up some sort of liability on just about anything. If you are employed and you get fat should the company have the right to tell you lose weight or be fired? You drive up insurance costs. Have the potential of higher absenteeism dealing with health issues. May not perform as well...whatever. How about sky diving?

A Corp is a public entity owned by the shareholders. Therefore the shareholders are the employer. Therefore Execs should be no different from any other employee and, in fact, have much more power to do harm.
If an employer has lax checks and balances to the point where a single employee can do great damage then, once again, I'd blame the employer and not take it out on all of the employees.
Do you really drug test your babysitter?
There used to be a seperation from work, which is time you are paid for and have a mutual agreement of, and personal time, which is your own time that your employer does not compensate you for. What you do on your own time should not legally be any business of the employer. We've really allowed a slippery slope to be put upon us.

And why are government employees tested but not the "politicians" we elect? Both are our employees.

If police officers aren't tested, then it ISN'T about public safety.

Sooo, what I'm hearing is that if you want to get high during work hours, start your own business as a fishing guide?

Speaking of police officers, I got pulled over last night. He asked me, "if I knew why he pulled me over." I said, "because you're a cop and I'm braking the law." He laughed hard and gave me a major brake on the fine.

And yes, I was baked.

I don't believe it for a second.

Well, maybe I do.

SOl, my favorite was a freind who was pulled over in Fircrest for doing nothing. He was pissed off and snapped back, why,don't you. Supposedly the guy stood there for a moment and then just walked off.

Humor is key. He clocked me doing 90 in a 50 and said he "could" have written me for neglegent driving.

90 in a 50? Driving high had my friends driving slowwwww. Humor is key and a given.

Fixed it for you Aunty!

I "upped" the performance setting on my superchip on Sunday. Getting pulled over was only a matter of time.

Going back to Pg.1 Why is it you have to have a license for a pet. But not for a child. Like pass some test to prove the ability to provide and take care of the child. Whatever..... Flame On ........

My favorite is the "failure to comply" law. (see sig line) Kinda puts all the marbles in the cop's bag, so to speak. Doesn't matter if you've done anything wrong, if you tell a smartass cop to "shove it....get out of my face" you're going down....

Idiots with the mental concept of "if it saves one life, it's worth it" are cannibalizing my heritage.

I hate to write people tickets. I hate getting them. One has to earn one from me....And yes...even cops can get tickets... I was going to the boat show last year when this bloated motorcycle cop pulls me over. My wife's car had expired tabs (by one week) He just asked for my stuff and came back and threw the ticket on my lap.Didn't bother with any "selling" of the thing. I took it to court later...which is always a good idea, by the way, and had it reduced. I never told anyone I was a cop.

I can see why people dislike us at times...I definitely disliked him.

Yeah...drug testing? If it is a public safety issue, probably a good idea. If they are just on a witch hunt, bad idea.

Welfare.....I see it horribly abused everyday so even if anyone cares about my opinion, it is pretty biased. There are those that truly need it.

Dude, you had a get out of jail free card and you didn't even play it. That's cool.

So how do you justify testing someone that has a medical cannibus card?

What happens if someone goes up to Alaska or Amsterdam on vacation, where it's not against the law to use and then they come back to work and have to take a test?

One major problem with drug testing is they don't test for active drugs. They test for metabolites and other agents that show PAST use. Are you saying someone can't smoke weed today, and be coherent and competent a day, or a week, or a month later? THC metabolites can be present weeks after use, and are a p!ss-poor indicator of whether someone is using on the job.

Here's something I found amusing. After a train operator in NYC piled his train into the station and killed a bunch of people, they implemented a drug-testing program for train operators. You know, because this particular guy was DRUNK at the controls. Drunk at the controls? Let's implement drug-testing. F'n brilliance like that comes from people who need to be drug tested themselves.

Except they'd pass............and apparently being so f'ing stupid you should be prevented from breeding is OK.

The problem with that is that it is not legal here so you really don't get a free pass because you debauched it up elsewhere....Medical marijuana is not a free pass either. If you need it, you probably aren't working a physical job anyway.

In that case, I would think an employer would work with that person on an individual basis. Like was said before, the primary reason to test people is for safety and lower insurance.

You still need to show you are not impaired no matter what you're operating. While I don't get moralistic over weed, I don't want my pilot, train engineer, other drivers, etc....to be high on it.

Nobody wants their pilot, engineer, or other drivers high on anything.

But the fact remains that they don't give your pilot, engineer or other drivers a breathalyzer before they take their controls.......so why is that if drug testing is for public safety?

It's about liability for insurance companies. And if it isn't, it sure appears to be that way, at least to me.

"while on the clock" being the operative subject.

Do I?

And WTF did you get that?

you're comments are spot on and frankly amazing to me coming from a LEO as i don't want my pilot or driver stoned either but could give a rats behind if the secratary or lot kid or my friend just blew a doobie
but the problem with testing for that particular substance is that it has a long life in your system and the fun you had in vansterdam 2-3 weeks ago shows up like you just torched a blunt 2 hours ago while being tested while alchohol blows in and out in what? 12 hours?
regardless, after watching the negative effects leo has had on many family and freinds over the decades because of the WOD, it's really nice to see a true old protect and serve kinda of leo post
kudo's at ya goinfishin for keeping protect and serve alive

Welcome to F'n America, where double standard is a value we instill in our children, could it be frowned upon to "profile" middle eastern people (potential terrorists) at the airports and boarders, yet be justified as ok when applied to US citizens in lue of our amendment rights to privacy and freedom.

some of you are admitted marijuana users and my question for you is: have any of you applied for life and/or health insurance policies that required blood and/or urine samples?

If you want to know if something is really bad or harmful, find out if you are insurable or what the rates are for the policy. I have an acquaintance that has a million dollar life insurance policy. He is a daily pot smoker. Insurance never batted an eye, but they wouldn't release his own evaluation to him until his lawyer worked on it for a year.

Word on the street is you can buy stuff so you can pass those tests. Just something I heard.

Do you think the pharmacuetical companies want your husband using pot instead of oxy? That's rhetorical, I know you're a smart one Aunty!

As far as pot goes, there is not one scientific study that shows it is harmful physically. This is due to confounded results - all tests for health effects of pot were conducted on cigarette smokers (that smoked weed)!

Having said that, I don't believe our lungs were made to operate on smoke of any kind - I just know that the studies are f@cked.

I tried to get life insurace a couple of years ago when we took out the monsterous mortgage on our home. I was denied.

My lifes philosophy has changed quite a bit since then, with the divorce and all. Fuc% life insurance. Live debt free, eat right, excersize and stay as healthy as possible. I've excepted my addictive nature and work towards moderation instead of abstinance. I.E., if I feel the need to go overboard, I limit it to weekends and focus on the gym durring the week. It's been working so far.

You were denied because you were married - the insurance company knew your wife was killing you!

Ya and its a slow painful death, I would rather just be put out of my misery

We were killing each other, it wasn't all her fault. A "church-going conservative" living under the same roof as an "anything-goes, wild ass" was a prescription for disaster. Bad match from the get-go.

At least you always admit your personal responsibility