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