PDA

View Full Version : See how many agree with this



ky-donzi
11-17-2008, 11:49 AM
I recieved this in a email... just thougth I'd stir the stink some

JOB - URINE TEST

(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)

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 A_ _, 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? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though . . . Something has to change in this country -- and soon!!!!!

guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.

osur866
11-17-2008, 11:51 AM
I agree 100,000 %! Sounds like a Damn fine policy to put in place to me. Steve

BigGrizzly
11-17-2008, 12:01 PM
Holy pizz Ky what a great idea, but some azz will want us to pay for the test to. I do like the idea and would support it. Hell you can't even play ball without one.

onesubdrvr
11-17-2008, 12:09 PM
Holy pizz Ky what a great idea, but some azz will want us to pay for the test to. I do like the idea and would support it. Hell you can't even play ball without one.
Hell, take the test, pass it, use some of my tax money to pay for it,...

fail it,... no assistance, and you pay for the test

lol,....

It would be a great idea I think,.....

Wayne

ky-donzi
11-17-2008, 12:37 PM
Griz

I can't take credit for it, I didn't come up with it... BUT I wish someone somewhere would institute this.... This could really clean up some of our mess...

Just Say N20
11-17-2008, 12:53 PM
Phenomenal idea, which is why I doubt it will ever happen. The agencies that give out the money WANT everyone to qualify.

Many years ago, my brother, who lives in one of the Northeastern states, was hired to help the state government with a networking issue. While he was working on the problem, not only did he learn how horrifically inefficient the government DEMANDED his solution be, he also learned the specifics of what the information they were distributing was.

When he found this out, he couldn't get on the phone fast enough to me. It was effectively a state written handbook for single mothers, instructing them how to cheat the system. It clearly outlined EXACTLY what they had to SAY to make sure they continued to receive their money. It even told them the easiest ways to increase what they received.

They don't want people to get back on their feet. By creating an ever increasing group of people, who are barely scraping by, dependent on government handouts for survival, the system provides the ultimate in job security for the government employees involved.

Passing a mandatory drug test as a requirement to receive weekly handouts is such a no-brainer that any person with only 3 functioning brain cells would be surprised that it should even be discussed as an option. Even such a person would say, "Duh! Just do it!" But that would REDUCE the number of people eligible, which is exactly the opposite of what the government wants to have happen.

zelatore
11-17-2008, 12:57 PM
I'd even consider passing it - with some caveats.

First, I wouldn’t test for pot. Personally, I think it should be legalized. Hell, it's far less harmful than booze or tobacco. For that matter, legalize it and tax it for a new revenue stream!

I'm generally for letting people do whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt me. I'd need to see demonstrable proof that whatever drugs we were testing for were specifically detrimental to gaining employment.

It's hard for me to reconcile my preference for personal freedoms against my distaste for handing out assistance to those who don't earn it.

As for random drug tests in general, I only support that in cases where drug use could cause major problems for others. For example, bus drivers. Otherwise, if you are doing it on your own time and it doesn't come to work with you, I don't think the employer should be able to punish you for it. Now, if you come to work high (or drunk) that’s another situation. I’ve had employees come to work in both those states. They were sent home with no pay. And when they repeated those offenses, they were fired. Although, as you would expect from somebody stupid enough to show up to work in that state, they made plenty of other mistakes to help themselves out the door.

MOP
11-17-2008, 01:01 PM
I have seen this idea brought up awhile back, problem is they are spending the 10,000,000,000.00 that it would cost to study the pee test theory!

I am 100% in favor but doubt we will see it happen, besides just think of all the drug revenue that would be lost!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ky-donzi
11-17-2008, 01:25 PM
Zel

I see your point, because I don't believe that "pot" is the problem. But it is illegal and at this point it will get you locked up in jail, and disquailfy you for most jobs, SO until it is legalized it should be treated the same.

My point is that if someone sets at home draws a check from our tax dollars and buy pot with it, which will disqualify him for most employment, then he or she should also be disqualified from recieving a government paycheck check.

osur866
11-17-2008, 01:36 PM
It's the Meth that really gets ahold of people and screws them up bad!

ky-donzi
11-17-2008, 01:52 PM
True Meth is a huge problem in our rural area. But truthfully with all illegal acts there come trouble. I'm not trying to demonize pot, but with any drug there comes conquences.

And I'm sure that many people have be hurt by cocaine, PCP, herion addition, directly and indirectly.

So once again I state that I don't want tax dollars spent to buy drugs

BTW: I will add that I am for legallizing pot, but until it is legal..... it is illegal

Patti
11-17-2008, 02:13 PM
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e334/puzzlessue/Emoticons/Speak%20and%20Sign/yeathat.gif

Living in a small rural, farming community..meth use is rampant...you have "Meth free" communities but well..how well that works..who knows..

As a teenager in NYC..well, lets say I indulged :nilly:

apples and oranges if you ask me...

Worst we did was eat pizza with fritos and some baloney! lol

Sorry but in all my years on this earth - which is almost 43..i've never seen a pot smoker who did anything but snack, play video games and live in their parents basement...i've not seen a robbery, carjacking, or anything violent..

I dont know..maybe it's just my generation...I don't see a whole lot wrong with pot..and i'd venture to say that a LOT of us indulged..if they say they didn't..some are most definitely lying :)

ky-donzi
11-17-2008, 03:44 PM
Patti

Yea Meth is totally different, I agree, it is bad stuff.

I just really like the idea of "If you want government money, stay clean"


And again Pot is not the problem, and I believe that there is good taxable revenue in it, but currently it is illegal

Ghost
11-17-2008, 03:58 PM
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?

Genius.


First, I wouldn’t test for pot. Personally, I think it should be legalized. Hell, it's far less harmful than booze or tobacco. For that matter, legalize it and tax it for a new revenue stream!

I would until it is legalized. It will be legalized soon, I think. Within 5 years. The revenue potential is too great. I suppose the only counter to this is that there is a whole war-on-drugs industry that would lobby to keep it illegal as they stand to gain from fighting that non-winnable war.


Sorry but in all my years on this earth - which is almost 43..i've never seen a pot smoker who did anything but snack, play video games and live in their parents basement.

Patti, how dare you tar them all with such a broad brush? I know several pot smokers who do more than that. One of them even has a job. :wink:

Patti
11-17-2008, 04:02 PM
Patti, how dare you tar them all with such a broad brush? I know several pot smokers who do more than that. One of them even has a job. :wink:
*snort*...two words Mikey....coffee....nose!

zelatore
11-17-2008, 04:04 PM
Zel

I see your point, because I don't believe that "pot" is the problem. But it is illegal and at this point it will get you locked up in jail, and disquailfy you for most jobs, SO until it is legalized it should be treated the same.

My point is that if someone sets at home draws a check from our tax dollars and buy pot with it, which will disqualify him for most employment, then he or she should also be disqualified from recieving a government paycheck check.

I need to double-check if the proposition passed, but one of the props we voted on last time out was as close as we could get to decriminalizing marijuana. Basically, if you had less than xxx grams (it actually seemed like quite a bit) you would only be charged with an infraction. It was tied to some other changes that would take away jail time for non violent drug offenders and replace it with education and rehab. All in all, it was supposed to save a few million bucks a year since we didn't have to pay so much keeping people locked up. Plus, let's face it - jail punishes people but it does little to rehabilitate them.


It's the Meth that really gets ahold of people and screws them up bad!

Yes. Meth is a no-win drug.

f_inscreenname
11-17-2008, 04:40 PM
It was tied to some other changes that would take away jail time for non violent drug offenders and replace it with education and rehab.


Who said we wanted to be re-educated? I've forgotten more then I ever want to re-learn.:wink:

I hate this whole debate.
I understand why some would be drug tested but I don’t agree with it. What you do on your own time is your business as long as it’s not hurting others. I hate to sound like a Democrat but IMHO that violates my civil rights.
I watched a guy lose his job as a fork lift operator when some idiot backed up into a warehouse with his van and hit his parked lift. The POS jumped out of his truck and said, “He hit my truck.” I and a couple others saw what happened but for any claim over 200 bucks the company made their employees pee no matter what. The employee came up dirty for smoking a joint 3 weeks earlier and out the door he went. Now that’s BS!
As for the government hand out, they have rules for everything. If that’s what it takes and you want it then go pee.

gpapich
11-17-2008, 04:58 PM
It's the Meth that really gets ahold of people and screws them up bad!
U guyth need to thtop meth'in around.
(sorry, stupid mood struck me, couldn't resist...)

Ghost
11-17-2008, 05:13 PM
What you do on your own time is your business as long as it’s not hurting others.


Amen to that.

Donzi Vol
11-17-2008, 05:29 PM
I like it. In my job I'm tested for all drugs, and would be fired if I were doing any of them. Thus, if this dream idea were to take effect then ALL drugs should be tested and anyone who tests positive for anything should be "fired" from any tax-funded assistance. Simple

zelatore
11-17-2008, 06:11 PM
How about alcohol?

Alcohol is a drug. A very pervasive one. And although I don't have the facts in front of me, a very good case could be made that alcoholism is as bad or worse for our society than drug use.

I suppose the argument here is that drugs are illegal while booze isn't. But the bottle is just as bad - or worse - than the smoke. Or even the pill.

What if your employer decided you couldn't drink on the weekend or after work, because it leads to any number of bad situations that could negatively impact your health and work? Isn't that the excuse they use against drug use? What's the difference?

Back to the original post, I don't think it's an idea worth considering, but I would want to see proof that drug use was negatively impacting the recipient's ability to seek or maintain gainful employment. Like I said before, my general opinion is to let people do what they want so long as it doesn't hurt anybody but them.

Donzi Vol
11-17-2008, 06:56 PM
How about alcohol?

Alcohol is a drug. A very pervasive one. And although I don't have the facts in front of me, a very good case could be made that alcoholism is as bad or worse for our society than drug use.

I suppose the argument here is that drugs are illegal while booze isn't. But the bottle is just as bad - or worse - than the smoke. Or even the pill.

What if your employer decided you couldn't drink on the weekend or after work, because it leads to any number of bad situations that could negatively impact your health and work? Isn't that the excuse they use against drug use? What's the difference?

Back to the original post, I don't think it's an idea worth considering, but I would want to see proof that drug use was negatively impacting the recipient's ability to seek or maintain gainful employment. Like I said before, my general opinion is to let people do what they want so long as it doesn't hurt anybody but them.

Zel,

As you suspected, my comment was in regards to the fact that drugs are (at least for right now) illegal. Alcohol isn't (thankfully), so it's really a moot point. However, I do see your point about it being addictive and the demise of many wonderful lives. Now my personal reasoning for supporting the drug tests is from a safety's standpoint. My sales office is connected to our warehouse where lots of large lifts and towmotors run around at very high speeds. So, having a little assurance that the operators are sober make me a little more comfortable. Now as for the alcohol, if I showed up to work drunk I would expect to face some severe ramifications...up to being let go.

All the best,
David

BUIZILLA
11-17-2008, 06:58 PM
Alcohol is a drug. ohh, puhhhlease...

zelatore
11-17-2008, 11:36 PM
I need to correct a typo in my previous note - I had said
"I don't think it's an idea worth considering"

That should have said
"I do think it's an idea worth considering"

zelatore
11-18-2008, 12:08 AM
ohh, puhhhlease...

Mind you, I am in no way calling for banning or outlawing alcohol. I may not be a big drinker, but I certainly partake, and have a small cache on hand both on the boat and at the house.

From our friends at Webster:
Main Entry: 1drug
Pronunciation: \ˈdrəg\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English drogge
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : a substance used in dyeing or chemical operations b: a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1): a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2): a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease (3): a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body (4): a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device
2: a commodity that is not salable or for which there is no demand —used in the phrase drug on the market
3: something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness

Alcohol fits nicely into definition (3)- “a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body”. It also fits the 3rd definition- “something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness”

Further, in the past alcohol was used for medicinal purposes therefore bringing it within the scope laid out in the other definitions.

Given it’s capacity as a mind-altering chemical, I think you would find any medical professional would clinically place alcohol into the category of a ‘drug’.

As the great poet Todd Snider so eloquently said:
But you know this war on drugs it's funded by the Tobacco and Alcohol Commissions
It's not what drugs you're strung out on they care about as much as whose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7Fa2idVQrY&feature=related

Ghost
11-18-2008, 12:15 AM
As the great poet Todd Snider so eloquently said:
But you know this war on drugs it's funded by the Tobacco and Alcohol Commissions
It's not what drugs you're strung out on they care about as much as whose.

I had not heard that, but it's right on the nose.

Ghost
11-18-2008, 01:01 AM
Alcohol is a drug.


ohh, puhhhlease...

"That depends on what the definition of 'is' is." :)

zelatore
11-18-2008, 09:33 AM
One drawback to the legalizatiion issue, if your lowboy driver crushes a prius with the truck, then tests positive for pot, how do you tell if he was toking while driving, or had actually just enjoyed a joint whilst tooling along at 75MPH in his Donzi the weekend before? Our labs cannot pinpoint the time, they just verify the use..
For that matter, I've seen some of you guys drive a boat (using the term "drive" loosely ;) ) and I'm not sure I want to be around ya whilst ya toke..:pimp::eek::nilly::nilly:

I had not realized that marijuana tests can only determine 'if' you are high, but not 'how' high. Still, that doesn't have to be a major enforcement issue if you go with 0-tolarance. I would think, however, that it would be possible to determine the level of THC in the body and thus get a measure of how high one is. Otherwise, you could establish rules based on the same criteria as drinking or other OUI offenses. For example, how do you determine if an individual is impaired by a prescribed medication? It can be done.

As for the comments about some of us drivers - what? you lookin' to loose your seat at Powell next year? :wink: