Now THIS is a wonderful concept .....

Well, we will have to agree to disagree, because if I have to take a drug test to be employed to get that paycheck to pay those taxes to fund those programs..................well, those that benefit ought to have to adhere to the same standards.

 

You are right it's not always the case and those it won't affect at all... they will still receive what is needed because they are clean...

 

I can agree to disagree! But I just wanted to point out that not every job requires drug testing.....

 

As far as the kids go Hatt, and this might be viewed as extreme, but I could get behind DSS remving those children and finding drug-free foster care for them while mom and dad get their act together.

 

Most people fixing or handling your food aren't tested. Heck, they ain't even that sanitary, seeing some of the restaurant ratings we see.

 

Yep. The current system is not working. Something needs to change. Isn't that what Obama is all about? If government is going to butt into everything else they might as well here as well.

 

Senator Rouzer's bill states..

 

Being part of the foster care family, I know of the shortages of homes available to these children? Where do we place them? There aren't enough foster care families to go around as it is.

I agree that there is a problem. I believe it to be far less of one that is popularly accepted.

Rather than looking at the larger "Us" versus "Them", Let's look at our microcosm in the 4042 nation.

I know of several families in this area who have been dealt some difficult cards to play. They have filed for public assistance. Should they be drug tested? What if they have a job interview, but have to report at the same time for a drug test? What takes priority? Will a potential employer wait for a later interview, especially if he has many others applying? Will the testing systems be flexible enough that they can do testing at hours other than M-F 9-5, which are the prime job seeking hours? None of those issues are addressed, yet I foresee they will arise.

 

No, not 100% of them, but you see what I'm saying. 8)

 

I'm sure arrangements could be made through a caseworker to change the appt. for the drug-test if you have a legit. job interview. Which, would benefit everyone involved if there was the possibility for the person to be able to get off of any kind of govt assisted welfare programs. Govt agencies should want to work with people, not hinder their efforts to get off the system.

 

I don't see why they couldn't wait - wouldn't they want a drug-free employee? Couldn't the applicant merely state "I am sorry, I have conflicting appt, could we meet later on that day?"

I have a question, if one has money for drugs why are they in need of public assistance? I don't want to subsidize and enable druggies. If they are getting rehab/treatment great - but to collect a check and sit around high popping out the required child every 3 years to continue payments - No.

I do realize there are far more children in need of foster care than foster homes, I also see in the paper occasionally where a small child has died due to ingesting illegal drugs, wandered off while the caregiver was high, or even the shootout with the kids in the car the other week.

 

"Should want to work with people.."...and in a perfect world it would. What caseworkers do you know that are that flexible? I don't know of many, and those that are are more the exception than the norm. How do they get paid? Most caseworkers at that level are hourly paid, and work a set schedule.
Does anyone out there have any experience where Bureaucracy and Flexibility coexist? Likening this to getting information and care from the VA, I can tell you it does not, at least in my experience. Are the schools flexible to your needs? Not if I read some 4042 posts correctly.

 

ding ding ding, we have a winner! :hurray:

 

If there is a conflict between going for a drug test and/or going to an interview- Maybe the places who do the testing would let the person reschedule the test appointment, contingent on that person having been tested already and as testing clean. If someone who gets sick with an addiction and really wants to help themselves out and stay clean, then they should be afforded the opportunity to look for a job to even become a more productive member of society and the people testing either it be courts or whatever, would give the person the trust that they will stay clean but also the chance to get their life together. All the while if the person gets a job and reports to work, that they would work the tests around a persons work schedule.

 

Just so I can keep this straight. If you ocassionally read about it, does that mean that it happens so infrequently that it makes the news? And, that if it's news, it's an aberration? By that statement, you imply that it happening is unlikely and not routine. While I agree that anyone adversely affected by illicit drugs is a tragedy, we were looking at the supposed larger picture of rampant drug abuse by those on public assistance and a need to violate their rights to privacy in order to weed out those few who might test positive for it.

We don't read about all the teens in school that do it right, but sure read about the few that engage in theft, racing. We don;t read about those people who drove to and from RTP daily, safely without incident, but we hear about those who did not. We don't read about those parents who are raising their kids right, but sure read about those who abuse.

For the record. I am against all forms of substance abuse. ETOH, pot, pills, injectables, ingestables, inhalables, insertables...name your pick.

This to me, this issue is not about drug abuse. It's about a violation of constitutional rights without due legal process.

 

I don't know how frequent or infrequent it is. Even one child dying or being injured/neglected under those circumstances is too much IMO.

I understand your POV - but how does drug testing for a perspective employer differ?

 

And Hatt, it is very likely that in some areas (not your laid-off, down on their luck, neighbor type) that more than a few would be weeded out.

 

So what about if these people are arrested and found guilty for drugs would you be okay with them then not being eligable for the funds?

 

Hat,hat,hat.... I'm all for the rights and all but don't back you on this one..

maybe we can have a cold one discuss while i burn one... :jester:

 

VG,

that is an excellent question!

At first glance, many questions loom. Was the arrest because of the "you're on public assistance and have to take a drug test" thing? Or was the arrest unrelated, i.e. was smoking dope on the corner and got popped?

The law already spells out the penalties for drug use conviction. Does removing the benefits represent a punishment that targets a class of people, versus applying to all, and therefore become unconstitutional, in both application and scope? What about dependent family members? We already know that we lack the resources to care for those children displaced through not fault of their own.