Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 24 Jun 2016, 9:12 am

Its demeaning because only those on welfare are beign singled out for this treatment.

yet Bbauska told us how he was tested over 20 times while in the army.
yet professional and Olympic athletes get tested often
yet where I work our temps are tested
yet police agencies in many locations are randomly tested (despite the claim they are not)
Yet my daughter needed to take drug testing before every job she has had
Yet my other daughter had to be tested before her being a nurse
Yet my friends daughter was recently fired for failing a drug test at work
Yet 4.3% of the US workforce was tested for drugs in 2014
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Drug_Te ... lQ1Cb.dpbs



so it would appear "only" those on welfare are treated this way is actually quite false and they are treated as many others. Why are we to treat those who want a handout different than those who actually work for a living? Why treat freeloaders better than productive members of society?

I am not tested myself, I work in the music industry and while I would pass any drug test with no problem, well over half the company would likely fail
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 24 Jun 2016, 9:29 am

Coast Guard, Tom. Coast Guard.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 24 Jun 2016, 9:34 am

army men on boats!?
Army men on ships is the navy
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 24 Jun 2016, 9:47 am

GMTom wrote:army men on boats!?
Army men on ships is the navy


JV Navy. That's us!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Jun 2016, 9:51 am

Tom
Yet 4.3% of the US workforce was tested for drugs in 2014
Actually this should read tested positively for drug use Tom. But thank you for this..
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Drug_Te ... lQ1Cb.dpbs

"When [human resource professionals were] asked if pre-employment testing was done prior to hiring an individual, a majority (57%) reported they test for job candidates, a slight increase in 2011 vs. 2010
.
well you learn something new every day.
This is not common in Canada. You'd have to demonstrate a performance problem to have to undergo drug testing to keep your job...

Still the percentage of Americans on welfare, or freeloaders as you genorously call them, who test positive is a quarter of the 4.3% of the general work force who test positively.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 24 Jun 2016, 10:17 am

rickyp wrote:Tom
Yet 4.3% of the US workforce was tested for drugs in 2014
Actually this should read tested positively for drug use Tom. But thank you for this..
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Drug_Te ... lQ1Cb.dpbs

"When [human resource professionals were] asked if pre-employment testing was done prior to hiring an individual, a majority (57%) reported they test for job candidates, a slight increase in 2011 vs. 2010
.
well you learn something new every day.
This is not common in Canada. You'd have to demonstrate a performance problem to have to undergo drug testing to keep your job...

Still the percentage of Americans on welfare, or freeloaders as you genorously call them, who test positive is a quarter of the 4.3% of the general work force who test positively.


First off, we are talking about the US welfare system, not Canada's.
Secondly, the who cares what the % of positive testing or not. If it is wrong, then it is wrong.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 24 Jun 2016, 10:28 am

good grief you claim something wrong, then change the story to something else?
You claimed welfare recipients are the only ones treated this way. I show how wrong that statement is and show how they are treated like the rest of us and you change things. Stick to the crap you said that was proven wrong man!

it was never about the percentage who test positive, it's about them being treated differently. I don't really care if 100% were tested positive or negative, they are just like the rest of us (only asking for handouts the rest of us pay for)
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Jun 2016, 6:24 am

bbauska
Secondly, the who cares what the % of positive testing or not. If it is wrong, then it is wrong.

first, I think, except in suituations like commercial pilots where public safety is paramount - that drug testing anyone as a condition of work is wrong. I beleive, as Fate seems to, that probable cause should be required.
I was making the arguement that welfare recipients should be treated no differently than anyone else. Now that I've learned that drug testing of employees is pretty standard in the US that argument is defeated. (Land of the Free now seems a touch hollow too. Giving up one's right to privacy so easily strikes me as the land of the sheep?)
However, if the point of drug testing is to prevent drug use, and since current drug testing of welfare recipients has proven that levels of testing among them are lower than the population at large - the use of public funds in this endevour seems wasted. If the investment is intended to reduce the harm that drugs do, go test a group of people who are far more likely to be testing postive. And who's job function is far more important to society. But thats just business logic.
(Cocaine is natures way of telling you you're making too much money: Robin Wiliams)
For example bbauska: The IRS audits only one in ten thousand people with declared incomes of under $30,000. But one in 25 with declared incomes of over $500,000. (or numbers in that range).

The prohibition over drugs and the war on drugs is the other problem. If recreational use of drugs is not affecting work performance should it really be prohibited? In a lot of jobs I'll bet the drugs might actually help.
Could an employer refrain from hiring someone because they have alcohol in their system when tested?
If thats so, then why would marijuana in the system be wrong? Why anything that isn't affecting their work performance?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Jun 2016, 6:28 am

tom
I don't really care if 100% were tested positive or negative, they are just like the rest of us

Well not like ALL the rest.
Legislators and judges aren't tested are they?
I underlined the part in the response above that refers to your provision of proof that educated me Tom. Please note I thanked you earlier for providing proof of your claims and admitted I was wrong when I did so.
Not tell me, why are Americans supine when it comes to workplace drug testing?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 25 Jun 2016, 7:02 am

https://www.ncadd.org/about-addiction/addiction-update/drugs-and-alcohol-in-the-workplace

Drugs and alcohol in the workplace affect performance. (duh, I might add!)

The impact of alcoholism and drug dependence in the workplace often focuses on four major issues:

Premature death/fatal accidents
Injuries/accident rates
Absenteeism/extra sick leave
Loss of production


The first paragraph you say that submitting to testing makes a "land of the sheep". Yet you want testing for weapons ownership. People submit to testing for drivers licenses, professional licenses, and marriage licenses. The great thing about America is that you do not have to get these licenses and tests. Americans have the CHOICE. A person can choose to be in an occupation that does not require testing. A person can choose to not be married or drive.

Why do you say that there is no reason for drug testing, but think there should be proficiency testing for driving and weapons, but think drug testing is too high of a bar? Puh-leeze!

I would agree that mandatory drug testing of the populace is wrong. This is chosen acquiescence to testing.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 25 Jun 2016, 10:13 am

bbauska wrote:I have said that public officials and those having a job from the government should have to give a sample for employment as a requirement of employment.

So, again, not true from you.

If you get a paycheck or welfare from the government, you should have to be tested upon request.

Danivon: Regarding the "chronically ill or the disabled"; they do have a choice. Quite simple to see.

THEY MAKE A CHOICE TO DO THE DRUGS!

but why should their choice to take drugs have anything to do with the State? What if it's some marijuana taken to alleviate the symptoms of MS? Or MDMA to calm the nerves? Do people prescribed opiates for pain get a free pass or do they also have to be tested if they are on welfare?

Or are you proposing to add to the bureaucracy by making rules for exemptions now?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 25 Jun 2016, 10:59 am

I am willing to exempt with prescription from a medical doctor.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 26 Jun 2016, 9:42 am

rickyp wrote:tom
I don't really care if 100% were tested positive or negative, they are just like the rest of us

Well not like ALL the rest.
Legislators and judges aren't tested are they?
I underlined the part in the response above that refers to your provision of proof that educated me Tom. Please note I thanked you earlier for providing proof of your claims and admitted I was wrong when I did so.
Not tell me, why are Americans supine when it comes to workplace drug testing?


This is a great question. People in the professional class in this country are, by-and-large, not drug tested, whereas people who are working class by-and-large, are drug tested. Why is that? Public safety? Well, an architect or an engineer can hurt a lot of people because of bad decision-making, so why aren't they (by-and-large) drug tested, if that's the argument? I suppose because the answer is that's not really the reason.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 Jun 2016, 11:17 am

Testing the more affluent is a different issue! If they are productive, do you really want to risk losing that productive employee? Like I said, where i work we went to a new temp agency because we were losing too many people to the random tests!

Most places will require a test before employment. They try to weed out abusers before they spend time training but once trained, my guess is they do not want to lose that employee unless it adversely affects their job.

But the bottom line is testing indeed is mandatory for many areas.
I could possibly agree on testing for all regardless of position or testing for none regardless of position, making it fairer across the board. And if testing were for none, then I would agree no testing for welfare recipients as well. But as we have it, the workforce is tested, why is it so evil to require those who want a handout to be exempt from something the rest of us need to do?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Jun 2016, 12:38 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:1. Every single person who wants allergy meds (pseudoephedrine) is treated like a meth dealer. No evidence needed of a crime. Punishment without benefit or due process.
Crap. Pseudoephedrine is not actually an allergy med. It is added to antihistamines to assist with symptoms. But it is the antihistamine that is the actual allergy medicine.

And all you need to to is to identify yourself to buy PE. Meth dealers get raided and arrested.

2. Liberals want to take away weapons from law-abiding citizens without evidence of wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing.
Can we just start with making it harder for those with terrorist links or anger issues getting them? Or can you only think in binary?


No, your answer is crap.

Why should I be limited on how much I buy? I have to go back every two weeks. Why?

I suffer from pain in my ears if I don't take it:

What is pseudoephedrine?
Pseudoephedrine is a decongestant that shrinks blood vessels in the nasal passages. Dilated blood vessels can cause nasal congestion (stuffy nose).

Pseudoephedrine is used to treat nasal and sinus congestion, or congestion of the tubes that drain fluid from your inner ears, called the eustachian (yoo-STAY-shun) tubes.


I've never taken, sold, or manufactured meth. Why should I be restricted?