The Governor's race is heating up here in Michigan. I talk to a lot of people about politics. Anyone who'll listen, actually. I've been told I'm a bit of a Svengali.
So, I do what I can to raise the awareness of the democrats, ummm, I mean politically unsavvy within my reach.
Recently, I was explaining the Pros of Posthumus and the Cons of Granholm to union members that obviously NEVER watch the news or read, I discovered something that gave me pause.
I found that most of the union guys/gals I spoke with hate Granholm - too many reasons to name. Great a vote for Dick! Not sure we like him either was the response. I felt a little deflated. So I asked...
Why????
Posthumus supports drug testing for welfare benefits. I can't get my check & food stamps and smoke pot. It's not fair.
Seriously, does anyone have a real problem with having to pass a drug test for welfare - if they are NOT on drugs?
Michigan's actual policy : Applicants who fail a test will be required to take a second one. If they fail again they will be compelled to get treatment. Those who refuse treatment will be cut off within four months. Harsh...
You wanna smoke pot or crack, shoot smack, or get coked up?
GET A FUCKING JOB!!!
(Apologies to those who are sensitive to profanity, remember, sometime you just have to say "What the Fuc*)
I’m with Rose on this one.
If you want a job with the state or federal government you must first submit to a drug screening. The rationale behind that goes something like: "If you expect to be paid from the the public purse, you've gotta be straight." Seems fair enough.
If you work for many private sector employers, for instance a trucking company, you must submit to an even stricter protocol and expect periodic random testing. My feelings are: Why not? I don’t want to share the highways with a trucker hopped up on goofballs. Nor do I want my son travelling to school on a bus driven by a crack head.
I had to fill a cup before I got my present job. I have an interview next week for a position with a company that contracts to the federal government; I expect I will have to fill another cup.
My current income provides me more than enough capital to support a drug habit. However the responsibility of providing for a wife, a child, a dog and the fools I was able to con into giving me credit takes priority. I believe that what you do to your own body is your own business and I don't begrudge the truly needy a social safety net, but I cannot morally or philosophically justify subsidizing a lifestyle that includes habitual drug use.
I challenge someone to please show me where in the Constitution, the Bible, the Code of Hammurabi or the Annals of Confucius (or any other moral/political document) it says that a just society should maintain two standards--one for those who toil for a living and one for the lotus-eaters.
Paul forgot to add some important statistics to solidify his argument. I read in the Atlanta Business Chronicle in June or July of 1999 a very sound reasons for employers to do drug testing.
One, other forms of testing are illegal. Even employers are only allowed to give the time you were employed to future employers. Therefore, drug testing is just about the only avenue open to them, and for good reason.
People who use recreational drugs are three times more likely to miss work. People who use recreational drugs are four times more likely to get injured on the job. People using recreational drugs are five time more likely to file a worker's compensation claim. That's plenty reason right there.
So, why should those unemployed, and therefore seeking employment, not be subjected to drug testing? Paul's reasons are sound enough. I cannot see spending taxpayer money, which came out of the wallet of somebody who earned it, on subsidies for drug users, either. But, drug users are inherently less reliable.
As someone who occasionally indulges in recreational drug use, I have to admit to being of two minds about Kevin's assertions. It's not something I'm particularly ashamed of, nor particularly proud of. But if I want to waste an afternoon watching cartoons, emptying out the refrigerator, and giggling like an idiot once in a while, whose business is it? Certainly not my employer's.
You'll also have to work hard to convince me that booze, cigarettes, and coffee don't cause as many or more problems than the occasional person who smokes a bowl of weed now and then on a Sunday afternoon.
Having said that, I really like Paul's line about one standard for those who toil for a living and another for the Lotus-eaters. If you're going to live on the dole--in other words, at the expense of those of us who are paying the taxes--there's not a damned thing wrong with asking you to clean your act up.
It's a total invasion of privacy. People who need help shouldn't be demeaned in such a way.
What is this a police state? This is really ridiculous. I can't believe the ACLU hasn't done something about this.
The poor are always being picked on by republicans. I'm so glad that Engler is GONE.
Why can't the Right stop inflicting the rest of us with their morals?
They are always trying to control our bodies.
GET A LIFE!
Why can't the Right stop inflicting the rest of us with their morals?
It isn't about morals - it's about MONEY. My money, your money, all of our tax money being spent on people in need.
I'm not against helping the poor. But when my paycheck along with the rest of working America's gets "jacked" by the government - I don't want that money going to support someone with a drug habit.
Welfare should be a temporary helping hand not a career. Why give food stamps to a pot head? They won't remember eating anyway.
You wanna get high - get a job - you are free to do that, unless you get caught. I mean drugs are still illegal.
They are always trying to control our bodies
No. They are giving back some rights to taxpayers. It's not about control - it's about being pro-choice. I choose not to let some junkie have my hard earned money to support their habit. I choose, instead, to vote in people that agree with me.
GET A LIFE!
Why? You'd just try to abort it!