That question is back on the legislative table after more than a dozen states this year tried to push drug-testing bills for the jobless as a way to end the frivolous distribution of tax dollars being used for unemployment benefit programs. House Republicans passed a bill on Dec. 13, allowing states to drug test despite the fact that many believe it violates citizens' rights on top of being too costly.
Last year, the United States spent $160 billion on unemployment benefits. Under normal economic conditions, that's a staggering amount of money, and in the current fiscal crisis, I would argue that we simply cannot handle payouts of this magnitude. Personally, I'm tired of my hard-earned tax dollars being used to aid drug users and people who just don't want to work. Don't get me wrong, I'm not targeting everyone who is unemployed. However, if you are seeking government benefits or employment, you should know you are going to be asked to pee in a cup -- and pass. It seems to me that people tend to argue that drug-testing is a violation of their rights only when they have something to hide. It's akin to going to a bar -- only those patrons who aren't yet old enough to drink are seen throwing a fit about having to show ID.
While I am in favor of decriminalizing marijuana, the fact is its remains illegal until federal law says otherwise. If someone who is applying for welfare has enough money to buy pot, then they certainly don't need my tax dollars to help them pay for child care. If an applicant can't find a job or is denied unemployment benefits because they have been busted using hard drugs, including cocaine or heroin, then good! They should be turned away. Instead, we should use some of that $160 billion to pay for drug-counseling centers and educational programs. I wholly agree with Gov. Nikki Haley (R- South Carolina), who remarked that "We don't have an unemployment problem. We have an education and poverty problem."
Lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) disagree with this new bill. Reid, like so many politicians, is too far removed from the realities that plague the lives of working-class Americans. Reid claims he finds the bill "ridiculous." Funny, I find that statement ridiculous, considering he was laughed right out of the Capitol when he proposed shutting down legal brothels in 10 counties across Nevada, a move that would have pushed the economically-crippled state into a deeper financial crisis. Reid, so off the mark, went as far as to blame legal brothels for tarnishing Las Vegas' so-called image for high moral conduct. Seriously?
Drug testing isn't unconstitutional, but what should be unconstitutional is blowing tax dollars on assisting individuals who knowingly break the law -- criminals. Instead, we should allow those who are willing and able to pass a drug test get the financial assistance they need. My heart goes out to those hard-working Americans who have lost their jobs in the wake of this economic meltdown. This crisis has touched many people close to me, and I can assure you that none of them would refuse to take a standard drug test if it meant earning a wage again.
There are too many jobless Americans out there, many who still need, and deserve, a financial crutch to see them through. It is those people who should be entitled to our money. That's why it is time for us to start filtering out the greedy from the needy.
Follow Bethany St. James on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BethanyStJamesX
You and the rest of our government are completely ignorant of the facts.
Have you figured out what your drug test/witch hunt scheme would cost, or will you be charging that to the already desperately poor people that you are so intent on keeping your money from? When we start testing the Congress, let's include the most popular drug of all, alcohol.
By the way-Gov. (for now) Haley is not someone I would brag about agreeing with. She's got her own problems.
In Florida where they have instituted such a policy, the cost of the drug tests are outweighing the money saved by the number of people testing positive and being refused benefits. So money isn't being saved.
Our rights and freedoms are more valuable than any money that might be saved (if any). To test the other 90% of the people to catch the 10% that might be using is wrong. It is also erroneous to compare it to employer testing since the constituion restricts what government can do, not private employers.
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
pastor Martin Niemöller
2 real good reasons this is a waste of time and money.
reason 1. The idea that the unemployed are drug users is a myth. This has been proven wrong time and again. The high unemployment rate right now is caused by to many things to list here, and sure 1-5% of those on unemployment do test positive for Marijuana but on public assistance they are costing you less then they would if they were in prison.
Which brings us reason number 2. Your spending millions of dollars to drug test hundreds of thousands unemployed to catch hundreds of drug users. Who are then jailed for using drugs costing tax payers even more.
It makes you feel better to be able to sit at home and think that your tax money is no longer going to "druggies" when in reality you spend more on pot smokers than you do on public education.
So it is inconceivable that the person in question might have ...GROWN the pot instead of buying it ... after all it grows like a weed ( pun intended ) ... before testing people that are out of work how about testing everyone the currently works for the government or receives money from the government first (legislators, defense contractors , judiciary . lawyers , law enforcement , prison contractors and their staff ect ect ect ) seems like that would create enough new jobs to end the recession and end those pesky rights against unwarranted search and seizure not to mention creating orgasms of joy on the right
Statistacally, it would likely end up costing more money as the number people disqualified for benefits would need to be quite large to balance the cost of frequent testing on millions of unemployed workers. If the goal is to save money, drug testing will fail.
Keep advocating for legalized brothels (I agree!) and stop worrying about the $200 - $300 a week that a random pot head might get until landing another job.
And the costs to taxpayers for drug-testing people who, for the most part, can't afford drugs is just ridiculous. In Florida where they tried this out, the savings didn't cover the costs to the state to put everybody through drug testing.
Drug tests are easy to pass if you're a user, especially if you know you'll have to pass it at a set time. The only people who stand to lose money here are the 1% or so who get false positives. How is that for justice?
With Respect,
Bethany St. James
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Some addicts are proficient at the art of concealment and do what they can to cloak the truth.
Some research indicates drug tests generally produce false positive results in as little as 5 and up to 10 percent of cases. Before this kind of requirement is mandated there are many issues which need to be addressed.
I agree with Ms. St. James on not wishing to fund criminals and criminal behavior(s) but the science does not appear to be there yet for this to be used in the mainstream. Besides if you really want to get to the core issue of government spending and misappropriation this issue pales in comparison to what Senators,Congressmen and Presidents (past and present) have done in the collective to plunder the coffers. The criminality in this venue is staggering yet largely little or nothing is mentioned or more to the point done about it.
Eating as little as a teaspoon of poppy seeds,less than the amount on a poppy seed bagel,can produce false positive results on tests for opioid abuse, these poppy seeds can lead to false positive results for two or three days. Cold medications,Wellbutrin (a well known antidepressant) and tricyclic antidepressants ( Vanatrip,Elavil,Endep, Adapin and Vivactil to name a few) can trigger false positive results on tests for amphetamines. Zoloft (another well known and used antidepressant)and the painkiller Daypro can show up as a benzos issue. Quinolone antibiotic drugs can trigger false positives for opioids, Sustiva (used to treat HIV) can show up as marijuana use.
Then what about prescription drug abuse, many of these tests can provide false negative results for Percocet, Roxicet and Tylox (Oxycodones). Many times doctors need to order special tests for screening oxycodone(s) and they are simply unaware this is the case.
In addition, I am not aware of any federal guidelines setting threshold levels for positive results, at last pass this was an issue still in play.Then we have the issue of dissembling and disguising the specimens. "Flushing", substituting, and reverse chemistry are all in play as it applies to testing.