Florida is one messed up place

[BrianFromWA]

This proposal has damn near everything wrong with it.

Cost has been mentioned. Also, any positive must be confirmed by even more expensive GC/MS - unless you figure that if someone's poppy seed bagel gives a false positive for opiates they should just be SOL.

Since prescription drugs can cross-react, the state would have to maintain a database of every person's prescription medication. You want that?

It singles out working people for conditions that do not apply to the wealthy. We spent far more in bank bailouts than all unemployment compensation, but the bankers who used our money to give themselves billions of dollars in bonuses, go on cushy golf trips and organize anti-union seminars are not drug tested. And they are the ones who failed. But some working stiff who loses his/her job through no fault of his/her own should be?

If a person who is unemployed has a beer while watching the game, would you jump to the conclusion he/she was spending all his/her time sitting around getting bombed? Probably not. But a person smokes one joint and we hear he/she is spending all the time sitting around getting high.

Even if you think drug use is so heinous a person should be liable to any and all punishment, including starving to death, what about family member? Should the kids also starve because a parent smoked a joint?

It is part of the "war on drugs" that has resulted in ludicrously disproportionate punishment for recreational drug use, with mandatory sentences on first offenders of 15, 20, 25 years, and convictions based solely on the word of an accusor, often a drug dealer. It is now federal regulation that a person convicted of any drug offense, even simple possession, cannot get food stamps, federally subsidized housing, or student financial aid - ever. Ever. Not in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years. Ever. But a person convicted of murder, rape, armed robbery, once he/she gets out of prison, is eligible for all these benefits.

And Florida is not barring convicted murderers who are laid off from getting unemployment. Only someone who smokes weed! And that person need not even be convicted of a crime.

It does not address real conditions that lead to drug abuse. Just punishment for even the most casual recreational user.

Enough reasons or you want more?

Don't do drugs. Any questions?

You get laid off, and decide to smoke "just one"? Your starving kids are on your head, and there are more than enough social services in every state I've lived in to take care of them for you. Don't want that? Don't do drugs.

If you think that the punishment for drug use is ludicrously high, don't do drugs.

If you think convicted murderers shouldn't get unemployment, I agree with that slightly less, but would probably support that bill. Convicted murderers have paid their debt to society. Drug-testing failures have not.

If drinking a beer was illegal, and someone was caught drinking one watching a game, I would have no problem with them getting their unemployment revoked as well. Don't do illegal things.

 

[BrianFromWA]

1st - The 4th amendment outlaws forbids random government drug testing because it's an unreasonable search. In order for the government to test a person for drugs the have to a valid reason to suspect you of using them. It's no different then searching your home or car.

2nd - You don't "pay" for unemployment. Unemployment is paid for the unemployment insurance that comes out of your pay check, which is why only people who are layed off or fired can get it.

You have to meet the requirements for doing so. In WA, it's sending out a certain number of resumes/getting interviews per month. If you don't do that, it doesn't matter how much you've paid in. And in 6 months it runs out, no matter how much you've paid in.

Don't kid yourself into thinking unemployment compensation is your right.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

i think in Cali it goes on for along time. we had an ex-exmployee who was fired about 2 years ago maybe....still getting benefits. i think she's working under the table or commision only now.....i know she did drugs, we'd go to happy hour and she told me about toking out and shit all the time.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You know what else it means? It means it is a program that has to be put in place and kept up. It means that besides the costs of the drug test, you have the administrative costs of the people and infrastructure that track the program. It also means that people over the long haul get tested more than once. When you consider that most of the people will test negative, you have increased your cost with them for absolutely no reason at all. Now you are paying for both their unemployment, and their drug test, thus increasing cost and making the program more expensive. If you can't get that, maybe you ought to go back to second grade, and learn to add again.

Secondly, you can't random test people on unemployment. These people are not employees of companies, they are citizens. Citizens must all be treated equally under the law, which means if one person is tested, they all have to be tested.

Lastly, you make the assumption that people on drugs are not productive. That is not true. There are plenty of people who take drugs who have good jobs, and when they don't have a job, they look for work just like everybody else. Just because they do substances in their spare time does not make them any less responsible.

People on illegal drugs have proven they are less responsible. If you deliberately choose to break the law, you are by definition less responsible than one who doesn't. It doesn't get much easier than this.

My wife was diagnosed with Adult ADD. She was prescribed a Class II amphetamine. It made her more productive. If I had taken one, I would be subject to court-martial, jail time, loss of pay and benefits, a dishonorable discharge and a whole bunch of other things the ACLU can't complain about.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

yeah, just talked with HR, 3 people last year were still getting unemployment. all 3 were druggies...one actually sold drugs or was a drug runner as his "side job" while at our office (he owes me a few hundred bucks that I loaned him after he got shit-canned...i was seriously considering going to his house and fucking him up for not paying me back..kind of a waste of time though).

 

[BrianFromWA]

can't test for someone going to a prostitute. If you could, I wouldn't mind that either.

If you want to collect the cash, don't break the law. Kind of simple to me. No "moral equivalence"...no humility issues.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Re: Pos

So, you were seriously considering a violent and unlawful act of going over to this guy's house and assaulting him? Yet, you have a problem with someone who uses drugs on their own body getting unemployment benefits that they pay into?

You'd also rather someone solicit a prostitute rather than smoke a joint while under unemployment benefits?

Your logic obviously has no basis in moral equivalence and to be honest, I'm just glad that people like you aren't able to claim any voice of authority in our great state of Oregon.

One day someone is going to knock you off your self-righteous perch. May you fall on hard times, may your self-righteous parents then abandon you, and may you suffer in kind. Only then will you learn the word "humility".

I've already been there, done that and worked my way the fuck out. I've hit rock bottom and it sucks, but I dealt with it. Just against assistance in general. Moreso if they are drugged up all day. should. ban. it.

 

[maxiep]

"Reasonable" is not defined as "what Eric thinks is fair." "Reasonable" here means that the government has to have a legitimate reason to believe that the person being tested has drugs in his/her system. It has nothing to do with whether it is forced or part of a program. The US postal system is an optional government service, but they can't legally search your car when you want to send a letter.

But they can randomly drug test their employees. I view unemployment as a form of employment where you're receiving income in a temporary job to find another one. If you're taking drugs, then you forfeit that ability to get that money. I have zero problem with it.

 

[maxiep]

You know what else it means? It means it is a program that has to be put in place and kept up. It means that besides the costs of the drug test, you have the administrative costs of the people and infrastructure that track the program. It also means that people over the long haul get tested more than once. When you consider that most of the people will test negative, you have increased your cost with them for absolutely no reason at all. Now you are paying for both their unemployment, and their drug test, thus increasing cost and making the program more expensive. If you can't get that, maybe you ought to go back to second grade, and learn to add again.

Secondly, you can't random test people on unemployment. These people are not employees of companies, they are citizens. Citizens must all be treated equally under the law, which means if one person is tested, they all have to be tested.

Lastly, you make the assumption that people on drugs are not productive. That is not true. There are plenty of people who take drugs who have good jobs, and when they don't have a job, they look for work just like everybody else. Just because they do substances in their spare time does not make them any less responsible.

So, now the test is whether or not it will be profitable for the government? Okay, finally we agree. Let's eliminate every non-profitable program the government runs.

 

[ABM]

but they can randomly drug test their employees. I view unemployment as a form of employment where you're receiving income in a temporary job to find another one. If you're taking drugs, then you forfeit that ability to get that money. I have zero problem with it.

+1

..

 

[Minstrel]

But they can randomly drug test their employees. I view unemployment as a form of employment where you're receiving income in a temporary job to find another one.

You may view it that way, but they're not actually government employees, so it isn't Constitutional to require random drug tests.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Fair enough. Is it constitutional to require someone to have a set number of interviews/resumes sent? b/c that's a requirement. I'm just trying to see where this slippery slope ends: you can withhold money if they're not proactive in finding a new job, but not if they don't submit to and pass a test to see if they're breaking the law while receiving compensation?

 

[Minstrel]

Fair enough. Is it constitutional to require someone to have a set number of interviews/resumes sent? b/c that's a requirement. I'm just trying to see where this slippery slope ends: you can withhold money if they're not proactive in finding a new job, but not if they don't submit to and pass a test to see if they're breaking the law while receiving compensation?

It's not a slippery slope...the 4th amendment prevents random searches of private citizens by the government, of which drug tests qualify. Searches can only be done if there's reasonable cause to believe the person might have something illegal concealed.

Requiring job applications/interviews and such aren't related to this issue, since they're not searches. The point is not that government services can't have requirements attached. It's that drug tests, specifically, cannot be one of those requirements, due to the 4th amendment.

 

[maxiep]

It's not a slippery slope...the 4th amendment prevents random searches of private citizens by the government, of which drug tests qualify. Searches can only be done if there's reasonable cause to believe the person might have something illegal concealed.

Requiring job applications/interviews and such aren't related to this issue, since they're not searches. The point is not that government services can't have requirements attached. It's that drug tests, specifically, cannot be one of those requirements, due to the 4th amendment.

Then why isn't a requirement of putting out a certain number of resumes also not an illegal search or an invasion of privacy?

 

[Minstrel]

Then why isn't a requirement of putting out a certain number of resumes also not an illegal search or an invasion of privacy?

Why would it be? What does requiring sending out resumes have to do with being searched?

 

[maxiep]

Why would it be? What does requiring sending out resumes have to do with being searched?

Why is it the government's business from whom I'm trying to obtain employment?

 

[Minstrel]

Why is it the government's business from whom I'm trying to obtain employment?

Because you're telling them that you can't get a job, so some evidence that you can't, as opposed to won't, is required.

If the program were compensation for staying off drugs, then a drug test would be appropriate. Whenever you are requesting aid from the government based on a condition, you need to prove that condition. I don't think many, if any, people consider that an invasion of privacy.

Searching/testing for crimes simply because you're requesting assistance is qualitatively different, IMO.

 

[maxiep]

Because you're telling them that you can't get a job, so some evidence that you can't, as opposed to won't, is required.

If the program were compensation for staying off drugs, then a drug test would be appropriate. Whenever you are requesting aid from the government based on a condition, you need to prove that condition. I don't think many, if any, people consider that an invasion of privacy.

Searching/testing for crimes simply because you're requesting assistance is qualitatively different, IMO.

Many companies require some form of drug testing. Part of unemployment is ensuring that you're not limiting the companies for which you could work. Incentivizing people to stay off illegal drugs that could cost them employment seems to me to be a prudent step.

 

[Minstrel]

Many companies require some form of drug testing. Part of unemployment is ensuring that you're not limiting the companies for which you could work. Incentivizing people to stay off illegal drugs that could cost them employment seems to me to be a prudent step.

It's a valid perspective, after a fashion, even if I don't agree with it. But it seems to be unconstitutional to require it.