Drug tests for unemployment benefits approved in Texas

The problem is that the govt. ends up spending way more money because not that many people get dq'd for the drug use, and the drug tests cost a lot of cash for everyone to have to take them. Since not that many people get booted because of the tests they are a huge waste of money.

 

Guilty until proven innocent. Sad day for freedom. More and more everyone is under suspicion before they ever do anything wrong. Those who are ok with it just haven't been presented with their turn yet.

 

So marley is baylorbear? Never picked up on that.

 

I am, of course, in favor of this as long as it applies to everyone who ever receives state benefits - including salaries, paychecks, contracts, and even per diems and dry cleaning.

If it does not extend that far, then this is just another meaningless measure designed to make sure that poor people know their place.

This is America - if anyone knows anything around here, it's that being poor means you're on the bottom of the totem pole and everyone else has a right to consider you beneath them. We don't really need more laws to do that.

 

I get the argument of invasion of privacy, but I think we have the right to drug test these people. Just like a good amount of employers also have the right to drug test. At my job, if you have a BAC of .03 you can be fired. Sounds intimidating and I don't think they have ever tested anyone but it is a regulation put in place to keep people safe and allows for the company to avoid legal problems.

In an "ideal" world they should legalize all drugs, allow the government to sell them. That way the "drug addicted " employment recipients take the check they got from the government and give it right back to them. Takes violent drug dealers out of business and all that jazz...ideally of course.

 

I am amazed that the Ds in the House let this slide, but not welfare. The argument I always hear against unemployment drug testing is that we all pay into it, correct me if I am wrong, but you can't receive unemployment benefits without first holding a job, correct? If so, that you have at least paid the same percentage of your life income to that point as anyone else, so I understand why people could be against it.

On the other hand, welfare drug testing makes more sense to me. If you are paying for drugs, but you are telling the government you are too poor to buy food, clearly you have allocated some of your income to things that are not important. And while it shouldn't be the government's job to manage what you buy, if citizens are going to give a portion of their taxes to people to supplement their lives, than it should be spent on necessary items.

The program is called TANF, TEMPORARY Assistance for Needy Families, the program should be intended to provide assistance while families seek new employment opportunities.

 

Honestly that's the typical Republican logic BS and by that logic, anyone receiving unemployment benefits is being paid not to steal.

 

I'm not a fan of morality police in any context. Whether its a Soviet bureaucrat pushing for new laws to punish "decadence," a religious fanatic wanting new rules for "modesty," or a conservative politician looking for new ways to punish the poor to score points in the culture war, it's all equally evil, invasive, and corrupting to the spirit of man.

If you humor these kinds of measures, you are by definition an authoritarian.

 

Not sure how this got started. I've met bobmarley many years ago at a bbs meetup, and he looks nothing like the infamous baylorbear puppy shots.

 

I think if any government wants to spend money on tests, it should create a comprehensive standardized test similar to the military's ASVAB that tests literacy, math, and basic knowledge of economics, law, history and science and force anyone seeking public office to take it and make the scores publicly available.

 

Just an FYI, the tests will cost $35 and will only be administered to "high risk" applicants.

 

Really? You need me to provide you a link for something that would take 10 seconds to find? I would do the whole "let me google that for you" thing, but I'm on my cellphone.

If you need additional citations, google will provide about half a billion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323699704578328192552259244.html

 

Did you read any other part of the thread? This will ADD to the cost not decrease it, thus the very purpose of the tests falls flat on its face.

 

There is a civil war in Syria.

Do I need to provide you a reference for that, or is basic, simple, common news something that you should be able to figure out for your self?

I shouldn't have to wipe your @ss when it comes to things that are easy to find. I'm not citing some 80 year old case that nobody's ever heard of. I'm not trying to make some bizarre point levered off of some insane dubious claim that nobody else can figure out. I made an offhand reference to easy to find information.

I apologize for not treating you like a moron, I guess?

 

It's actually the logical conclusion to what you said. You implied that an addict with no money would commit crimes so we should give them government benefits. By your logic, wouldn't it make more sense to open up evidence lockers all over the country and give them free drugs?