Got this in an email and thought I'd share.

Quote:
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their rear end, doing drugs, while I work. . .Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I couldn't agree more.

(02-06-2009 09:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Got this in an email and thought I'd share.

Quote:
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their rear end, doing drugs, while I work. . .Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I couldn't agree more.

This is a risk management issue - it's not worth spending the money to drug test the employees that issue drivers licenses each day when the sober ones only perform marginally better than the stoners. Every job has to be evaluated in a similar vein. I would greatly object to the wasteful spending of monies to drug test when it doesn't objectively make sense to do so. And, I greatly object to those that would greatly object to drug testing when it does make sense. And, I greatly object to the fact that things are managed so badly that it doesn't make any difference if a large segment of the workforce is stoned at any given time.

.

Maybe we should think about making the Entitlement Scam Artist "DRINK" urine as a punishment to their crimes.

I mean tons of folks think a good cup of hot self spewed Urine in the morning is a fantastic Anti-Oxidant and Disease Fighter.

So this would not be "Torture" .... we would simple be making the Sick Abusers more "Healthy" and able to work ....

Right ????

.

(02-06-2009 09:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Got this in an email and thought I'd share.

Quote:
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their rear end, doing drugs, while I work. . .Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I couldn't agree more.

I know someone who used that help and has turned around their life and is now paying taxes. If it weren't for the help, this person would probably be dead. Glad you are so caring and considerate.

How is it that you completely misunderstand that Robert? I see while you were away you didn't develope any reading skills.

Drug testing in the workplace does not indicate that that someone is impaired while at work. It simply is a way of finding users and is most often mandated by insurance carriers as loss reduction in WC claims and such. I do not have any problem with it as long as it is done voluntarily as a part of the employment contract at the time of hiring.

I also would have no problem with it being done voluntarily as a stipulation for assistance. Of course if we did away with the welfare state...this would not be an issue.

As long as force or coercion is not used and the drug testing is strictly voluntary and based on a contractual agreement between parties..I see no problem with it.

Get in some sort of an accident at work and see how voluntarily drug testing becomes.

(02-08-2009 05:22 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Get in some sort of an accident at work and see how voluntarily drug testing becomes.

Is someone going to put you in a cold jail cell in the free market for not complying with a drug testing policy?...I think not. Of course...not following the policy is certainly grounds for dismissal. Undergoing the drug testing or not...it's still voluntary.

Why don't you try these ideas in the red states.Then come back and tell us how it works, instead of forcing your ideas on everybody.