oscardeuce
Active Member
First you say this:
Rylan1;2665061 said:
The Job - Urine Test
- Thread starter stdreb27
- Start date
salty blues
Active Member
Originally Posted by jennythebugg
http:///forum/post/2665397
in most cases i agree, but i think there should be an exeption for medicinal marijuana
I agree 100%, however the "reeferendums" that several states have passed for MM is at odds with the Feds. There basically are no states' rights, but that is another thread.
http:///forum/post/2665397
in most cases i agree, but i think there should be an exeption for medicinal marijuana
I agree 100%, however the "reeferendums" that several states have passed for MM is at odds with the Feds. There basically are no states' rights, but that is another thread.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by prime311
http:///forum/post/2665400
Actually, in some states I'm pretty sure you can't fire someone for drug use as chemical dependency is considered a disease. You can choose not to hire someone for failing a drug test though. This is IIRC.
I am not saying I don't believe this but I am skeptical. That would be like saying not hiring a blind man to be a pilot would be discrimination.
I've either fired or had my hand in the decision to fire a couple drunks and some stoners in my day. None were fired for showing up loaded. It was for not showing up or doing crappy work when they did.
http:///forum/post/2665400
Actually, in some states I'm pretty sure you can't fire someone for drug use as chemical dependency is considered a disease. You can choose not to hire someone for failing a drug test though. This is IIRC.
I am not saying I don't believe this but I am skeptical. That would be like saying not hiring a blind man to be a pilot would be discrimination.
I've either fired or had my hand in the decision to fire a couple drunks and some stoners in my day. None were fired for showing up loaded. It was for not showing up or doing crappy work when they did.
reefraff
Active Member
If felons can't vote, those convicted of domestic violence cant possess guns I see no reason why those on public assistance shouldn't be expected to be clean and sober. I am all in favor of forced detox and rehab rather than jail for those who are caught using illegal drugs or are repeat DUI's. See no reason why someone on public assistance shouldn't receive the same treatment. Even if that isn't the sole reason they are in that position helping them out makes it a lot more likely they will be able to help themselves out of it.
stdreb27
Active Member
Once we had a girl dealing out of the store I was managing. It was pretty funny. The poor girl, left her purse on the counter and spilled the contents out of the purse including a couple 1 oz bags of some sticky weed. So we pulled her aside, and let her know that drug use would not be tolerated. ESPECIALLY bringing the stuff to work. And let it go, a couple days later, I was watching the closed circut and watched her sell the stuff. So we can a nice little talk, told her that either she would quit, (the firing paperwork was a serious headache) or we would give the video of her deals to the police, and then fire her. Remember this is AFTER we warned her. So she left.
Her stupidity was pretty funny. But it was sad.
Later on we hired some guy who was selling crack out of his car at work. but he was such a
[hr]
up at work, we let him go for stealing stuff. The moron kid then decided to go full time drug dealer. He lived really close to me, and one day there was a huge raid on his house. It wasn't me but it sure was funny.
Her stupidity was pretty funny. But it was sad.
Later on we hired some guy who was selling crack out of his car at work. but he was such a
[hr]
up at work, we let him go for stealing stuff. The moron kid then decided to go full time drug dealer. He lived really close to me, and one day there was a huge raid on his house. It wasn't me but it sure was funny.
crimzy
Active Member
I like this idea...
It would get bogged down in the courts as some ambitious lawyer would see this cause as a way to make a name for him/herself. The ACLU would also get involved I'm sure. The legal issue would probably be argued as if requiring the poor to submit to a drug screen would somehow violate their due process rights and expectation of privacy because the middle and upper income people are not so required.
Maybe someone who knows more can let us know if there has ever been a requirement that people have to comply with certain conditions before they can "earn" the assistance. If it has been done before then at least there would be some precedent.
But I do like the idea.
It would get bogged down in the courts as some ambitious lawyer would see this cause as a way to make a name for him/herself. The ACLU would also get involved I'm sure. The legal issue would probably be argued as if requiring the poor to submit to a drug screen would somehow violate their due process rights and expectation of privacy because the middle and upper income people are not so required.
Maybe someone who knows more can let us know if there has ever been a requirement that people have to comply with certain conditions before they can "earn" the assistance. If it has been done before then at least there would be some precedent.
But I do like the idea.
T
tizzo
Guest
Originally Posted by prime311
http:///forum/post/2665400
Actually, in some states I'm pretty sure you can't fire someone for drug use as chemical dependency is considered a disease. You can choose not to hire someone for failing a drug test though. This is IIRC.
You CAN fire them for failing the test. But if they go to the boss and admit dependency, THEN the employer will do the whole rehab thing.
http:///forum/post/2665400
Actually, in some states I'm pretty sure you can't fire someone for drug use as chemical dependency is considered a disease. You can choose not to hire someone for failing a drug test though. This is IIRC.
You CAN fire them for failing the test. But if they go to the boss and admit dependency, THEN the employer will do the whole rehab thing.
T
tizzo
Guest
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2665051
Chemical dependency may be part of the reason why they are not able to find a decent job.. The welfare program should include education, rehabilitation, and resources IMO.
.
Welfare programs do not offer the above mentioned. That's true. But hospitals do! We used to transport addicts, suicides, and homeless, to the "behavioral center" for treatment. As long as they abided by the rules, they got the full 2 week service. I know 2 weeks isn't really enough, but ironically, we saw the same faces every month.
They have access to the education, the rehabilitation and the resources, but of the 200 or so that I personally drove to that center myself, not one actually benefitted from it.
The staff at the rehab center told me maybe one, out of thousands will continue treatment on their own. She said it's that "one" is whay they stay open and motivated.
Granted it's not fancy shmancy, but it does educate, isolate, and rehabilitate.
http:///forum/post/2665051
Chemical dependency may be part of the reason why they are not able to find a decent job.. The welfare program should include education, rehabilitation, and resources IMO.
.
Welfare programs do not offer the above mentioned. That's true. But hospitals do! We used to transport addicts, suicides, and homeless, to the "behavioral center" for treatment. As long as they abided by the rules, they got the full 2 week service. I know 2 weeks isn't really enough, but ironically, we saw the same faces every month.
They have access to the education, the rehabilitation and the resources, but of the 200 or so that I personally drove to that center myself, not one actually benefitted from it.
The staff at the rehab center told me maybe one, out of thousands will continue treatment on their own. She said it's that "one" is whay they stay open and motivated.
Granted it's not fancy shmancy, but it does educate, isolate, and rehabilitate.
reefreak29
Active Member
idk it sounds great but they would just money somewhere else (illegaly)
keri
Active Member
Originally Posted by jennythebugg
http:///forum/post/2665397
in most cases i agree, but i think there should be an exeption for medicinal marijuana
Of course, but I'd imagine those on medical marijuana would get some sort of dr's note, they wouldn't be working while under the influence anyways. (Same goes for other controlled drugs with a prescription)
http:///forum/post/2665397
in most cases i agree, but i think there should be an exeption for medicinal marijuana
Of course, but I'd imagine those on medical marijuana would get some sort of dr's note, they wouldn't be working while under the influence anyways. (Same goes for other controlled drugs with a prescription)
bgbdwlf2500
Member
im all for it. make it darn near impossible to get it, let them DIE unless they are making an effort to get find a job which we all know they arent.....im tired of going into wal mart and having to wait while they search for what they want to pay cash for or use food stamps, while they have 12 kids running around. then leave the store and since i dont have to take 45 mins searching through my food stamps, i walk out and see them driving a brand new car....
is it just me or does that seem f'ed up?
oh gotta like the woman thats asked me twice in the same walmart parking lot for money for her daughter that needs a prescription.... im pretty sure that daughter = her and prescription = some kind of illegal drug
is it just me or does that seem f'ed up?
oh gotta like the woman thats asked me twice in the same walmart parking lot for money for her daughter that needs a prescription.... im pretty sure that daughter = her and prescription = some kind of illegal drug
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2665905
I like this idea...
It would get bogged down in the courts as some ambitious lawyer would see this cause as a way to make a name for him/herself. The ACLU would also get involved I'm sure. The legal issue would probably be argued as if requiring the poor to submit to a drug screen would somehow violate their due process rights and expectation of privacy because the middle and upper income people are not so required.
Maybe someone who knows more can let us know if there has ever been a requirement that people have to comply with certain conditions before they can "earn" the assistance. If it has been done before then at least there would be some precedent.
But I do like the idea.
It shouldn't be a problem, so long as all people requesting public assistance had to pass. That would include farmers receiving crop subsidy, anyone who sold stock and wants a lower tax rate for capital gains, and so many others. That will be the problem - making it apply across all citizen classes. If it doesn't, it would certainly be contested in court.
http:///forum/post/2665905
I like this idea...
It would get bogged down in the courts as some ambitious lawyer would see this cause as a way to make a name for him/herself. The ACLU would also get involved I'm sure. The legal issue would probably be argued as if requiring the poor to submit to a drug screen would somehow violate their due process rights and expectation of privacy because the middle and upper income people are not so required.
Maybe someone who knows more can let us know if there has ever been a requirement that people have to comply with certain conditions before they can "earn" the assistance. If it has been done before then at least there would be some precedent.
But I do like the idea.
It shouldn't be a problem, so long as all people requesting public assistance had to pass. That would include farmers receiving crop subsidy, anyone who sold stock and wants a lower tax rate for capital gains, and so many others. That will be the problem - making it apply across all citizen classes. If it doesn't, it would certainly be contested in court.
xtreeme
Member
Ya, popers uh. Take prescrip
[hr]
for high. I dont even take ones dr. wants me too till I cant take it. Even asprin. When I need it, it helps but last thing I do.
Those and the needles users, heroin and coke. Uhhhhhhhhhh Stuff wrecks your life.
Be shocked how little taxes go toward welfare. What should be upseting is that if budget is not used, its just sent to crap to get rid of. Like few years ago. They make it look like the $ was needed so budget stays same. They will use it for dumb things rather then say kids that need help etc.
[hr]
for high. I dont even take ones dr. wants me too till I cant take it. Even asprin. When I need it, it helps but last thing I do.
Those and the needles users, heroin and coke. Uhhhhhhhhhh Stuff wrecks your life.
Be shocked how little taxes go toward welfare. What should be upseting is that if budget is not used, its just sent to crap to get rid of. Like few years ago. They make it look like the $ was needed so budget stays same. They will use it for dumb things rather then say kids that need help etc.
xtreeme
Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2666632
It shouldn't be a problem, so long as all people requesting public assistance had to pass. That would include farmers receiving crop subsidy, anyone who sold stock and wants a lower tax rate for capital gains, and so many others. That will be the problem - making it apply across all citizen classes. If it doesn't, it would certainly be contested in court.
Wait.......so you think they should have a door to door piss test? haha. LOL. Whats after that, search pedestrians random as they walk by, background checks when you use debit card or check. Too often a simple law, becomes messy. Rights are easy to loose, try to get them back.
http:///forum/post/2666632
It shouldn't be a problem, so long as all people requesting public assistance had to pass. That would include farmers receiving crop subsidy, anyone who sold stock and wants a lower tax rate for capital gains, and so many others. That will be the problem - making it apply across all citizen classes. If it doesn't, it would certainly be contested in court.
Wait.......so you think they should have a door to door piss test? haha. LOL. Whats after that, search pedestrians random as they walk by, background checks when you use debit card or check. Too often a simple law, becomes messy. Rights are easy to loose, try to get them back.
bgbdwlf2500
Member
this about sums it up. i took it from another site but i think its in an email going around right now.
'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, and delusional. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone --not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. Th is one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work..don't expect everyone else to take care of you!
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but if it would turn out the same way as current public housing, we're not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people..If you kidnap, ----, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you put away for the rest of your sorry life.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times,but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an America means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!
(and last but not least....)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one God. You are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all, with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!
I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States , speak out, because if you do not, who will?
'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, and delusional. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone --not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. Th is one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work..don't expect everyone else to take care of you!
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but if it would turn out the same way as current public housing, we're not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people..If you kidnap, ----, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you put away for the rest of your sorry life.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times,but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an America means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!
(and last but not least....)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one God. You are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all, with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!
I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States , speak out, because if you do not, who will?
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by xtreeme
http:///forum/post/2666638
Wait.......so you think they should have a door to door piss test? haha. LOL. Whats after that, search pedestrians random as they walk by, background checks when you use debit card or check. Too often a simple law, becomes messy. Rights are easy to loose, try to get them back.
xtreeme: That was said with tongue firmly in cheek. Sorry, I should have used some kind of indicator since that is my kind of humor.
http:///forum/post/2666638
Wait.......so you think they should have a door to door piss test? haha. LOL. Whats after that, search pedestrians random as they walk by, background checks when you use debit card or check. Too often a simple law, becomes messy. Rights are easy to loose, try to get them back.
xtreeme: That was said with tongue firmly in cheek. Sorry, I should have used some kind of indicator since that is my kind of humor.
grabbitt
Active Member
Originally Posted by EL GUAPO
http:///forum/post/2665452
I say we just ship all the druggies and the liberals that want to support them to canada .
What?! That's a horrible idea!
...Since I live 5 minutes from the bridge to Windsor.
http:///forum/post/2665452
I say we just ship all the druggies and the liberals that want to support them to canada .
What?! That's a horrible idea!
...Since I live 5 minutes from the bridge to Windsor.
grabbitt
Active Member
Originally Posted by VALgae
http:///forum/post/2667263
i agree w/ the idea but where does the funds for testing come from?
My guess: The saved funding from illegitimate welfare cases would more than cover that, lol.
http:///forum/post/2667263
i agree w/ the idea but where does the funds for testing come from?
My guess: The saved funding from illegitimate welfare cases would more than cover that, lol.