[–] [deleted] 2 points 52 points (+54|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

6
7

[–] Dargaizz 6 points 7 points (+13|-6) ago 

It's the employers choice in my opinion. If you don't like it, don't work for them.

I do agree that this is in the wrong sub. Why do some people think v/funny is a soapbox?

0
4

[–] BentAxel 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

My company has drug testing for all employees and doing so gives us a huge savings on workman's comp insurance costs. All testing is done a clinic in a private setting. Yes it is the employers choice, but its more of a safety thing.

11
2

[–] 8327646? 11 points 2 points (+13|-11) ago 

Well one could consider it funny because it's such a retarded logic it makes your head hurt. Might as well write "You should have to suck a dick to fuck a girl because I once had to do that".

1
7

[–] Broc_Lia 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

It's a bit different: Welfare is supposed to prevent starvation and poverty, not fund someone's drug habit.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] im_the_dude_man 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Seems like you struck a chord with some people.

3
0

[–] Cat-hax 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

The problem is 99% of idiots will show up high as fuck.

0
8

[–] TheodoreKent 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Then the problem is that you are hiring idiots.

1
1

[–] Totenglocke 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Really? Just like how most people show up to work drunk, right? Oh, wait, they don't and your "logic" is retarded.

2
-1

[–] iownyou 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

It's up to the employer, you dont get a choice

3
37

[–] parrygrin 3 points 37 points (+40|-3) ago 

Guys, they tried this in Florida. They found two people.

This isn't about moral outrage, it's about expanding government spending to include buying a fuck load of drug tests.

Decriminalize, rehab, preach. All waaay cheaper than prohibition.

0
12

[–] Runaway-White-Slave 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Ah come on, Gov. Rick Scott's former company, the one he gave the majority shares of to his wife before he took orifice, yeah well it stood to rake in a shit-ton of money off all those drug-tests......

I mean what good is political offices if you can't use it to write policy to directly fund your company?

In this day & age, it isn't enough to simply let all the higher ranking politicians get away with insider trading and stuff, nope got to make real money..........

0
2

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

before he took orifice

I assume that was a typo, but it works so well.

1
8

[–] Mylon 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Yes. Everyone needs to stop this bullshit "everyone is a drug abusing welfare queen". It's all manufactured outrage to hide the real corporate welfare that's dragging our country down.

1
2

[–] FetusChrist 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I think that's a bit of a cherry picked data point. The tests themselves only picked out a few, but significantly more knew they wouldn't pass the tests and eliminated themselves from testing and from benefits.

We've had success in Utah with testing, hell we don't even kick the positives off assistance. We just require them to attend drug counseling to continue to get it.

0
1

[–] parrygrin 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Another dude is saying AZ had similar results, so I don't know that it's so cherry picked, but you're making a legitimate argument about selection bias, so have an upvoat.

Perhaps Utah is having better results because the law is less punitive and more rehabilitative, the demographics are significantly different from other places, and the state culture is such that preaching is seen as a valid alternative to prison?

0
1

[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I've got an even better joke. In Arizona, they tested 87,000 welfare recipients. They found, not even shitting you, one guy that tested positive for drugs. Guess who pays for those other 79,999 drug tests that came back Negative? That's right, the Arizona taxpayer!

This proposed statute is just porkbarrel spending and an attempt to gut the 4th Amendment (As cited by the Florida courts that shot down this same statute when the FL Legislature passed it), disguised as "saving the taxpayer money" by going after a socially-acceptable target.

0
0

[–] FemaleVet4Trump 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

What was the chain of custody for the urine? Was the test observed?

5
13

[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 5 points 13 points (+18|-5) ago 

There's a gulf of a difference between a private corporation asking you to submit to a search of your personal effects (Your medical details and/or privacy, in this case) in the form of a drug test, as a precondition for employment, and the Government making it a precondition to benefit from tax dollars they have already taken from you to fund programs for public assistance.

The US Supreme Court already struck down a case requiring drug tests to get hired on with the State of Georgia (Chandler v Miller). If you can't get drug-tested to sit around on your ass on the taxpayer dime all day, in one case, because it would violate the right to be free from unwarranted searches, I fail to see any reason why the other should get a pass.

On the other hand, let's run with that logic a bit...we're not sure whether or not someone that applies for a handgun permit is actually using it the way it's intended, either. So we could just submit that person to an unwarranted search of their belongings and house, at any time. Both cases have the target effectively surrendering their 4th Amendment Rights, as a prerequisite to receiving services from their government, that their tax dollars are taken from them to pay for...but only one of these suggestions would likely draw protest from the majority of Voaters.

What part of "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," is so hard to understand?

4
8

[–] FuckYourSafespace 4 points 8 points (+12|-4) ago 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This part specifically:

shall not be infringed.

In no way the same. For me to have gotten my current job, I had to pass a piss test. If I fuck up, I have another piss test. Welfare needs me to pass, or their funding goes down. Do I benefit from them drawing funds from my account? Do you? No? I earned that money. I got up, put clothes on, drove to work, spent hours and hours there, I created things. I created things of value for the world. I put in work. Just like everyone else.

we're not sure whether or not someone that applies for a handgun permit is actually using it the way it's intended, either.

Innocent until proven guilty. If someone commits murder, it really doesn't matter if they bought the murder weapon legally, does it? What if the victim had been an upstanding citizen, but couldn't quite afford a handgun, plus "training," and the CCW fee for their given location?

I carry. All day, every day. I paid a firearms instructor to give a very common sense class (I have a strong military background, I've qualified expert on every single weapon they let me fire. I can handle my firearms. Is that not training enough?). He signs some bullshit training certificate, I turned that in and submitted to a background check by my CLEO, along with another payment to the County. I paid my taxes, he is paid out of that same tax pool, along with the rest of the LEOs. I'm not a felon, I'm not here illegally, I have no warrants, and I'm not a fugitive. I abide by the law.

Why should I have to pay to exercise my Constitutional Rights, but they get a free ride on my dime?

Also, I'm not attacking you, @CrazyInAnInsaneWorld. One of my sore subjects, I guess.

0
5

[–] 8328200? 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You know, you can both be right.

The Constitution should be followed in both cases, regardless of what either the left or the right think.

0
4

[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

No worries. As a fellow gun owner saving up for and training for my CCW, I understand completely. It's also why I used the firearms argument, because I knew it was something that was relatable and would resonate.

But that's also precisely my point. Innocent until proven guilty. Forcing a piss test on everyone who applies for welfare already presumes guilt, else they wouldn't be looking for evidence of guilt by requiring a piss test. Private companies can get away with it, because they aren't the government, and private companies can't take away your freedom or otherwise legally sentence you for coming up dirty.

And that's even before we get into the issue that these tests often cost the States more than they save them in welfare benefits, in the first place (In Arizona, out of 87,000 welfare recipients tested, only one person tested positive for illicit drugs...the state picks up the tab for those other 79,999 people's test, because they came back Negative). It's a boondoggle through and through, just more pork handed to Big Pharma (More accurately, the Lab Testing arm) under the guise of saving the taxpayer money. Its insidiousness is that on top of the civil rights violations (To illustrate, a Florida court shot down the statute when the Florida Legislature passed it, for the same reasons I state here), it doesn't even do what it intends to do, so even if we could square the circle that is the 4th Amendment, we still have that problem.

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

and the Government making it a precondition to benefit from tax dollars they have already taken from you to fund programs for public assistance.

Fine. If you paid income tax this year then you're exempt. Happy?

1
1

[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

No, because it doesn't address the 4th Amendment violations, which has been the basis for courts all over the US (Such as Florida, when their Legislature passed such a statute) striking down the law.

Presumption of Innocence. What is so difficult to understand about this? A piss test amounts to a search, for constitutional reasons, and even our own Courts agree on this. If you can demonstrate probable cause that a welfare recipient is in possession of or is actively taking/under the influence of illicit drugs, then, and only then, should you be able to get a warrant to piss test them. And considering the metabolite half-life in the human body of most street drugs is, at most worst cases, several days (Opiates have a few days half-life, iirc...still plenty of time to get a rubber-stamped warrant) there is plenty of time to test a suspected druggie, thus eliminating the urgency requirement that would open up prerequisite screening an option.

3
-1

[–] 8328190? 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

The Constitution only matters when it prevents things these folks don't like.

When it prevents things they want, it's judges being politically motivated.

0
3

[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

There's folks like that on both sides of the arena, sadly.

Unfortunately for them, I am a constitutionalist, and will continue to make these arguments wherever stuff like this pops up.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Because this is more likely to actually happen.

2
8

[–] cointelpro_shill 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

So then your taxes would be paying for drug tests. You know how easy it is to get a jar of pee?

0
1

[–] oddjob 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yea, lets create a bigger market for clean piss. Gonna have people asking kids to piss in cups for them.

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

In the image above, someone is showing up to their door for a surprise visit. It'd have to be a dedicated and well organised stoner to buy a jar of clean pee twice a day in case an investigator shows up. They'd also need a little fridge in the bathroom to keep it fresh and a hot plate to warm it up in order to not be obviously faking.

0
1

[–] cointelpro_shill 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Surprise I'm asleep come back later

1
5

[–] not_shadowbanned_yet 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

you shouldn't be on welfare, especially if you're on drugs. and this is coming from me- a drug addict.

0
3

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I've been on welfare, and I stopped drinking and going out. I still socialised, but rarely/never in pubs. Also, I applied for the bare minimum of benefits I needed to stay afloat.

Meanwhile, I know a single mother who applied for everything under the sun, smoked weed, 20 cigarettes a day, drank like a fish, lived on expensive takeout (€20 or more for dinner every night) then complained she never had enough money.

1
0

[–] not_shadowbanned_yet 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

this is why we need fascism.

0
4

[–] Pufferf1sh 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The road to hell (and more government control) is paved with good intentions.

0
3

[–] heretolearn 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

congress should also take drug tests then. this post is dumb tho. who gives a shit what people do to their own bodies on their own time. be worried about corporate welfare since 14% of your taxes goes to them. only 3% goes to social programs.

load more comments ▼ (20 remaining)