What's new
By:

Only 12 in Utah out of 4730

How is this conducted? Random on the spot testing or are they given advance notice? Regardless, if I have to be tested for a job they should be tested to be on public support.
 
The fact that similar laws are being struck down as unconstitutional and upheld for employment is asinine at best.
 
The data from August 2012 through July 2013 indicates the state spent almost $6,000 to give 4,730 applicants a written test. After 466 showed a likelihood of drug use, they were given drug tests at a total cost of more than $25,000, according to the Utah Department of Workforce Services, which administers welfare benefits and the tests.
Click to expand...

So what is a written test like for that? You have to be brain dead not to pass it? That's a pretty big portion that gets cut out from the actual drug testing. 12/466 is still only 2.5% though even if that held true for all 4,730.
 
Stoked said:
How is this conducted? Random on the spot testing or are they given advance notice? Regardless, if I have to be tested for a job they should be tested to be on public support.
Click to expand...

Not all private employment requires a drug test. I've never taken one in my life, and refuse to work for a place that does.
 
Stoked said:
The fact that similar laws are being struck down as unconstitutional and upheld for employment is asinine at best.
Click to expand...

There are many other differences between welfare and being employed.

Do you support spending more money on drug tests that you wind up saving in welfare benefits, for a population that uses drugs are far below the average rate (generally in the 8% area for the general population)?
 
Nate505 said:
Not all private employment requires a drug test. I've never taken one in my life, and refuse to work for a place that does.
Click to expand...

True but when challeneged in court it is not struck down. So why should public assistance be any different? T ruth be told I think it should be the reverse. No drug test to work (minus jobs like paramedic, police...) and drug screening for public assistance.
 
One Brow said:
There are many other differences between welfare and being employed.

Do you support spending more money on drug tests that you wind up saving in welfare benefits, for a population that uses drugs are far below the average rate (generally in the 8% area for the general population)?
Click to expand...

I support an honest effort to ensure that our publicly funded assistance is not spent on drugs.
 
When you cannot achieve an objective and your efforts are likely to have negative consequences, yes.

"securing the border" won't keep illegals out. It will however drive them to more drastic measures and increase the payday for coyotes(people smugglers)

likewise

Drug testing recipients of gov aide won't slow drug use. It may lead to children of drug addicts getting fed less, or peeing in a cup for daddy.

Good intentions don't necessarily create good results.
 
heyhey said:
When you cannot achieve an objective and your efforts are likely to have negative consequences, yes.

"securing the border" won't keep illegals out. It will however drive them to more drastic measures and increase the payday for coyotes(people smugglers)

likewise

Drug testing recipients of gov aide won't slow drug use. It may lead to children of drug addicts getting fed less, or peeing in a cup for daddy.

Good intentions don't necessarily create good results.
Click to expand...

True. It doing nothing is a shifty answer. Fight the good fight.
 
Stoked said:
I support an honest effort to ensure that our publicly funded assistance is not spent on drugs.
Click to expand...

That's fine, as long as they test them for booze and tobacco too. I certainly don't want them spending money on those things. Soda and coffee and other things probably aren't necessary either.
 
Stoked said:
True but when challeneged in court it is not struck down. So why should public assistance be any different? T ruth be told I think it should be the reverse. No drug test to work (minus jobs like paramedic, police...) and drug screening for public assistance.
Click to expand...

But since it's optional when it comes to public funds to spend money on drug testing there should be some sort of compelling reason to do so.

If some mindless corporation wants to drug test because they believe that in spite of an applicant going thru all the hoops of their hiring process would be a bad employee because they use whatever drugs they consider bad, fine with me. But when it comes to the government hiring, it better be a good reason like they don't want a guy flying an airplane intoxicated on anything. Most regular government jobs don't drug test, because there isn't a compelling safety reason to do so. I don't see one for welfare recipients either. And since they don't test for legal drugs I see no reason for them to test for illegal ones either. From my perspective it makes no difference to me if they blow their money on weed or whiskey or heroin.
 
Nate505 said:
From my perspective it makes no difference to me if they blow their money on weed or whiskey or heroin.
Click to expand...

There is a quantifiable physiological difference between the three. Namely, that one of those three doesn't carry a significant risk for physical dependency (and that that same drug is also easiest to test for by far, in addition to being the only schedule 1 drug of the three [I still have a tough time processing this information in relative terms]).
 
Stoked said:
I support an honest effort to ensure that our publicly funded assistance is not spent on drugs.
Click to expand...

So far, every effort has found that you wind up spending more money on drug testing than you save on benefits, for a population that uses drugs with lower frequency. Your response did not address that.

Do you support honest efforts that publicly funded assistance not be spent on drugs, even when that effort will use more money than they save and target a population that already uses drugs less frequently than the general population? Is that principle worth spending extra money on, for you?
 
Nate505 said:
That's fine, as long as they test them for booze and tobacco too. I certainly don't want them spending money on those things. Soda and coffee and other things probably aren't necessary either.
Click to expand...

Are those things established as illegal by our society? No. So that arguement does not hold water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top