Page 1 of 14
1
2
3
11
... LastLast
  1. #1

    States working towards drug testing for welfare/UI eligibility.

    A couple states are testing the waters with drug testing to determine eligibility for unemployment benefits.

    I, personally, see no reason this shouldn't happen. If you get laid off there's no reason you should be allowed to collect unemployment insurance when a drug habit could have caused your termination to begin with and testing positive will likely affect your future employability. To say nothing of the potential for unemployment dollars going towards said drug habit.

  2. #2
    How because the time Florida did it it wasted money?
    If you get laid off there's no reason you should be allowed to collect unemployment insurance when a drug habit could have caused your termination to begin with a
    Most states won't give you UI if you're fired for negligent behavior.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  3. #3
    I see this as an attempt to fuck with people, not an attempt to improve anything. There's a mentality that if someone is on public assistance, every aspect of their life should be up to public control, and I don't think it's a good one.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    How because the time Florida did it it wasted money?
    *shrug*. I'm not a policymaker. Perhaps there's a way to do it that doesn't lose money. Or maybe people in this states are willing to waste the extra money to ensure UI doesn't get spent on drugs or otherwise unproductive behavior.

    Most states won't give you UI if you're fired for negligent behavior.
    *Most* states. I know New Jersey will place a 6 week hold on your UI if you're fired for negligent behavior or quit. They won't deny it altogether.

  5. #5
    Warchief Tikaru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,021
    Didn't Florida try that a year or two ago and it turned out costing them more to test people than it did saving them by denying people welfare?

    I think people are greatly overestimating the amount of people on welfare using drugs. Either that or they greatly underestimate the costs involved to test everyone trying to get welfare.

  6. #6
    Bloodsail Admiral Giants41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New York, United States of America
    Posts
    1,067
    If its cost effective i see no problem with this. The ones who need the help wouldn't be wasting money on drugs. But if the drug tests cost more than a reasonable amount it's not worth it.
    Wow <3 Korra<3 Giants<3

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I see this as an attempt to fuck with people, not an attempt to improve anything. There's a mentality that if someone is on public assistance, every aspect of their life should be up to public control, and I don't think it's a good one.
    I don't think every aspect of someone's life should be up for public control. I do believe they should have obligations forced upon them to continue to qualify for said benefits, however.

    For example, most UI programs require you to apply to several jobs per week to qualify for the next check. I see nothing wrong with that. You can't get a job (and off Unemployment) if you're not applying, right? Well you can't get a job if you're going to test positive for illegal drugs, either.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    I don't think every aspect of someone's life should be up for public control. I do believe they should have obligations forced upon them to continue to qualify for said benefits, however.

    For example, most UI programs require you to apply to several jobs per week to qualify for the next check. I see nothing wrong with that. You can't get a job (and off Unemployment) if you're not applying, right? Well you can't get a job if you're going to test positive for illegal drugs, either.
    The problem I see in that picture is that employers can test for drugs, not that people can use them.

  9. #9
    *shrug*. I'm not a policymaker. Perhaps there's a way to do it that doesn't lose money.
    Maybe poor people on drugs all over the place is just a boogeyman.
    Or maybe people in this states are willing to waste the extra money to ensure UI doesn't get spent on drugs or otherwise unproductive behavior.
    *Most* states. I know New Jersey will place a 6 week hold on your UI if you're fired for negligent behavior or quit. They won't deny it altogether.
    Why should they? The point of UI is to ease the workforce into finding another job and improve work force liquidity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  10. #10
    Brewmaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I see this as an attempt to fuck with people, not an attempt to improve anything. There's a mentality that if someone is on public assistance, every aspect of their life should be up to public control, and I don't think it's a good one.
    I have to pass a drug test to collect my pay check. Its becoming more and more common with health and safety regulations and liability claims here. Why shouldn't a beneficiary be subject to the same restrictions. Drugs are illegal, shouldn't be doing them.

  11. #11
    Dreadlord Lovecrafts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    960
    About damn time, I don't want my taxes going to fund some dumbass' meth habit.
    Quote Originally Posted by MoanaLisa View Post
    Let's be clear: It's Pandaria, not 'panda land'. Everyone got the message?
    -Yes, yes let the anger FLOW through you.
    The community whined and bitched and cried, they stamped their little feet and demanded faster expansion releases. They don't get to complain now that expansions are shorter.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Splatter View Post
    I have to pass a drug test to collect my pay check. Its becoming more and more common with health and safety regulations and liability claims here. Why shouldn't a beneficiary be subject to the same restrictions. Drugs are illegal, shouldn't be doing them.
    Businesses test because its a liability to their operation.

    Why does that apply to government aid?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Splatter View Post
    I have to pass a drug test to collect my pay check. Its becoming more and more common with health and safety regulations and liability claims here. Why shouldn't a beneficiary be subject to the same restrictions. Drugs are illegal, shouldn't be doing them.
    The solution to this problem is giving you your freedom back, not taking it away from others.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Maybe poor people on drugs all over the place is just a boogeyman.
    So it's the rich people using drugs all over the place? Someone is using a whole lot of drugs out there.

    Why should they? The point of UI is to ease the workforce into finding another job and improve work force liquidity.
    Yes... that's the POINT of UI. Does that mean there should be no enforcement of its intended goals?

  15. #15
    While the cost would be an issue, I think in equal measure that you should be held responsible for decisions that affect your ability to get off the programs. Seriously. If you are on the public dole, it means you need help with basic needs, and if you had/have money to spend on drugs... then you would otherwise have money for important things if you were NOT using.

    I know several people who in fact use welfare money to get drugs, regularly. It's despicable.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    The problem I see in that picture is that employers can test for drugs, not that people can use them.
    You don't think employers should be allowed to test for drugs?

  17. #17
    High Overlord Grakey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Bermidji Minnesnowta
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovecrafts View Post
    About damn time, I don't want my taxes going to fund some dumbass' meth habit.
    Agreed, I would rather pay a little more to test people than have them continue to have their drug addictions funded.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Giants41 View Post
    If its cost effective i see no problem with this. The ones who need the help wouldn't be wasting money on drugs. But if the drug tests cost more than a reasonable amount it's not worth it.
    It wouldn't be cost effective it would seem from prior tests.
    But it's a good policy to create an 'evil person' image, because than you can do whatever while the public hates on that group.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    You don't think employers should be allowed to test for drugs?
    No, I do not. Then again, I don't think drugs should be illegal either.

  20. #20
    This has been tried. It costs more to do this than it saves. The overall "problem" of drug abuse among recipients of those benefits is ridiculously overblown, and this amounts to nothing more than grandstanding on a non-issue in an attempt to appease those who (wrongfully) view the recipients of any type of welfare benefits as lazy, undeserving leeches on the system.

    If they want to make fools of themselves, then forge on ahead and realize that the problem is something else entirely - to wit, the benefits are *too* good if you do nothing, and you are *penalized* too much for actually trying to get ahead and out of the system. Baseline benefits should be survival level and then go up, not be cut, when you get a minimum wage, entry level position to help balance the huge drop in income that occurs when you get an actual job versus those benefits. There's no incentive to do better - the system has been crippled by well-intentioned efforts to make it less prone to abuse for those who do have jobs, when all that does is encourage joblessness as a more preferable state for many on that system.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •