URINE TEST

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 theirfeet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sittingon their a-s-s, 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 ?

You have to pass a test because of company policy, unless Ohio requires all those who work in the state to pass that test.

By requiring ALL welfare recipients to pass a test, it is my opinion that one would be stereotyping ALL welfare recipients as drug addicts. Now, I did not say you said that, I'm saying that could be the implication of such a policy. Because not all people on welfare are drug addicts and not all drug addicts are on welfare.

Corporate policy versus State policy. There is the difference.

Meant to be more humorous and not as serious.


But, I do agree with the general principal that public assistance checks should not go to people who are simply using the system to feed their drug habits.

Ugh. So, we cannot require anyone receiving public assistance to pass a drug test because we would be stereotyping?

Are you kidding me?

Where does this PC Shiite end???

Haha. I'm not saying you cannot. I'm saying, personally, you should not. But if the people of said state want to go ahead and pass such legislation that is their right.

I had to take a drug test (a hair sample) and pass before being hired on to my new employer. Drugs test, even in random, are becoming more common and should be required prior to receiving public assistance. I, for one, don't want my tax dollars going up someone's nose.

Wow - a hair sample? Your employer is VERY serious. Before I was hired here, I had to pass the urine test. It was the first one I've ever had to do.

How did you study?

Yes, DS. And like a fool, I asked how far back that went. The tech responded with, "When was the last time you did anything that would concern you if it was revealed here?" I said, college.

Unfortunately, anything you study for a urine test won't be retained.

I'm sure she was up all night...til at least 11 pee.m

I totally think they should be required. I wouldn't consider it stereotyping, drug tests are given everywhere to catch the ones that are abusing.

And then term limitations should be considered. But I guess that would be another thread.

My last employer required a drug test (the only one in my life) -- my current employer did not. IMO, unless the life or safety of others is in your hands, why should you have to take a drug test?

I manage people. If they can meet or exceed job expectations I could care less if they took drugs.

Drug-testing a bus driver protects people from physical harm -- drug testing office workers is just imposing moral standards.

Do members of Congress take drug tests before voting on bills?

MJ

More congressmen should be doing drugs and fewer doing guys in airport bathroom stalls.

I couldn't care less who my Congressman has sex with. But I don't want him high or drunk when he is voting on my taxes.

Do you want to bet on whether or not 5 justices of the Supreme Court would agree?

actually, stereotyping would occur if you required only "some" to take a urine test. Requiring all to take the test is not stereotyping.

I'd be concerned if I had someone in the bank using, especially if they had access to customer accounts or cash.