Applying For Jobless Benefits? Here, Pee In A Cup

[Purveyor]

(CNN) -- If Craig Blair gets his way, anyone filing for unemployment or food stamps must show that they are drug-free. He's a state lawmaker in West Virginia who has introduced a bill to require random drug testing for benefits and lays out his case on a Web site called notwithmytaxdollars.com.

Blair and his supporters say drug use is rampant and taxpayers are growing alarmed with how the government is spending their money.

"The message that we're trying to send is, first of all, we need to respect taxpayers and how their monies are spent," the Republican said. "And drug addiction is in epidemic proportions, and not only in West Virginia but throughout the United States."

His bill would require random drug testing for any government assistance: welfare, jobless benefits or food stamps.

Someone who failed the drug test would get the benefits and 60 days to clean up. If he failed the next test, he would lose benefits for two years.

MORE...

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/jobless.benefits/

[MADem]

1. He's a state lawmaker in West Virginia ...... say no more!!!!! NT

[ddeclue]

33. Some idiot lawmaker in FL tried the same crap too.

It's just more code word racism like Reagan and "welfare queens driving cadillacs".. These guys are assholes and I'll happily work for their defeat in 2010.

[Matariki]

2. Interesting. Then I suppose after 60 days the person can turn to crime.

And that in turn will benefit the private prison industry.

[leftyclimber]

3. They're not allowing out of committee, according to our local NPR station this morning.

He even offered to add an amendment that tested the House of Delegates. No go.

Bunch of Repuke grandstanding BS. Guess he thought the Barbie Doll ban guy was getting too much attention.

[shraby]

4. I'll go one better than Craigie boy...all people who

want to run for public office..state or federal should be drug tested before living off the government teat. Those jobs are ones that set public policy and I for one don't want someone on crack making public policy.

[dysfunctional press]

37. there should also be random testing once they get into office.

gotta keep 'em honest.

[MADem]

50. Yep. The military is subject to random tests and they are given. Civilians are subject to them,

too, but they generally aren't given unless they do something like crash a government vehicle or a train or a plane...!

If elected officials are held to the same standard as the military in this regard, that might not be a bad thing! Sounds like a great bill to introduce to the WVA legislature!! It can keep that other one company in committee!

[Mari333]

5. I take it that CEOs of bailed out banks dont have to pee in a cup

not with my tax dollars, indeed.
what an asshole.

[county worker]

6. When I'm concerned about my tax dollars being spent for war what congress critter gives a shit?

[Hawkeye-X]

7. A DU'er wrote an LTTE against Blair that the newspaper decided to publish as op-ed

I saw a thread somewhere in DU. Name slips from my memory...

[hootinholler]

13. OOPsie

See 12.

It was Lyric the LTTE is link:www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5351429|here].

-Hoot

[raccoon]

28. thanks for the link. nt

[skooooo]

8. Let them starve in the streets!

:eyes:

[ORDagnabbit]

9. how bout all lawmakers have to pee in a cup as well? n/t

[wisteria]

10. He seems to be implying buy pushing this that many unemployed people

use drugs thus suggesting that this is why they have no job.
What an a**hole.

[kernelfarmer]

11. Here's my point -- it may be flamebait -- but, it's my opinion

If most, or even a significant number of, employers require pre-employment drug testing, doesn't it only make sense to randomly test unemployment recipients? A condition of receiving the jobless benefit is "being available for work." If one is unable to pass a pre-employment drug screen, are they, indeed, "available for work?"

[Wednesdays]

18. Great, as long as ALL people receiving public funds submit to the test too

That includes all politicians and TARP exec's, too. What's fair is fair.

[doc03]

20. Agree n/t

[doc03]

19. Right on! Every week you have to sign a

statement saying you are willing, able and available for work. How can you be on drugs and be willing, able and available for work when most employers require a drug test to get a job? I will be laid off next week and if I get sick or injured I can't collect unemployment because I am not able to work.

[petronius]

24. But that accepts the notion that a pre-employment drug-screening is

acceptable or appropriate in general. Personally, I'd rather see this kind of intrusion eliminated except where a direct, job-related need for the practice can be shown. I don't believe that private employers have any right to know anything about what workers do on their time off (drugs, drinking, smoking, bungee-jumping, whatever), and should not be able to base employment decisions on that knowledge.

If legislators aren't able to ban employer drug tests, at the very least I don't want them tacitly reinforcing the idea...

[krabigirl]

27. Nope. Besides, you know the only drug they really catch is marijuana.

I am 100% against any type of drug screening. Thankfully, in my line of work, only one company asked for a drug screen. It was a crappy comnpany to work for BTW (run by Mormons, and they tried to fire me illegally while pregnant!)

[BuelahWitch]

36. No because they paid into the system

It's their money, they worked, they got laid off. It's hard enough to live on unemployment, don't punish them further.

[D-Lee]

42. Want more starving children? Then go for drug testing ...

I suspect a majority of beneficiaries have children ...

These "punishment" ideas would impact innocent family members and cause a spreading ripple of harm.

So, let's get more starving children, have them taken away from their families by social services programs, pay out more money for program staff and foster families and financial support.

Not a great way to save money! (or to reduce human misery)

[hootinholler]

12. There was an outstanding LTTE posted here recently about this...

It is being printed as an OP/Ed piece.

-Hoot

[JitterbugPerfume]

14. damn!

pot smokers get the munchies! This is brutal!

[demwing]

15. Thats fine

as long as all elected officials living off the public dime are subjected to the same drug testing.

[WI_DEM]

16. many companies are mandating this now too before they hire somebody.

[doc03]

17. I work in a USWA shop and we are subject to a

random drug test at any time and the Union backs it up. When our company hires they take a hair sample, I have heard they can tell if you have taken drugs even months or years ago. I remember back in the 70's when many of our craneman would go smoke a joint out back during lunch break, not a good idea when you have a 25 ton steel coil on a hook. Our local construction Unions advertises that Union construction workers are drug free. I don't see anything wrong with it since most working people are subject to it. I took a survey of several friends the other day and every one of them are subject to random drug tests at their jobs. I agree the politicians and CEO's should have to do the same.

[pnutbutr]

21. 60 days to clean sounds fair to me

I don't care if people do drugs but if someone is receiving government assistance and buying drugs instead of spending their money on necessities I have a problem with that and I don't see how anyone in their right mind could support people who do that. It shows a complete lack of responsibility.

[Bennyboy]

22. Are they going to test them for alcohol? Tobacco? Oxys? Vicodin?

because we don't want money going to people that are addicted to any of them either, right?

BTW< unemployment is not tax dollars. it is money earned.

[pnutbutr]

23. illegal drugs

I believe is the intent. :eyes:

I wonder where unemployment money comes from then and why part of the federal bailout is being used in some states to help cover the increase in unemployment benefits? Maybe you could tell me?

[Bennyboy]

25. I take Vicodin...and they are not my script...

so they are illegal. But they don't test for that.

My favorite was when my wife had a colleague fall asleep in a meeting. my wife asked her what was wrong and the lady said, "It must have been that I am wearing TWO morphine patches". Of course she is prescribed only one so that other one is illegal. This was in a State of CA office.
DRug testing is a total violation of the rights of everyone. When tehy test the POTUS, then maybe I am down iwth it,but until then..>FUCK THAT.


And unemployment (at least in CA) is a fund that is contributed by the employer. And the reason why CA (and other states) have asked for more is the simple fact that the money has run out.

[pnutbutr]

29. You're so cool

abusing prescriptions and all. :eyes:

State unemployment tax comes from your wages, federal unemployment tax comes from the employer.

[krabigirl]

26. bullshit. You really are brainwashed.

[pnutbutr]

30. maybe you would care to

elaborate?

[immoderate]

31. How does it prove they spent their money on drugs?

Most drugs flush out in 24 hours. Marijuana, being fat soluble remains in the system for weeks. So this will not catch most addicts. But if you went to a party a week ago, and took a couple of hits off a bong, you are nailed. Explain what good this does.

--imm

[pnutbutr]

34. If that's the case then

60 days to clean shouldn't be a problem.

[immoderate]

43. But what's the point? It's expensive to test, and it's ineffective...

Why do you want to throw away this money, decimate people's rights, invade their privacy, FOR NO GAIN?

--imm

[pnutbutr]

44. It's to save money by preventing people from throwing it away

It doesn't violate rights. It would add a requirement to receive federal assistance. The federal government does it with every bit of money it provides to anyone for anything already. The assistance can be refused by simply not applying for it and then the person will not have to abide by the requirements of receiving it.

It's cheaper to spend $20 on a drug test than pay out hundreds or thousands per month on someone who is going to throw it away on drugs instead of necessities. This would weed out the irresponsible abusers of the system and leave more for those who use it legitimately.

[immoderate]

45. Nonsense.

You are just playing morality policeman. What if the person failing the test has spent no money on drugs, and is in every way capable of going to work? What are you punishing him for?

Drug tests are more expensive than that, especially if you go beyond the ordinary piss test, which just effectively tests for marijuana use in the previous month. How does this test determine how money is spent? How does it determine the work readiness of the applicant?

Why not a performance test which would be relevant? This drug test idea is stupid, and it has always been found unconstitutional in the past.

--imm

[pnutbutr]

46. um

If you fail a drug test it implies that you spent money on drugs seeing as you had to purchase the drugs in order to use them. If you did not buy drugs but were given them by someone else then you have 60 days.

I have nothing against drug use and actually want to see MJ legalized so morality police not found here. Just common sense and responsibility police.

[immoderate]

49. You are making a giant leap.

You don't have to purchase drugs to use them. It is not implied, and you have no right to make that inference. There is no reason to collect this information. There is no benefit from testing people and maintaining the databases with this information. There is no reason to create this bureaucracy, which will harm many and help no one. People who receive unemployment have paid for it and are entitled to it. This is a very stupid idea and you have not answered the original question as to how it benefits anyone. Policing how people spend their money is a lame excuse. Suppose they want to spend it on cable TV, or pornography, or miniature golf, or strawberry Twizzlers? Those are OK?

Again, this will be very expensive, and you can't show that it helps anything. It is just plain stupid.

-imm

[leftstreet]

32. You're right - we should test all the Wall Street Bankers!

"if someone is receiving government assistance"

[pnutbutr]

38. you have a point

but I'm not so thrilled about the federal government mandating drug testing of employees of private companies. I'd rather see well thought out legislation that sets specific rules on how federal money can be used by the companies who receive it. The money here is going to the company, not individuals. That's the difference.

[leftstreet]

39. Private citizens - private companies. Your argument makes no sense

You either want drug tests for taxpayer dollar recipients, or you don't. A corporate buffer zone makes no difference.

[pnutbutr]

40. difference

is that a corporation is an entity. The money provided to it is to be used by that entity to maintain itself as an entity. The individuals in that case benefit indirectly in that they still have jobs. Maintaining the corporation benefits not just the employees but the public as well in this case.

In the case of unemployment, money is provided directly to the individual and is meant to sustain the individual. It benefits nobody else.

[dysfunctional press]

35. state lawmakers are paid with taxpayer dollars...shouldn't THEY be tested too?

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

41. Here's where that Bill o' Rights thingie could have come in handy

[annabanana]

47. CLASS WARFARE!

They do this because they CAN.

I, for one, would love to see them make the CEO's of the banks pee in a cup before we give them a single NICKLE in additional bail out funding. They all look like lushes to me.

[hedgehog]

48. Hard to do that on-line...

[davidpdx]

51. I have a solution....

Let's all pee in a container and send it to this guy. I'm sure he'd like a urine sample.