2012.01.25
Editorial: State aid and drug tests
One paycheck away from drug use
Some legislators want jobless Virginians to prove they’re ‘clean.’ Maybe they should be tested, too.
The moment some poor worker’s company downsizes him out of a job, he is no longer Mr. Upstanding Citizen. In the eyes of some lawmakers, he’s a suspected drug abuser.
Indeed it’s a quick slippery slide from employed to addict. Or at least that’s what Virginians (employed Virginians anyway) could be led to believe given the flurry of bills some of their representatives are pushing in Richmond to drug test those seeking government aid.
“The moment some poor worker’s company downsizes him out of a job, he is no longer Mr. Upstanding Citizen. In the eyes of some lawmakers, he’s a suspected drug abuser.”
What a bogus statement.
Even while employed, I am a suspected drug user. Hence the reason I am subject to random drug testing.
If I have to whiz in a bottle to make money that is given to others, then they damn sure should be required to do the same to take that money.
Comment by Michael — January 25, 2012 @ 7:44 am
Maybe the answer is to stop testing people and start trusting them. Or, you and your coworkers could buy the company you work for and then no one could tell you to pee in a cup to receive your money.
Comment by Scott M. — January 25, 2012 @ 8:05 am
A burden and expensive regulation from the group that complains about too much regulation. The GOP in VA says one thing and does another; complains about regulations then trys to add another one that is not needed.
Comment by Richard J Beason, CPA — January 25, 2012 @ 8:13 am
I don’t see the big deal. Whole lot of hysteria over nothing really.
“Take Black, for instance. He draws a paycheck from Virginia taxpayers. Shouldn’t the commonwealth also require him to first prove his cleanliness?”
Absolutely. Not a big deal either.
Comment by Uptheriver — January 25, 2012 @ 8:27 am
Start trusting? Ok. Scott M. I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.
Comment by Uptheriver — January 25, 2012 @ 8:30 am
Seth Greenberg’s on the phone..he wants the people making these “leaps” to try out of his team.
What governments are saying, pure and simple is, if you’re going to collect welfare or unemployment, the good citizens will not be compelled to support your illegal drug habit or recreational use.
Why should a clean uring sample be a condition of employment but not a prerequisite of collecting welfare or unemployment?
One more thing…No one is saying or implying that the unemployed are more frequent users of illegal drugs than the general population. No one that is except those NOT wanting the bill to be considered or passed.
So who is stereotyping here?
Comment by BUD — January 25, 2012 @ 8:32 am
I agree with Scott M. Companies (and gov’t agencies) should be trusting people, not asking for drug tests. If you don’t do the job you were hired to do then you should be fired, unless perhaps you or a family member have a crisis or become ill, which is a situation usually spelled out in company policy. I won’t work for a company that asks for a drug test. My references and job history and interview should be enough. If you are just out of high school, references and maybe a trial period on the job should be enough. I don’t understand why people have let drug tests become a routine part of employment. If everyone refused to take them then companies would have to stop insisting on drug testing. People need to stop being subservient and stand up for themselves.
Comment by Patricia — January 25, 2012 @ 8:45 am
@5 Uptheriver, deal! Besides we do it all the time don’t we. You go to work for a week free of charge with the expectation that we’ll be repaid for our work on Friday.
Comment by Scott M. — January 25, 2012 @ 9:23 am
#7 – Question, Patricia…do YOU want to be a passenger on an airliner that was built or repaired by someone using drugs?
Comment by Michael — January 25, 2012 @ 9:55 am
#9 – Michaeal – what you do in your free time is your business. If you are impaired on the job in any way (whether that is by drugs, alcohol, emotional crisis, the flu, etc.) you need to NOT be on the job that day. Decent employers have sick leave plans to deal with legitimate unavoidable issues. If it is something you are trying to hide like illegal drug use or alcohol abuse then someone who comes to work impaired like that should be noticed by a supervisor or reported by a coworker and removed from the assembly line/repair facility at the very least for that day. At that point whatever policy the company has about impairment on the job can come into play, perhaps including drug tests. Drug tests should not be a precondition of employment, and they should not be a routine part of employment. It’s just like the common person thwarting terrorists; if you see something, say something
Comment by Patricia — January 25, 2012 @ 11:51 am
@9 Michael, you’re being silly. Obviously no one wants their planes built by someone using drugs but I’d be perfectly happy to fly in a plane built by a company that does no drug testing.
Comment by Scott M. — January 25, 2012 @ 11:56 am
Regulations and more regulations. I thought yu guys wanted less regulations. Here is one that simply not needed.
Comment by Richard J Beason, CPA — January 25, 2012 @ 3:08 pm
Which just goes to prove the point that there are no actual “small government” people out there. Just people who want the government doing different things.
Certainly forced extraction of body fluids is within the government’s domain.
Comment by Kristen — January 25, 2012 @ 4:15 pm
Most recreational drugs are expensive due to being illegal. If the poor can afford to buy drugs, they can certainly afford basic essentials and should not need welfare. I really have a problem with someone taking my tax dollars and spending it on drugs. I wish that they would be able to somehow monitor their other spending habits. I would bet that most would be surprised how much money “the poor” spend on lottery tickets, cell phones and other non essential items. Where does that money come from??
I do not mind taxpayer money being used to help those less fortunate as long as it is legitimate. If you see a man with a sign on the side of the road that says “will work for food-God Bless”, do you think he actually will work for food? Would you feel better taking him to a fast food place and buying his meal or just passing him some cash (welfare). If you give him cash, how do you think he will spend it-on a meal or some alcohol or cigs? Welfare is basically giving cash to these people and letting them decide how to spend the money. What is the big deal mandating that they can’t use drugs and receive free money to use whatever way they feel is best?
I think that most companies require drug testing to protect themselves from a lawsuit geared society-not to discriminate. By the way, I do agree with having all of our elected officials tested before they can run for office.
Comment by jerome — January 25, 2012 @ 5:34 pm
#10 – “…someone who comes to work impaired like that should be noticed by a supervisor or reported by a coworker…”
Oh, if only it were that simple, Patricia.
#11 – No, Scott, not being silly a bit.
I’ve known people who hid their drug habit very well. Some worked in healthcare.
I don’t know about you, but I sure don’t want someone administering medication to my loved one while they’re under the influence of drugs.
Comment by Michael — January 25, 2012 @ 6:32 pm
I don’t know Michael, I work in health care and have never been given a drug test. They did take my blood once but that was to lower their health insurance premiums.
But again, no one is advocating people abuse drugs or come to work impaired. I just don’t see why I have to prove to you I’m not impaired before I can work or get an unemployment check. I’ve got nothing to hide but I still put my letters in an envelope instead of writing on a post card.
Don’t be so quick to give up your privacy.
Comment by Scott M. — January 25, 2012 @ 7:13 pm
Here is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the PC crowd.
“In the spirit of diversity, I find them offensive,”
I value diversity so much that I am offended by being exposed to the beliefs of others. What a joke!
Comment by Chuck — January 25, 2012 @ 9:34 pm
@17 Chuck, what are you talking about??
Comment by Scott M. — January 25, 2012 @ 10:26 pm
From the proposals I have read, I seriously doubt that this will save money. The tests cost money as does the treatment. Unemployed people do not have money. I don’t think requiring people who have no money to pay for their own drug testing and treatment is a serious plan. Has a cost benefit analysis even been done? The proposal would have the effect of forcing a lot of casual marijuana users into a program for drug addicts. I don’t see this as a good use of anyone’s money.
Comment by Wilbert — January 26, 2012 @ 6:47 am