Pass drug test to get assistance...???

SmarterthanYou said:
But I have to believe that sane and logical parents would spend money on diapers and baby food instead of pot. but that's just me.
Click to expand...

They do.. it's not like they don't buy food and baby stuff with their money also, but instead of having cable, maybe they buy $40 in weed every two weeks..

the assumption is always that these people are starving their kids to pay their weed habit, when the reality is they more than likely just make the kid read a book and buy weed instead of using that tiny bit extra to rent a video.. the horror!

of course the follow-up argument from the (R)ight is "if they can rent a video or buy weed then they can afford their own food".. well no, they can't... the $300 a month they get in food stamps is for their food.. the 'video renting/weed buying' is a luxury that they scrimp something else to pay for, a very very very tiny luxury... and to begrudge a family making less than $15k a year a tiny luxury like movie rental or a joint now and then takes a level of 'worry' that I simply can't comprehend.
 
Rune said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

Since we are talking about a hypothetical law for KY, that hasn't been enacted, I would have to make an assumption that they would follow most employer based testing procedures, so for the purposes of argument let's use AFSCME's procedures...

A second laboratory procedure used to analyze a positive test result from a screening test. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) is the only authorized confirmation test.

http://www.afscme.org/members/member-resources/worker-rights/procedures-for-drug-testing
Click to expand...
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Untrue.
No one is forcing them to apply for the assistance; just like no one forces someone to work for a company that requires drug testing.
In both instances, the person has the ability to refuse and do something else.

And now let's add in that even if I agreed with your premise; just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it "unreasonable".
What is "unreasonable" about it?
Click to expand...

being poor can't be a justification for making someone take a drug test.. welfare isn't a job, it's temporary charity... The 4th doesn't apply to a private sector job.. but it does to the government..(altho there are certain limited circumstances when it comes to public safety jobs, that it's allowed) [Chandler v. Miller, 520 US 305 - Supreme Court 1997http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8655257031938182800&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr]

If you want to make the poor take a test and it not be 'unreasonable', then make everyone who gets a gov't check take one, congress included.. people on SS and medicare, people in nursing homes, handicap persons, or the unemployed and SCOTUS.. all of them. then your argument might be a bit more accurate.. but then again, the Supreme have already called making congress take a test.. suspicionless and a no probable cause search.. So if it is for one, it is for another..
 
j-mac said:
I didn't say absolutely. some false positives could happen sure....What caused your wifes, and how was it resolved?
Click to expand...
we still don't know and it wasn't resolved. It's for her pain management clinic, so they did a UA every month for 3 months. when it didn't show up again, they let it go.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
government assistance and private employment are two different entities. the 4th Amendment prevents unreasonable search and seizure from government, and there are numerous court cases that require some sort of PC or RAS before a search can be legal. demanding a UA or blood draw before government assistance is completely unreasonable because there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime is being committed.
Click to expand...

That's why they're making it a requirement and applicable to everyone submitting a request; but if they don't want to take the test, don't submit an application.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
That's why they're making it a requirement and applicable to everyone submitting a request; but if they don't want to take the test, don't submit an application.
Click to expand...
then, like I said, they are automatically implying that applying for government assistance is automatic suspicion of being a drug user. that will never pass a judicial test.
 
Let me see if I have this right...y'all are for a mandate that people be drug tested but against a mandate that people have health care?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then, like I said, they are automatically implying that applying for government assistance is automatic suspicion of being a drug user. that will never pass a judicial test.
Click to expand...
It does pass the judicial test, but not retroactively, at least in Florida.

http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Florida_to_Begin_Testing_TANF_Applicants_For_Drugs_122935803.html
Beginning July 1, recipients who test positive for drugs would be denied benefits for a year. A second failed test would result in a three-year ban. Recipients who complete a drug rehab program can re-apply in six months.

In two parent households, both adults would be tested. Benefits to children could be awarded to a third party recipient, who must also pass a drug screen. The law will not affect the federal food stamp program.

Critics including the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and Florida Legal Services, which say they will decide in the coming weeks if they plan to file suit challenging the law, a version of which was struck down in 2003 by a federal court in Michigan. ....................

Federal law allows states to screen for drug use under the TANF program, which provides a maximum of $300 a month in cash assistance to needy families. The program, which replaced traditional welfare in the mid 1990s, has a 48-month lifetime cap on benefits

It has to be challeneged, and I have no idea of the case outcome if/when it does
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Who said there were no other options; plus if they're that desperate and need such help, then why are they using?
Click to expand...

I guess if you include begging or armed robbery. As to the desperation thing, really, one or two hits from a joint handed to you will cause positive readings for at least 3 weeks. Doesn't mean you were spending the babie's formula money on weed.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
we still don't know and it wasn't resolved. It's for her pain management clinic, so they did a UA every month for 3 months. when it didn't show up again, they let it go.
Click to expand...

I am happy to hear that at least....I don't like seeing anyone wrongly tagged with false shit.
 
Rune said:
As to the desperation thing, really, one or two hits from a joint handed to you will cause positive readings for at least 3 weeks. Doesn't mean you were spending the babie's formula money on weed.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is absolutely untrue. Many factors have to do with testing. One is the sensitivity of the testing parameters, second is the metabolism of the person being tested, and third is the frequency of use.

A blanket statement like what I bolded is just simply wrong.
 
j-mac said:
Sorry, but this is absolutely untrue. Many factors have to do with testing. One is the sensitivity of the testing parameters, second is the metabolism of the person being tested, and third is the frequency of use.

A blanket statement like what I bolded is just simply wrong.
Click to expand...

Bull fucking shit. You think I have never been tested? Prove your contentions.
 
Rune said:
Bull fucking shit. You think I have never been tested? Prove your contentions.
Click to expand...

How Long Do Drugs Stay In The Body?
October 5, 2007 – 12:42 pm
The following chart gives approximate detection periods for each substance by test type. Data for urinalysis are reproduced from LabCorp’s .



The ranges depend on amount and frequency of use, metabolic rate, body mass, age, overall health, and urine pH. For ease of use, the detection times of metabolites have been incorporated into each parent drug. For example, heroin and cocaine can only be detected for a few hours after use, but their metabolites can be detected for several days in urine. In this type of situation, we will report the detection times of the metabolites.

Drug Detection Periods

Substance Urine Hair Blood
Alcohol 3-5 days via Ethyl Gluconoride (EtG) metabolite or 10-12 hours via traditional method 12 hours
Amphetamines (except meth) 1 to 2 days up to 90 days 12 hours
Barbiturates (except phenobarbital) 2 to 3 days up to 90 days 1 to 2 days
Benzodiazepines Therapeutic use: 3 days. Chronic use (over one year): 4 to 6 weeks up to 90 days 6 to 48 hours
Cannabis
Single Use: 2 to 7 days
Prolonged Use: 1 to 2 years
up to 90 days 2 days
Cocaine 2 to 4 days up to 90 days 24 hours
Codeine 2 days up to 90 days 12 hours
Cotinine 2 to 4 days up to 90 days 2 to 4 days
Heroin 2 days up to 90 days 6 hours
LSD 2 to 24 hours Up to 3 days 0 to 3 hours
Methamphetamine 1 to 2 days up to 90 days 24 hours
Morphine 2 days up to 90 days 6 hours
Methadone 3 days Up to 30 days 24 hours
PCP 14 days; up to 30 days in chronic users up to 90 days 24 hours
Phenobarbital 7 to 14 days up to 90 days 4 to 7 days

http://www.passdt.com/how-long-do-drugs-stay-in-the-body/
Click to expand...

Hmmm...Single use? 2 to 7 days depending on how fast your body metabolizes the drug.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then, like I said, they are automatically implying that applying for government assistance is automatic suspicion of being a drug user. that will never pass a judicial test.
Click to expand...

It stands the test using your standards.
When you fill out a job application does it automatically imply that the employeer should have an automatic suspicion that you're a drug user; because this has passed a judicial test?
 
Rune said:
I guess if you include begging or armed robbery. As to the desperation thing, really, one or two hits from a joint handed to you will cause positive readings for at least 3 weeks. Doesn't mean you were spending the babie's formula money on weed.
Click to expand...

So no one should be fired from a job; just because they took one or two hits from a joint, that was handed to them?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
It stands the test using your standards.
When you fill out a job application does it automatically imply that the employeer should have an automatic suspicion that you're a drug user; because this has passed a judicial test?
Click to expand...
we're still talking about the differences of a private company and a government agency.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
we're still talking about the differences of a private company and a government agency.
Click to expand...

There is some argument that you agree to be tested when you accept a job, thereby waiving that right to privacy in the matter, however, with nearly every employer from the local 7-11, to American Airlines testing today that is a crock. And further, the government is not soliciting you to take assistance, you are going to them, so it seems like the same thing as a place of employment...Could this be a reason why Obama is now end running congress again through HHS in waiving the work provisions included and conerstoned in the welfare reform act?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top