Napier has it right. Drug testing for WIC

Yeah, they should be. The WHOLE country should require drug tests to qualify for WIC.


Napier's bill would require drug testing

YEPYEPYEPYEPYEPYEP.

Quote
Dingo8YourBaby
Yeah, they should be. The WHOLE country should require drug tests to qualify for WIC.


Napier's bill would require drug testing

[Moologic] Buh, buh, but, if a druggie tests positive, she gets no free formula, and she has to feed her baybee meth-laced breastmilk. Waaaaaaaaahhhhh! [/Moologic]

It's your hell; you rot in it!

Pity that this probably won't pass. I'm sure there will be some lowing about "invasion of privacy".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is a home without children? Quiet. ~Henny Youngman

I don't want people who want to dance, I want people who have to dance. ~George Balanchine

"I took the batteries out of my biological clock and put them in my vibrator"

Some info is missing in the article. If the proposed testing is old, outdated urine testing, then it is a pure waste of money and time. Hair testing is more accurate, but, is not in line with big business preference. Too many meth heads would get popped.

Also, here is why it may not pass. Drug testing by the government is a form of a warrant-less search. This would mean a search by the government without a probable cause. This is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment. Only safety sensitive positions, where someone's life may be in danger is an exception. Such as a police officer with a firearm, for example, is an exception.

I am against drug-alcohol testing across the board in general for a number of reasons. However, in the case of an accident involving injury or death, I think that an immediate drug-alcohol test for the drivers should be mandatory. Lack of probable cause, like Techie mentions, could be problematic and even if probable cause is claimed it can be considered subjective and therefore unfair. Also, a welfare whore could be a complete lush and just not drink the day of testing and pass with flying colors. Then the next welfare whore in line could have smoked a joint 3 weeks prior and be otherwise clean and get cut off. Unless a more accurate test is invented and a more fair way to administer it is created, then I would be against it.

I don't think that ANY of them should get jack shit though regardless if they are a crackhead OR sober, so it's a moot point with me on this particular issue. However, once the government starts mandatory drug-alcohol testing in one area, I believe that it's only a matter of time before it gets out of hand and crosses the line into COMPLETE invasion of privacy and violation of patient privacy as well for those who are on various NON narcotic drugs, for example. Some people might not want it known that they have a heart problem, anxiety or depression, or even cancer for that matter. Insurance companies would jump at the chance to get their grubby paws on mandatory drug testing records too. I hate the idea of drug addict-drunk welfare whores, but I just think that it's a bad idea to implement mandatory drug testing in general.

Actually, I think it's just a sneaky way to get voters on the band wagon because of the subject matter and then for the government to do one of their little bait and switches. Today it's welfare whores, tomorrow it's the mailman, and next week it will be everybody.d

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!

Quote
kidlesskim
I am against drug-alcohol testing across the board in general for a number of reasons. However, in the case of an accident involving injury or death, I think that an immediate drug-alcohol test for the drivers should be mandatory

Omnibus Transportation Act of 1991, crafted by Ronald Reagan, implemented by George Herbert Walker Bush, covers exactly that for all commercial drivers. Unfortunately, law was written back in 1991 and mandates only a basic minimum of drug testing, which is done by means of urine testing. Urine testing is so outdated, it is only good for one thing: detecting marijuana. While no one should operate a commercial vehicle (which is a semi-truck, bus carrying over 15 people, cement mixing truck, etc) under the influence of any drugs or alcohol, urine testing only detects drugs that have been consumed in the past. Newer drugs and hard core chemical compounds do go undetected at times. It is possible to smoke a joint, take a pee test an hour later and still show no presence of marijuana. Saliva test and hair test are more accurate, but due to being new and not being mandated by US Department of Transportation, are very seldom used.

Quote
CF_Amy
Pity that this probably won't pass. I'm sure there will be some lowing about "invasion of privacy".

Yeah, and they are being supported by public funds. God forbid that there are requirements to get public aid.

I don't agree. They are not busting in your door, taking your blood and randomly testing you. You have to agree to the testing if you get the benefits. There are jobs that require drug testing in order for you to get a job, I don't view this any differently.

A search without a warrant is not illegal if you give permission for the search to take place.

Quote
Kidlesskim
I don't think that ANY of them should get jack shit though regardless if they are a crackhead OR sober, so it's a moot point with me on this particular issue.

I agree. I think it would be way cheaper to start reducing the "allowance" for the "children" of the mommy state than to keep paying the same amount and to attempt to make sure that money is spent wisely. If the state keeps taking on more responsibility, that will leave less and less for people to think about. We already have too many irresponsible people, why would we begin to enable more? People will start learning only when they start to face consequences for their own actions. Parents who monitor children all the time and keep providing allowance for their children as long as the children do what parents say, end up having these children living in their basement when said children are 40 years old.

Quote
Kidlesskim
However, once the government starts mandatory drug-alcohol testing in one area, I believe that it's only a matter of time before it gets out of hand and crosses the line into COMPLETE invasion of privacy and violation of patient privacy as well for those who are on various NON narcotic drugs, for example.

Very true. Drug testing started in the military and slowly spread to government employees with safety sensitive positions, then to government contractors with any kind of positions, then to private sector without any reason at all. Today, an employee is forced to disclose any and all prescription drugs that they take, if the employer that they work for is a private company and they conduct drug testing. Same applies for any foods that employee consumes (some foods may trigger false positives) as well as any over the counter medication.

Drug testing has become a powerful weapon of abuse. It is used by employers to punish an employee. I have seen a receptionist loose a job over some over the counter medication. The real reason was that she was single and the male boss felt she should be involved with him. She openly refused and complained to HR. 2 weeks later she was "selected for a random drug test" and terminated. Being that a private company that conducted drug testing was really tight with the company where this receptionist worked, she had no recourse of any kind. Her position was not a "safety sensitive" position so the testing lab, by law, did not have to be DOT certified.

Carma did get that manager later on. The new receptionist that he hired was giving him head in the restroom while someone else walked in and made a cell phone video of that. But, that is one out of very many. How many people have done wrong and went unpunished? Old receptionist still had to find another job.

The actual problem is actually much bigger than that. Issue here is most people do not understand the downside of drug testing the way that you do Kidlesskim. People are not being informed of how many innocent people got their lives destroyed by drug testing.

Quote
Kidlesskim
Some people might not want it known that they have a heart problem, anxiety or depression, or even cancer for that matter. Insurance companies would jump at the chance to get their grubby paws on mandatory drug testing records too.

Being that health insurance is often provided by an employer, insurance companies are very interested in all of the pre-employment drug test results. The way the law is written, a potential employee has no recourse against a pre-employment drug test inaccuracies.

Army National Guard and certain police agencies used drug testing to test women for pregnancy and termination or refusal to hire them based on that. Certain banks have been checking their employees for anti-depressant drugs and terminating/not hiring based on that. We do not hear about that in the media, as procedure is beneficial to the big business and no one dares to speak against a big business.

Thanks for the info Techie. wink

I hadn't realized that my suspicions had already come to fruition, but I am not the least bit surprised. Tell me, do you know if any of the companies have been caught testing for things other than certain drugs and alcohol, other than the pregnancy tests that you mentioned? I suspect that along with the mandatory drug testing that there is a whole sheet of boxes checked (or not) that is totally irrelevant to the drug test which is then forwarded to the company insurance provider or any interested party such as human resources. They can then find other reasons to get rid of people based on the likelihood of their costing the company or insurance provider money on down the road for potential medical expenses, paid sick days, lost productivity, etc......Is it even illegal for them to test for anything other than drugs-alcohol or to not inform the employee what all the test will entail?

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!

Quote
kidlesskim
Thanks for the info Techie. wink

I hadn't realized that my suspicions had already come to fruition, but I am not the least bit surprised. Tell me, do you know if any of the companies have been caught testing for things other than certain drugs and alcohol, other than the pregnancy tests that you mentioned? I suspect that along with the mandatory drug testing that there is a whole sheet of boxes checked (or not) that is totally irrelevant to the drug test which is then forwarded to the company insurance provider or any interested party such as human resources. They can then find other reasons to get rid of people based on the likelihood of their costing the company or insurance provider money on down the road for potential medical expenses, paid sick days, lost productivity, etc......Is it even illegal for them to test for anything other than drugs-alcohol or to not inform the employee what all the test will entail?

Yes on all accounts. They test for presence of many different drugs. There is no easy way for an employee to find out what they are really testing for, but, people who take pre-employment drug tests and are taking any kinds of medications, must disclose them all or risk not getting hired. This applies to prescription or over the counter meds.

Check out these links. Let me know if they interest you. I read a ton of that stuff. I dislike the abuse that employees endure from drug testing.

http://ask.metafilter.com/165448/False-positive-for-nonillegal-prescription-drugs-on-a-preemployment-urine-test

http://prescription-drug-abuse.com/drug-abuse-articles/prescriptiondrugabuse/employers-begin-firing-workers-for-prescription-drug-use/


Also, by the hand of Reagan administration, employers are immune from getting sued by employees, as long as it is believed that employer was acting in "good faith".

In a nutshell, the way the federal law is written, employers can test for what ever they feel like it. Fired for "failed drug test" employee has very little recourse. Demanding a re-test means that they will re-test the same exact sample that failed to begin with. If the testing equipment was dirty and has contaminated the sample, re-test will not be of any value to employee.

Here is another dictator hand written rule in part (i) of this document:

http://www.dot.gov/ost/dapc/NEW_DOCS/subpart_e/40_67_20090831.pdf

It states:

As the observer, you must request the employee to raise his or her shirt, blouse, or dress/skirt, as appropriate, above the waist; and lower clothing and underpants to show you, by turning around, that they do not have a prosthetic device. After you have determined that the employee does not have such a device, you may permit the employee to return clothing to its proper position for observed urination.

As the observer, you must watch the employee urinate into the collection container. Specifically, you are to watch the urine go from the employee's body into the collection container.

Really, really nice. Nazis used to do just that to people that they have captured.

I worked for a place that announced that drug tests were going to begin. I found a new job in a hurry. Not because I have even done drugs but because I knew what was coming.

I am still amazed at how many people in the USA support this humiliation. Sick, just outright sick. I would not wish this to my worst enemy.

"As the observer, you must watch the employee urinate into the collection container. Specifically, you are to watch the urine go from the employee's body into the collection container."


Wow, I had NO idea. I have been subjected to mandatory drug testing twice in my life. Once when I worked for a national chain and two men of the upper management came in one day to my location, like the fucking Gestapo, and called out various names as if it was some sort of a death lottery. We were then taken to a drug testing lab and told to pee in a cup, although no one searched or watched us. That shit made me SO nervous that I could NOT pee and besides, I had JUST peed a few minutes before they showed up. Another thing is that the pee room was a small bathroom right off the waiting area and had NO SINK-water with a hollow core door and all of the men just sitting right outside waiting on ME to piss all over my hand and into that little container, which didn't help matters.

Eventually, after one of the men walked across the street and bought me a large drink, I finally was able to pee in it after about an hour. To have been UNABLE to pee upon demand would have been grounds for dismissal and they refused my offer to draw blood. I felt embarrassed until the negative results came back because I could tell that they thought that I just hadn't wanted to take the test. However, one of the men who was taken in with me for testing was fired on the spot after his positive for MJ came back and he was made to leave the premises immediately due to his drug test. I had worked with him for SEVERAL months and he had never seemed the least bit impaired in any way. This wasn't a "high risk" job either and had NOTHING to do with national security. It was a restaurant, for God' sake.

The other time was with AIG Insurance company for a surgery that was slated for the following week. I received a registered letter, following a phone call, informing me that I would be REQUIRED to take a drug test prior to surgery and to "fail" it would mean DENIAL of payment for my surgery. Among other things that they tested for included nicotine. So, they NOW deny needed surgeries to patients if they smoke? This was NOT a cardiovascular related surgery either (not that it matters when surgery is needed), but rather it was back and spinal cord related. Later, after I received my DETAILED Explanation of Benefits, I found that I had been tested for pregnancy and diabetes. Since I was neither inpig or diabetic I really didn't give it much thought at the time and was more concerned with recuperation. It pisses me off when I think about it though.

One other thing that made me feel like a prisoner was that the week prior to that surgery when they gave me the alleged drug test, they strapped one of those computerized hospital bracelets to my wrist and said that if it became destroyed or was removed, that they would RETEST me and the surgery would be delayed until the results came back. So, I had to keep that damned bracelet on my wrist for several days, which I HATED. I felt violated over all of that, but since I didn't have the nearly 100k for the surgery they had me by the balls, so to speak.:sbx

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!

Quote
Kidlesskim

As the observer, you must watch the employee urinate into the collection container. Specifically, you are to watch the urine go from the employee's body into the collection container."


Wow, I had NO idea.

But, you are an open minded person, so you understand. Unlike you, most people have no idea what exactly does drug testing involve. If they did, they would be very unlikely to support it the way that they do. One thing that we all need to remember. What we wish upon others may come back to bite us in the ass later.

Statements such as: "If you are not doing drugs, you have nothing to worry about" are coming from people who either enjoy humiliation or have never been drug tested. Drug testing is a dictatorship at it's best. It is a bunch of :BS

Quote

Statements such as: "If you are not doing drugs, you have nothing to worry about" are coming from people who either enjoy humiliation or have never been drug tested. Drug testing is a dictatorship at it's best.

I've been drug tested several times due to being in EMS. They require drug and alcohol tests if you get injured or have a suspicion. Yes, i've gotten injured a few times, nature of the job. I've never felt invaded or anything. Here's how it went down: They took me to a room, sprayed blue stuff in the toilet and I peed in the cup. No big deal. I didn't feel humiliated at all. They didn't watch me pee, nor were they supposed to. They had a special bathroom that didn't have any cabinets or anything.

I read the rest of the rules, directly observed collection is NOT done every time. It's done if the urine is not within temperature or they employee has been caught using another person's urine. I have no problem with it. If someone wants to watch me pee, fine, whatever. No one forced me to take the job requiring it. Same with drug testing at work, no one forces you to take a job requiring drug testing either. Also the observed drug testing is done for government jobs, high profile jobs and the military. At MEPS they do watch you pee. Don't like it? Don't join the military.

So, my stance IS that "if you're not doing drugs, you have nothing to worry about!". I have no issues taking a drug test because if I had to take one now for my new job, I'd pass with flying colors.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is a home without children? Quiet. ~Henny Youngman

I don't want people who want to dance, I want people who have to dance. ~George Balanchine

"I took the batteries out of my biological clock and put them in my vibrator"

Quote
CF_Amy

So, my stance IS that "if you're not doing drugs, you have nothing to worry about!". I have no issues taking a drug test because if I had to take one now for my new job, I'd pass with flying colors.

If the test that you take is not botched by a minimum wage lab technician, using poorly calibrated equipment and lacks knowledge when it comes to false positives.

As far as you not minding being "watched", to each is their own. No dictatorship, communism, oppression, oligarchy or anarchy has ever existed or sustained without the overwhelming support of it's very own people.

Quote
CF_Amy
At MEPS they do watch you pee. Don't like it? Don't join the military

Believe me, I won't.

Quote
CF_Amy
Same with drug testing at work, no one forces you to take a job requiring drug testing either.

Really? With the way that most Americans are pushing for drug testing, there soon not only going to be no jobs without drug testing, but, the way it's going, drug testing will be required to hold a driver's license. Don't like it, don't drive. Wish that made sense. Guilty until proven innocent. Just like Gestapo.

Quote
Techie

Quote
CF_Amy

So, my stance IS that "if you're not doing drugs, you have nothing to worry about!". I have no issues taking a drug test because if I had to take one now for my new job, I'd pass with flying colors.

If the test that you take is not botched by a minimum wage lab technician, using poorly calibrated equipment and lacks knowledge when it comes to false positives.

As far as you not minding being "watched", to each is their own. No dictatorship, communism, oppression, oligarchy or anarchy has ever existed or sustained without the overwhelming support of it's very own people.

If you don't want a drug test, don't take a job requiring them. You're told before applying drug testing is mandatory. So it's not unlawful search and seizure because you're TOLD. I've never been drug tested without having to sign a consent form. Even when I got injured doing EMS, you sign a consent form. I also had to sign a form when I got hired saying I understood random drug testing was in the SOP's, if I got injured i'd be tested and I had to take one before I got hired. It's a private business, they can set their own rules. I have no problems with jobs requiring drug testing. I don't want some stoner serving me food at Chili's, operating the AAA tow truck if my car breaks down or taking care of me as a medical worker. Like I said, if you don't want to be drug tested, don't take jobs that requiring it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is a home without children? Quiet. ~Henny Youngman

I don't want people who want to dance, I want people who have to dance. ~George Balanchine

"I took the batteries out of my biological clock and put them in my vibrator"

Quote
CF_Amy

Quote
Techie

Quote
CF_Amy

So, my stance IS that "if you're not doing drugs, you have nothing to worry about!". I have no issues taking a drug test because if I had to take one now for my new job, I'd pass with flying colors.

If the test that you take is not botched by a minimum wage lab technician, using poorly calibrated equipment and lacks knowledge when it comes to false positives.

As far as you not minding being "watched", to each is their own. No dictatorship, communism, oppression, oligarchy or anarchy has ever existed or sustained without the overwhelming support of it's very own people.

If you don't want a drug test, don't take a job requiring them. You're told before applying drug testing is mandatory. So it's not unlawful search and seizure because you're TOLD. I've never been drug tested without having to sign a consent form. Even when I got injured doing EMS, you sign a consent form. I also had to sign a form when I got hired saying I understood random drug testing was in the SOP's, if I got injured i'd be tested and I had to take one before I got hired. It's a private business, they can set their own rules. I have no problems with jobs requiring drug testing. I don't want some stoner serving me food at Chili's, operating the AAA tow truck if my car breaks down or taking care of me as a medical worker. Like I said, if you don't want to be drug tested, don't take jobs that requiring it.

Drug testing is not unlawful, it's just plain wrong. Hilter did nothing unlawful, under the laws that were in Germany.

As I said before, soon there will be no jobs available that will not require a drug test. It is coming to that. Not liking a drug test and finding another job will not be an option. It is not jobs alone, either, Kids now have to take drug tests in school in order to participate in extra curricular activities. Condition them while they are young. Hitler's Youth Camps operated on the same principle.

AAA in my local area does not drug test their employees through urine. They are doing just fine. And believe me, they do not need a drug test to terminate an unsafe employee. There are people out there who have never been on any kinds of drugs and will screw up a $1 dollar bill. Having clean pee does not make anyone worthy of a job.

Quote
Kidlesskim
To have been UNABLE to pee upon demand would have been grounds for dismissal and they refused my offer to draw blood.

Blood test is only able to determine what is currently present in your body and in what amount. The whole point of urine testing is to see if someone has done something over a weekend, on their time off. Urine tests "look" for metabolites of a substance. Meaning that a substance has already gone through and is no longer producing any effect. Kind of like checking accounting books via audit. Just to see if someone has messed up in the past.

They knew blood test was going to come up negative since you showed no signs of impairment of any kind at that moment.

Quote
CF_Amy

Even when I got injured doing EMS, you sign a consent form. I also had to sign a form when I got hired saying I understood random drug testing was in the SOP's, if I got injured i'd be tested and I had to take one before I got hired.

You did not have a choice. None. If you did not sign, you were fired. Even if you peed in the cup.

Death row convicts sign their own execution agreements too, just so they understand what will happen right before they get a needle.

Quote
Techie
Drug testing is not unlawful, it's just plain wrong. Hilter did nothing unlawful, under the laws that were in Germany.

I was enjoying your knowledgeable explanations of how drug testing works, until this. Godwin's Law strikes again. Even if YOU think drug testing is wrong, how dare you imply there is any relation or comparison between it and the Holocaust.

d

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shauna's like a gluten-free Jim Jones for dumb, lifeless middle-aged women. I swear, this bitch could set fire to a orphanage and they would applaud her for bringing them light. ~ Miss Hannigan

Quote

Having clean pee does not make anyone worthy of a job.

To me it does. I'd hire someone who pees clean vs someone who tests positive for THC, opiates, etc. Now, if they VALID and LEGAL prescription for like T4? Fine, doesn't mean they abuse it. But, marijuana is illegal, prescriptions are not. Sorry, but if you pee dirty/hot without a valid prescription, who knows what else you'd do as an employee. Drugs are illegal, plain and simple. Employers have a right to know if their employees are doing anything illegal off the clock.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is a home without children? Quiet. ~Henny Youngman

I don't want people who want to dance, I want people who have to dance. ~George Balanchine

"I took the batteries out of my biological clock and put them in my vibrator"

Quote
CrabCake

Quote
Techie
Drug testing is not unlawful, it's just plain wrong. Hilter did nothing unlawful, under the laws that were in Germany.

I was enjoying your knowledgeable explanations of how drug testing works, until this. Godwin's Law strikes again. Even if YOU think drug testing is wrong, how dare you imply there is any relation or comparison between it and the Holocaust.

d

Simple. Holocaust started out on a low key note, just like drug testing. It was widely supported by German population. Laws were changed because people felt it was for better. It evolved into something so inhumane, it is indescribable. Drug testing could be a start of something really grand, something that we all could later regret. As of right now, drug testing is not heading in a right direction.

Where i work, everyone is subject to random drug testing. Including me, a graphic artist. Seriously? You think they'd WANT us to be on drugs. Even if I came in shit-faced drunk, there's no way I could harm anyone at work, outside of throwing up on them.

I think it's in place to screen out potential insurance liabilities, like cancer, diabetes, etc.

I try to be open-minded, and have come to realize that a lot of government initiatives and programs can be a road to perdition, so to speak - well-intentioned, but ineffective in the long run, stodgy, and even counterproductive. The problem is, corporations can become like governments: bureaucratic, backing away from the innovative thinking that founded them in the first place. It's a dilemma.

So what we are talking about is, one way or another, enforcing strict behavioral guidelines for those who need government assistance to get onto their feet (and only if they intend to do so), for the greater good, and no longer letting this free-for-all lifelong welfare nonsense exist for those who never had any education, goals, or social skills in the first place. All right.

I'm not opposed to a drug test myself, but did not know how retrograde and inaccurate they are. So, what other solutions can we come up with?

That is what I want to see: different parties in Congress coming up with creative ideas with a goal in mind, not partisan bickering and demonizing of each other. Unfortunately, though I appear to be in agreement with most people on wanting to see real change, I don't have a lot of hope that it will happen. I share everyone's frustration on the issue and don't have an answer, myself.