Should One Have To Take And Pass A Drug & Alcohol Test....??

Question

Upon Applying For Social Assistant/ Welfare ??
(Not children just the legal asker)
Or maybe after reports of misuse of money?

Some work places ask us to do this upon hiring or random Urine Testing.

The Government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. and distribution of my taxes to
people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Because Some of us have to pass one to earn it for them…….??

Please understand – I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.

Could you imagine how much money the Government /s would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance cheque…….?

Thank you very much.

war-is-sell- Fair deal, as I'm just asking.

Just read- PLEASE REREAD THE QUESTION OVER!!!!
You answered way to quick and misjudged the whole question completely!

Hello gldjns- It's not in Canada but I just wanted to ask this question.
(As it had me wondering- What If It Was!)
Thanks

Very good point Mick- But stick to the real answer- Yes Or No?
So I take it as no ;-)

Answer 1

Don't you hate when people jump down your throat and haven't even read the whole question? lol..Jeez..
& I completely agree..

Answer 2

Drug testing is usually not required for welfare assistance where I live, unless the applicant is a known drug or alcohol abuser. The reason for testing is to weed out the addicts because the money is supposed to help support families by paying rent, buying food and for medical expenses. Those who have a drug addiction will use the money for unlawful purposes. Only known offenders are required to be tested; those with criminal records, etc. But a clean test doesn't always guarantee that the person will stay clean. If everyone had to take a test in order to get public assistance, and they were denied because they tested positive, as you indicate, it would be the innocent ones who would suffer, the ones who do not take drugs in the family, and especially the children. So saving the government's money is not really the issue here. They just want to make sure the money goes where it is intended.

Drug testing for employment is a standard procedure in some companies. But the rule applies to everyone in that situation, as the employers do not want to hire alcoholics or drug users. You can see that they are not the most reliable employees.

Answer 3

For a business, it is a good thing. If someone is buzzed knowing that the test would be performed, they cannot control their habits and work productivity would certainly suffer. If done randomly and during work hours, it can also weed out those who let the habit control them and thus lowers their productivity. However, whether or not a person is habitually buzzed does not affect their need for a safety net - even if it is of their own doing. So passing a test for aid is a terrible idea. Having one and using it as evidence to require the person to get control of themselves so they can get off the roles is not a bad idea, however but it would require provisions to what amounts to incarceration and temporary (maybe) loss of custody of children. If they then CHOOSE to forgo aid like so many homeless now do, then that is their decision that they will have to live with and aid should not be given in such a case. At least that is how I would see such testing as being the right way to proceed.

Answer 4

The flaw with this idea is that it would probably end up costing more to do the testing, and instead of tax money going to help poor people it would all end up in some private corporation's hands. C'mon man, we have to get gov't out of our private lives, making another group of people take drug tests, just because you feel that you have to do it is just making the problem worse. Why don't we all just refuse to take a drug test? I've never taken one. I've never given blood or urine samples to employers, and I've never been unemployed for more than a week or two. Just because you don't use drugs, doesn't mean you have to submit to a test of your honesty. An employer should only be able to test you for drugs if you're a proven liar. Stand up for your right to do as you please, and stop trying to punish others if you won't stand up for yourself.

Answer 5

If you have a job where people's lives depend on you being sober, then you should have to prove you are sober.

Is it Ok with you to get on a plane, bus, train, etc. where the driver is drunk?

If we work in a factory or other place with dangerous equipment, that if not operated properly could result in people getting injured, or the products being contaminated, does it not seem reasonable that there be random testing to make sure the workers are sober?

Answer 6

If I didn't already fully understand the dynamics of addiction-I may have agreed,but there is a very strict system in place as it is,and 40% of food bank recipients are children.If the parents are denied their pitiful welfare payments,I think we know who really suffers,even more.
So that would be a no,in our not so perfect or black and white world.

Answer 7

you should be fine for occasional smokers weed will be out of your system in a week and the slcohol about 48 hours however you may want to where some fresh smelling close you don't want to go to your job and smell like you were smoking a bong all night

Answer 8

YES YES YES...I feel a person should have top pass a drug screen,including hair test for past abuse,for any job or social service...any of them at all

Answer 9

drug and alcohol tests are not spiritual.............just an extension of the government to corporate america to control the masses and what they do in the lives.

Answer 10

The only people who should have to pass a drug screen are politicians and am hate radio hosts.