Urine Test

[Moser]

Somebody at work gave me this print-off from their email today. Now, I don't usually post "chain letter" type stuff, but this one is a little different and made me think.

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing drugs, while I work... Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?Why wouldn't our government do something like this? Of course, if something like this were to become a requirement to obtain a weekly welfare check our government would be forced to pay for analysis of urine samples, but thats no big deal compared to the amount of money that could be saved.

I, like many of you, work hard for my paycheck and I don't like the thought of my hard earned money going out to some lazy ass pot smoking dope dealing slacker. Why do I have to pay for somebody else's addiction? It makes me sick. :confused:

What are your thoughts?

[Neo]

Interesting. At first I thought this thread would be discussing why a Urine test is an invasion of privacy or something, but I was pleasantly surprised.

Although I've got to say this thread doesn't really lend itself to much discussion, since that makes a great deal of sense. However it would probably not happen... because it does make sense.

I do wonder about these tests though. My mom recently had to go to get tested because she got a permanent position with Lilly... the odd thing was she's been working there for the past 18 months, so I was wondering why things would be any different (and if she was a drugged up loony, they'd probably have noticed by now right?)

The tests themselves though are basically there to cover the business' ass. For instance, if you know someone is a crackhead, but can't prove it, you can't really fire them or not hire them because of it. However if you make people get tested before you'll hire them, then you've got something to fall back on.

Personally I feel that we cater enough to businesses as it is and this is just another way we relinquish our privacy and freedom (besides, if you work in a high stress job, who's business is it at all if you smoke weed after work on occasion?) which brings up another question, does the test detect alcohol and/or would that bar you from getting the position or getting fired? Would drinking be more acceptable then smoking weed?

Blah blah, rambling here.

Anyone else find it funny that walmart has you take a urine test before they'll hire you?

-Neo

[Lazere]

I tend to be a more privacy minded person, but on this one I actually agree with government urine testing.
I don't think it is an invasion of privacy for businesses to have random urine tests. How can having you pee in a cup and analyzing that an invasion of privacy? Second, if you're working in America, smoking weed at all is illegal and therefore somebodies business. Third, unless you're still drunk on the job (which is bad) you're urine test won't show alcohol. (I don't think they even test for that anyway)
Overall, random urine tests for welfare recipients would definitely be a good thing. Why should the government support you if you're doing nothing to help yourself and using the support money for illegal purposes?

[Moser]

The tests themselves though are basically there to cover the business' ass.
If an accident occurs and it turns out that the employee who caused the accident was all cracked out, that becomes a liability issue. So put simply, like you said, it is to cover their ass. Along with that, a lot of places drug test before they hire you because if you do drugs, they don’t want to waste the money on you. It costs them money to train new employees and they don’t want to train you only to have to fire you a few weeks later because you came to work all cracked out, trippin’ on acid and couldn’t do your job right.

(besides, if you work in a high stress job, who's business is it at all if you smoke weed after work on occasion?)
If you work in a high stress job, there is a reason for that stress level. Responsibility. A company should have every right to piss test somebody if they have any sort of an important role in how the business works. You can't be an accountant and smoke weed, the chances of loosing somebody a ton of money are to great.

Anyone else find it funny that Wal-Mart has you take a urine test before they'll hire you?
I actually do find that one funny only because at my local Wal-Mart it seems like every body I know who works there is on some sort of drugs. I bet they don’t do random drug screens to their current employees though. :confused:

[Prozerran]

Why wouldn't our government do something like this? Of course, if something like this were to become a requirement to obtain a weekly welfare check our government would be forced to pay for analysis of urine samples, but thats no big deal compared to the amount of money that could be saved.

I, like many of you, work hard for my paycheck and I don't like the thought of my hard earned money going out to some lazy ass pot smoking dope dealing slacker. Why do I have to pay for somebody else's addiction? It makes me sick. :confused:

What are your thoughts?

I have no problem with drug testing people on welfare. I generally don't have a problem with drug testing at all, but for shits and giggles lets just play the devil's advocate to get this discussion going.

As a citizen of the U.S., you are obligated to pay taxes unless circumstances exempt you. The government is charged with maintaining the well-being of the public by enforcing the laws of the legislature and meeting the needs of the public by instituting programs like welfare. The unfortunate circumstance here is that the laws of the people create a loop hole for people to take advantage of the programs intended to help them. Surely not everyone on welfare is taking advantage. A lot of people are just falling on hard times. Why invade their privacy? They didn't do anything wrong. Why punish those people for what others are doing wrong?

And you know, there's also the aspect of how drugs became illegal in the first place. Alcohol prohibition in the 1900's and the legal issues with drug use today are similarly problematic. Your tax dollars aren't only going to welfare, they're going to the jails where over 80% of inmates are there because of drug convictions. If you're going to complain about how much you're spending in taxes that go to people who do drugs, you might as well look at all the money that's going to keep drug users incarcerated. It brings the whole issue of tax spending on drug use into question. Regardless of where your tax money goes, you're still paying for drug use whether it's welfare, narcotics teams, drug convicts, etc. I almost think it's worth dropping the whole drug war altogether if we're worried about how our taxes are benefiting the people who are using drugs.

[Lazere]

I still have an issue with the privacy argument for urine testing. How can knowing what is in somebodies piss possibly be an invasion of their privacy? It's the same as a breath-alyzer test on the road (which should be mandatory) All the urine testing amounts to is the government knowing where its money is going, which makes it more fiscally responsible. I fail to see how that is a bad thing, ever...

[Anoiktos]

I still have an issue with the privacy argument for urine testing. How can knowing what is in somebodies piss possibly be an invasion of their privacy? It's the same as a breath-alyzer test on the road (which should be mandatory)
A breath-alyzer is a very specific instrument made to detect alcohol. A urine test can tell the tester any number of things, from what someone's diet is like to how their body processes certain materials. It might, conceivably, be usable to collect DNA samples from people if the proteins and amino acids therein are both findable and relatively undamaged by the uric acid.
All the urine testing amounts to is the government knowing where its money is going, which makes it more fiscally responsible. I fail to see how that is a bad thing, ever...
The government - at least in the U.S. - is somewhat notorious for misusing, misinterpreting, and abusing privacy laws. (Recent example: Telcom immunity) Introducing responsibility among the poor towards a lack of drug use may, perhaps, be a good idea - though it is not one I'm quite sold on yet, considering the area I live in - but having government data readily available (even through bribery or accidents) to, say, advertising companies about statistical generalizations of diet, water intake, toxins, etc. isn't, in my opinion, a good idea. Furthermore, even were the government responsible enough to safeguard their data (like they 'safeguard' that of, say, people presumed dead, even by clerical error (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23190857/)) I'm unsure as to the moral value of pragmatic decisions made using that data (for instance, not to fund a given area because its people have an unusually high amount of toxins in their urine)

[Neo]

You don't randomly take breathalyzer tests though. Those are given when the cops specifically believe you're drunk.

I'd rather smoke weed then be on 5 different anti-depressants :P

-Neo

[Lazere]

I'd like to say that the government wouldn't test for diet or any of that other stuff. I don't say this out of some idealistic delusion that the government is good. I say this because it would cost too much money to test for each of these other things. Every new piece of data collected through urine testing requires another test, and more money. The government just won't be willing to shell out that kind of money for information it won't be using, plain and simple.

[Neo]

The point was more that such a test could be incredibly invasive.

Besides when does it stop? Should they be able to test you for everything? What if they discover you have some medical condition where your prognosis is you might not be around in 4 years, thus giving them the chance to fire you before it shows up?

What about your spouse or relatives you live with? Can they be tested to?

What about other kinds of tests? Like psychiatric tests, or brain scans, etc...? Would those, like wise, be ok?

Claiming that one can't see the reason behind privacy concerns in something like "pee tests" is just being boneheaded.

Privacy is anything related to your private or personal matters.

As far as I'm concerned, these tests shouldn't be done unless you give your employer reason to think your drugged up/high/etc...

If you/i/he/she does the work everyday, perhaps even above and beyond on occasion, what the hell should you care that he enjoys smoking weed once or twice a week? Or she enjoys a glass of wine in the evening? etc...

Granted I know the test doesn't test for all of this, but still.

It's also a trust issue. Just because other people lied to you on applications, doesn't mean I did.

It's also kind of demeaning isn't it? For those of you who've actually gone through it? It's pretty humiliating.

-Neo

[femoimal]

the urine test is yet another case where companies go into illegality.

Sure, if you do a dangerous work, you are tested to see if you have the physiological requirements for the job: good eyes, good heart etc... And this by a physician. If you are in a demanding job, such as with computers, in France you are tested once a year to see if your working tools (here, your eyes), are ok and if you need glasses or so.

Routine urine tests yield all kind of data, and if become routine, might be asked when you even apply for a job. You will be refused a job for any reason (of course they wont tell you why they turned you down), but it could be cholesterol, diabetes, artery trouble, some genetic predisposition, all those things that make some red light blink in an insurance company.

Well, urine tests might be useful, but in very limited cases.

[Lazere]

Routine urine tests yield all kind of data, and if become routine, might be asked when you even apply for a job. You will be refused a job for any reason (of course they wont tell you why they turned you down), but it could be cholesterol, diabetes, artery trouble, some genetic predisposition, all those things that make some red light blink in an insurance company.

The can yield all kinds of data, but they won't. That's the main difference here. Every new piece of data requires a new test, and most of these tests make the sample they just tested unusable. The reason they require the amount they require when it's being done is because that's how much the volley of tests require. Not only that, but every test is going to cost the company that much more. If there is one factor about every corporation that is the same, it's that they don't want to spend that kind of money. Most don't even spend enough money on adequate safety measures, what makes you think they would spend that much on tests for those things?

[Prozerran]

Routine urine tests yield all kind of data, and if become routine, might be asked when you even apply for a job. You will be refused a job for any reason (of course they wont tell you why they turned you down), but it could be cholesterol, diabetes, artery trouble, some genetic predisposition, all those things that make some red light blink in an insurance company.

Just so everyone knows, an employer offering group insurance is paying for the health of every employee. The employer's rate is based on the health history of the employees, and employers cannot pick and choose who will be insured and who will not in their company. But if employers received health information in advance, spoke with their agent to find out how much more their insurance will cost, it could influence the hiring decision of the employer based on how it will impact the premium for group health insurance. If the importance of privacy laws hasn't become apparent yet, let me use another example.

Urine testing reveals one's history of usage, not merely whether they are using now but if they ever have. Suppose you have an individual who just lost their job, a family member like a spouse or a child, and was just down in their life. They make the choice to use an illegal substance to ease their suffering while they mourn in the privacy of their own home (this is not uncommon) and they get laid off from their job as a result. They move past the situation and decide to move on with their life. They need income while they are looking for a job, so they apply for government welfare. Now they're screened for drugs (which will obviously be in their system), and they're denied welfare? Is this person a deadbeat that is trying to live off of your taxes? No. But s/he is still denied welfare while searching for a job. Moreover, if companies in his/her industry drug test, they'll find the same thing. Should this person be denied a position because of his/her use of a substance to ease suffering?

Regardless of the illegal nature of narcotics, it has never been the government's right to tell us what we are allowed to do in the privacy of our own homes. When those activities affect us in public situations, that's where law enforcement is obligated to interfere for the safety of the public. It's a gray area that should be treated as such. I, for one, don't see the "drug war" lasting another 50 years. Eventually, someone with common sense is going to step in and see the light. People are free to do what ever the hell they want to do as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom and safety of others. When leaders in our government realize how much we pay for the incarceration (20 - 75 years for most inmates) of people who engage in the business of selling these substances, we'll be seeing some enormous tax savings with reduced sentences.

It's just another policy in a LONG series of bad decisions that wasn't really thought through to its logical end, and we can thank every president from Nixon to Reagan for planting and fertilizing the seed of complete and utter paranoia about narcotics. The reality is that everything is good in moderation, and there are legal substances out in the market even today that have more addictive, negative affects on your health than any narcotic. We aren't talking about cigarettes either. I'm talking about the FDA officials with very deep products allowing meat and other foods to be chemically treated with products that increase appetite and the level of toxins in your system. So, you overeat because you're always hungry, and you eat shit that should never go into your body in the first place - so much for moderation. But it doesn't end there, because then you have dietary products (also very addictive and unhealthy) that substitute some chemicals in food for other chemicals. It wouldn't be so bad if it were one or two products, but it's EVERYWHERE.

And what is the most notorious narcotic that is actually LEGAL? Caffeine.

I have no sympathy for people who complain about drug usage when they aren't throwing a fit about caffeine, probably one of the biggest scams I've ever seen as being completely designed to deceive the public and threaten their well-being. Get them addicted to food, get them fat, then give them more addictive food and label it "diet" so they can believe they're actually being "healthy" again. And as you keep going down this rabbit hole, the pharmaceutical companies, the food companies, and the "health" industry in general surprisingly survive in an otherwise struggling economy on the brink of bankruptcy. This is much, much, much more important for the public to be aware of and change than paying to put people who sell drugs in prison for most or all of their lives, or for that matter drug testing every person without a job that needs public assistance. Your tax dollars are being wasted in more ways than simply providing welfare to deadbeats. That's something you just can't control without setting a precedent for more policy to be in force for the businesses and corporations to take more advantage of the public than it already does.

Ok, I'm ending my rant. I could be here all day.

[femoimal]

Lazere, you do have a point with the tests' cost.

But new technologies are bound to make those tests cheaper in the future, and hence more sound, economically. (especially if pissing in a plastic cup gives incentives for companies to invest in such massive-numbers routines). Biotechnologies are a very dynamic sector, been there to witness it.

Now imagine how much you could sell the info of these samples to insurance companies, pharmaceutical company databases and private agencies. I don't want to be data-mined every time I change a job (and that happens a lot today), it hurts and gives me no satiiiiisssfaaAacction !

[Neo]

How much would you pay? 100 to test everyone you might employ, or 10,000 over 5 years for their medical insurance?

Do you really think businesses wouldn't test for medical anomalies that might indicate the prospective employee would utilize more then average health insurance?

-Neo

[Lazere]

Funniest thing about it is... Right now, we have the capability to test for it. The business are breaking no laws with random tests, or testing for other things in the beginning, yet they aren't... Odd, huh?

[mranderson]

So I have a question. If you have ever used a drug and it shows up than how do druggies get clean for a few weeks, and pass their tests? (the smart druggies anyways)

But people should not be allowed to do drugs in their homes, and are not in the United States (somewhat). If someone reports "loud noises" or "pot smoking" neighbors and the cops show up they'll probably get busted. Than again the police are only after dealers . That's why raves still happen. But than again you have to stop problems at the source. Still, Double standards of degradation for society.

[Kingscrab]

Overall, random urine tests for welfare recipients would definitely be a good thing. Why should the government support you if you're doing nothing to help yourself and using the support money for illegal purposes? Just because you fail a drug test that does not mean you are "doing nothing to help yourself" and are totally useless. It doesn't even mean that you use your money (earned or not) on drugs. EX: I've smoked pot many times in my life (at parties and such) and have never once paid for it. I would have probably failed a drug test.

[Toucan]

If it where to be done here it would raise an extreme grey area. It is quite legal to grow up to 2 cannabis plants in your back yard in Western Australia as long as its for personal use. You are also aloud to smoke it in the privacy of your own home. Still illegal to sell though.

Testing for cannabis creates a very large problem as it can still be detected long after the effects have worn off.