Fewer still are aware President Barack Obama just authorized the “next level” of such mandatory drug testing in order to get unemployment benefits although, more sensibly than suggestions arising in Georgia that this be done for everybody, limiting it only to those who lost their jobs due to a failed drug test or work in fields where drug testing is already mandatory (such as public safety).
The underlying notion, of course, is that taxpayer money should not be used to pay for an applicant’s habit. Who’s going to be against that? Of course, this begs the question: OK, if thus discovered what will be done to help such people given addiction is considered a medical condition?
Granny will also have to pay for it, as would mom/dad to begin with. The state will require the tests but not cover the costs ... another “unfunded mandate.” And, of course, the roughly 60 percent of adults that surveys show have never used drugs would also have to be tested along with the federally estimated 7.5 percent of Georgians who have used an illegal substance in the past month.
These tests are not cheap and, unlike so many seem to believe, those on welfare or jobless are not chronic cheats with a tin can full of greenbacks buried in the back yard.
There’s also the problem of “positive” results that are actually false due to ingesting some normal foods. Supporters of the Georgia measure like to point to Florida, which recently started using this approach. In the first three months, that state saw a 48 percent drop in new welfare recipients and “saved” $1.8 million. Is this because 48 percent of down-and-out Floridians are druggies or because 48 percent of them decided to use what little money they have to feed their kids instead of drug-test providers?
Come to think of it, given where some of the welfare money is sometimes known to go, perhaps alcohol/tobacco testing should be added to this bill. And, of course, in one of those ha-ha-not-funny stories all too common involving the General Assembly, shortly after this measure was introduced one of the co-sponsors was arrested for drunken driving.
This approach would require more, not less, state funding; more, not fewer, social workers; more, not less, drug treatment at taxpayer expense.
Just incidentally, this could be paid for by the legalization and taxation of marijuana that increasing piles of statistical evidence show is not as “dangerous” nor addictive as alcohol has already been proven to be. The perils of marijuana, like the benefits defended by its users, are largely all in our heads.
Actually appearing to believe that refusing assistance to those in difficulty will fix anything proves only that Georgia’s legislators live not in the actual world but in a state of denial.
Follow us on Twitter!
Since the insurance was paid for I lean towards the government butting out about drug testing. It was not a condition of the contract.
If passing a drug test is a condition, we should see unemployment premiums decrease since they will be paying fewer claims, no?
And 'reagan rules' your snide tone is not helping. My spouses' self paid wages have been so drastically reduced that for a year no unemplyoment tax has been payable. So no unemployment insurance benefits could be collected as payor and payee are one in the same. We had to take 30K out of retirement. 15% income tax of 30k is $4500, 10% penalty for not being retirment age yet of 30K is 3K. So we got a net of $22,500. Which would almost qualify for welfare. I don't care to see my legally owed income tax going to welfare to pay for alcohol strip clubs etc., while the government penalizes me 10% for using my own money to keep myself off of welfare.
That solves all the problems.
Now come on, is that asking to much?
It's not like we're saying don't breath, stop eating...etc...etc. Just don't do drugs. I think that's perfectly reasonable.
The editorial also mentions alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol can be every bit as destructive as drugs.
This is one of those situations where I do not know what the right answer is, but I do know a wrong answer when I see one and Bill 668 is a wrong one. I , also, do know a better answer when I see one and, although more expensive, the suggestion of the editorial to add more social workers and to attempt to permanently help the users is far more beneficial to society than punishing a whole family for the addiction of one member.
After my knee jerk, let's punish those freeloaders, I come back to the thought of some young child sleeping in an old automobile instead of in her bed at night.
I cannot do that..
PS
The money spent on those who do not belong in America would be better used to help our own. We should encourage all Americans to stand for Americans first.
PPS
Time and learning has also changed my mind about the use of marijuana and I think the idea of legalizing it and using the tax money to help the folks is a great idea. I have long been strictly opposed to ythe use of marijuana. The general acceptance of it by a large number of Americans from all walks of life suggests that it is in the same category as alcohol after the 18th amendment was passed. Every bit as much alcohol was sold with only the sellers reaping the benefits of the sales.
Also, we must work to support the legislation that would prohibit EBT cards from being used at bars, strip clubs, and liquor stores. Even prohibit restaurants if they aren't already prohibited.
I would go so far as to only allow use at the grocery or pharmacy.
My spouses and my work hours have been cut due to the recession. Our income is half of what it was 4 years ago. We can't afford to eat out and buy new clothes. Why should someone who doesn't work get to spend my tax money at Rainbow in Cumberland mall on new clothes? I'm shopping at the thrift store just so I don't have to make a claim on the entitlement system.