Home / Latest News /
Arkansas lawmakers weigh drug-testing proposal
By The Associated Press
This article was published January 27, 2013 at 2:07 p.m.
- Comments (63)
- aAFont Size
LITTLE ROCK — Arkansas state lawmakers are weighing a proposal that would require people to submit to drug-testing in order to receive unemployment benefits.
Under the bill, new applicants for unemployment benefits would be required to submit to a drug screen while the state would randomly test people who are already receiving benefits.
The bill was filed by Republican Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson. He said the drug testing encourages people receiving benefits to stay drug-free and therefore increase their chances of securing employment.
Another state lawmaker, Democratic Sen. Stephanie Flowers said that such drug-testing would be unconstitutional. She says there’s no reason to assume that people receiving unemployment benefits are illegally using drugs.
Flowers has proposed an amendment to the bill that would require drug-testing for the state’s elected officials and all public employees.
Comments on: Arkansas lawmakers weigh drug-testing proposal
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.
You must login to make comments.
metalfinisher says... January 27, 2013 at 4:34 p.m.
I totally agree with Mr Hutchenson he has a very valid point! I Totally disagree with the comment of Ms Flowers stateing that its unconstitutional based on the idea that people recieving unemployment benifiets are useing illegal drugs, Please let me say this about that unintelligent remark, I am a self employed business man that provides decorative metal finishes for interiors of aircaft interiors, what i do is considered non safety sensitive, but due to the FAA regulations, I have to be enrolled in a random Drug and Alcohol testing pool at MY expense just to have a job, I also drive a school bus in the mornings and afternoon and am subject to random alcohol / drug testing, Now because i hold these positions wanting to stay employed is it constitutional to me to think that I am suspect of D & A abuse, The jobs i have are a mix of private, federal and state, the benifiet moneys are my tax money, NOTE You cannot get a job at walmart with out a pre employment drug screen, does that me that those applicants are suspect, If a person is going to get state or federal assistance then pull out the cup and fill it to the line !!! I'M JUST SAY'EN
( permalink | suggest removal )
Drumroll says... January 27, 2013 at 4:36 p.m.
Ok, who'll be getting kickbacks from the drug testing firm?
( permalink | suggest removal )
whitehsetter says... January 27, 2013 at 4:50 p.m.
I agree in drug testing. but dont limit it just to unemployment benefits. welfare, food stamps all govenment assistiance. everyone of these programs you should be job ready or even if your disabled you should be as much job ready as you can be. Just like anyone who is taking medicine as long as the hmo can verify that its a valid there wont be a problem.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jackabbott says... January 27, 2013 at 4:54 p.m.
Any program other than SS and Medicare where you pay the premiums for yourself should require drug testing. Most professional and skilled jobs now require this. Sad but it is necessary or the taxpayers will wind up supporting drug offenders. Then they wind up on Medicad and other governmental programs because they cannot hold a job or have serious health problems. If the addiction cannot be broken then place them in programs and institurions that can aid and handle them. Throwing them on the streets or dishing out money only adds to the problem.
( permalink | suggest removal )
doakdw says... January 27, 2013 at 5:11 p.m.
Typical democrat. Don't drug test them, just keep giving them taxpayers money. That way they can secure their vote.
Nearly ALL benefits should be cut off before a financial catastrophe happens, if its not too late. ? Cut off all this money we are giving to the white trash, blacks and Mexicans. Its killing us! Nothing good can come from it.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 27, 2013 at 5:19 p.m.
I'm glad my working days are probably over. I've never used an illegal drug in all my sixty years of life, not even pot. I've never been subjected to the indignity of being drug tested, either, and I've had some pretty responsible jobs. I believe in drug testing for CAUSE, with the more expensive blood test that isn't "off" due to foods eaten, etc.
It is insulting to assume that people who are unemployed are drug users. If they are dirty and slovenly and act impaired, that is different. When I ever had to go the the unemployment office, I was in business clothes with all my paper work ready, and often had more professional appearance and manners than the ones working there. Nothing like kicking a person when they are down by insulting their character when they've given you no reason to.
What if the state hires some buddy firm for cheap work and the chain of custody is not what it should be? Does Jeremy Hutchinson have someone in mind? No one with his morals has a damn bit of business questioning everyone who is unemployed unless they give him reason. Maybe we should have state legislators investigated to see if they can maintain their cars well enough to not commit manslaughter, if they can be faithful to their wives, if they can avoiding brawling with their loose women to the point that the police have to be called. Yeah, you go Jeremy, you tell us all how to live. Maybe we could tell you something.
I agree that if this passes, every single member of the state government should be tested also. We might turn up some really interesting things, considering some of their other behavior.
( permalink | suggest removal )
cindi22202170708 says... January 27, 2013 at 5:37 p.m.
Good for Rep. Flowers. This is unconstitutional. If you don't believe me, search and see what has happened to other tries at this in other states. Being unemployed is NOT probable cause for a search. Criminal behavior is. It matters not what private employers do in regards to testing. The government cannot search without probable cause. It also cost Florida more than it saved, since under 2% of the ones tested tested positive. If you think it's a great idea, then amend the US Constitution to allow it but remember, that means the government will no longer need probable cause to test YOU.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... January 27, 2013 at 5:45 p.m.
My gosh if your "character" is insulted by a drug test to get money from our government you are WAY less important than you think you are.
( permalink | suggest removal )
HotSpringsLawyer says... January 27, 2013 at 6:19 p.m.
Fine, as long as it applies to everyone receiving state funds. Elected officials; members of state commissions and boards; and legislators..We do not ned to be supporting their alcohol or drug habits either.
( permalink | suggest removal )
LG1 says... January 27, 2013 at 7:09 p.m.
I think it would actually be better to test all welfare users. If they test positive, cut them off. After word gets around that the state is actually cutting off the deadbeats, maybe the rest will clean up. If not, cut them all off. I don't like working to pay for some deadbeats drug habit.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 27, 2013 at 7:47 p.m.
Ain'tNobody, you insult everyone on here by the crude avatars you post. Maybe you're one of the people on drugs, since you have no sense of the appropriate.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 27, 2013 at 7:49 p.m.
What was Hutchinson on when he had no better sense as a public figure than to brawl with a floozy and cause the police to be called, or to give her campaign money for private use? Maybe this testing needs to start at the top, where there is a lot more evidence for cause.
( permalink | suggest removal )
kwp says... January 27, 2013 at 10:52 p.m.
There is a difference between working for your state funds as employees do and having others work to pay you state funds. Equating unemployment benefits or welfare with a state pay check is illogical!
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... January 27, 2013 at 11:27 p.m.
Will alcahol be included in the random test?
( permalink | suggest removal )
a_1_buckeye says... January 27, 2013 at 11:53 p.m.
Next thing they're going to propose is a drug test to go to the grocery store! When is all this crap going to stop? It does nothing but waste MORE of our tax dollars on frivolous malarkey that is not necessary. People who do drugs eventually get caught. When they do, cut off their assistance.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Celorica says... January 28, 2013 at 12:57 a.m.
What they really need to do is do drug testing on all those receiving welfare payments. We all know the welfare money goes to drugs and not to feed the kids and pay the rent.
But the ACLU is always against that.
( permalink | suggest removal )
prpearce says... January 28, 2013 at 8:58 a.m.
As a state employee, I do not have a problem with being randomly tested for drugs. I have a prescription for any medication I take. I do not use illegal substances, nor take drugs for which I do not have a prescription. I expect my colleagues to be the same. If random drug testing is the only way to guarantee that, then so be it. I have been on unemployment in the past. It is not a fun way to live. But I did not use any illegal substances.
Unemployment benefits are in place to assist those who lost their jobs so they have funds to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables, not get high.
Another group who should be tested is those on Welfare. They receive benefits for the same reason as the unemployed, to be able to feed and clothe their families. They have an obligation to be spending the money we as tax payers provide for those things and not illegal substances or alcohol.
If the liberal left feels that the only way to be sure that random drug testing is constitutional is to test every one who gets a check from the state, then test every one. None of use should be exempt. But what benefit will they cut to pay for that?
I will submit to drug testing any time or any place. And I believe that every state employee should as well.
( permalink | suggest removal )
LevitiCuss says... January 28, 2013 at 9:18 a.m.
They did this in Florida only to find out that the people receiving assistance had a LOWER instance of drug use than the general population. But they had to spend MILLIONS of tax dollars to discover that. Jus' sayin'...
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... January 28, 2013 at 9:39 a.m.
Flowers is right. It is unconstitutional. It is government search and seizure without probable cause. What an employer can do and what the government can do are two separate things. Besides it being unconstitutional, federal law does not allow states to require testing as a condition to receive insurance.
.
Check out Johnson & Johnson contributions to legislators. They sell the drug testing kits.
.
Isn't Hutchinson the one that had the affair and gave his girlfriend $2,700 in campaign funds which he had to pay $500 for an ethics violation? ... And didn't the girlfriend beat him up?
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... January 28, 2013 at 10:14 a.m.
love how inquire post about peoples rudeness and spelling but never calls out her fellow libs on it.kinda like its not in the the constitution on what type of firearm you may own but it is that you can`t test people getting handouts.and yes extended uneployment benefits is a handout.i`m also for testing the people for nicotine as well as drugs.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Whippersnapper says... January 28, 2013 at 10:38 a.m.
I like the idea of drug testing for folks receiving unemployment screening, and they could then include their "state certified drug free" status on applications. When applying for private sector jobs, I have had to pass drug screens on at least seven different occasions. This would not be unconstitutional, as there is no constitutional "right" to government benefits. People would not have to submit to this, but to receive public assistance they would. To keep it affordable, make it a random number of searches (1-3 per year) and anyone that fails a drug test is cut off and must pay for all future drug testing should they re-apply for benefits at some point in the future.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Vickie55 says... January 28, 2013 at 10:49 a.m.
If it is unconstitutional to test for drugs to draw benefits, why is it not unconstitutional to test for drugs in order to get a job? What do you think would happen if I told a potential employer I did not want to take his drug test? I would say I would remain unemployed. But I guess that's okay because then I could draw welfare.
My concern is the innocent children involved. I would have no problem at all taking away government assistance to an adult who could not pass a drug test, but I could not take food out of the mouth of a child.
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... January 28, 2013 at 10:55 a.m.
drug testing is nothing new to the work force.i had to pass a drug test 25 years ago and after getting a job i was subject to have a random test to keep my job.i would agree once you fail a test to get benefits it should be at your cost to prove your drug free,some will say that there are people who can`t afford the test.if they have to pay for the test then it will be incentive to stay clean.
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... January 28, 2013 at 11:17 a.m.
vickie,if the parent could not pass a drug test then they probably are not good parents.if we are going to have to feed them anyways maybe it would be better if we placed them in fostercare where they could live in a good structured home recieving square meals and a chance at a better education.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Vickie55 says... January 28, 2013 at 11:38 a.m.
Lazybar, I agree with you 100%. The problem is the limited number of foster homes available and the large number of children who are, or should be, in foster care.
( permalink | suggest removal )
HotSpringsLawyer says... January 28, 2013 at 12:36 p.m.
Taking children away from their parents, even pretty crummy ones, is a pretty drastice thing to do. It's not like they are going to end up with Bill and Melinda Gates, or Joel and Victoria Osteen, as their new parents and live happily ever after. The quality homes and foster parents that would be needed are not available to help anywhere near the one who might benefit. In the meantime, probably better if the children don't starve.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... January 28, 2013 at 1:41 p.m.
Who's this Flowers person? Working people are commonly subjected to random drug tests and it's just silly to argue that anybody sincerely seeking employment should be excused from this basic requirement. And it's only unconstitutional until SCOTUS rules otherwise. Regardless, it's a basic offense to common sense to oppose Hutchinson's bill. Liberals can truly be such a bunch of idiots.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... January 28, 2013 at 1:51 p.m.
inquire you are the most unhappy little person I have ever seen. You seem to have enough time to look at avatars and you think you are the Internet policewoman for some reason. You still swim in your own ignorance and hypocrisy every day. I don't do drugs but I think you probably need to.
( permalink | suggest removal )
AtTheLake says... January 28, 2013 at 1:53 p.m.
"We all know the welfare money goes to drugs and not to feed the kids and pay the rent." Really??? Have data on this????
Florida has some data and illicit drug use was much lower that what "we all know". See leviticuss comment and you can verify that less than 3% of the welfare recipients flunked the test from credible sources.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to putting a few strings attached to social program participation, but think this idea will not have an attractive return on investment. Essentially you have to expand the government - yep hire more bureaucrats to make sure everyone is tested and results are tied to the checks, pay the bills for the testing, then hire some attorneys to handle the challenges.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... January 28, 2013 at 2:18 p.m.
I actually agree with the conservatives today. Drug abuse is a major problem, and we need to be inventive to wipe it out. I like Hot Spring lawyer's suggestion that we test the state legislators.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Pobucker says... January 28, 2013 at 3:54 p.m.
See, this is what I am sayin' about the right-wing conservatives. Let'em loose with the lawbooks and the first thing they want to do is look up your a$$ with a magnifying glass and throw you in jail if they don't like what they see. Bunch of gestapo...
( permalink | suggest removal )
Whippersnapper says... January 28, 2013 at 4:49 p.m.
Packman says
"Who's this Flowers person?"
This "Flowers person" is a legislator who has a history of saying outrageous things that offend the common sense of the average citizen. At a committee meeting on March 30, 2011 several pastors testified in favor of a church carry bill similar to what passed today. One of the pastors stated that he supported concealed carry in churches because was concerned with his personal safety and had guns pointed at him twice during his ministerial career. Her response to him was "sometimes people just die."
ht tp://arkansaspatriot.us/2011/04/02/state-senator-flowers-on-opposing-gun-rights-sometimes-people-just-die/
( permalink | suggest removal )
Felina says... January 28, 2013 at 6:07 p.m.
This seems like a no-brainer. Most folks submit to drug tests on their jobs. If they object, they can quit. Likewise, those receiving unemployment benefits are free to decline the privilege. I also support drug testing elected officials and I am surprised this is not being done routinely!
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 28, 2013 at 6:13 p.m.
States that have implemented a program for drug testing unemployment recipients on the condition that the person has to pay for the test if they fail it have found it a losing proposition. Nearly all people passed the test and the state had to refund all the money. They spent far more than the little they saved on a few unemployed.
Indiana had a testing program and only 1% failed. Many of you think that no matter how many killing sprees are made possible with military style weapons, you should still be able to have them. You claim you would be punished because of what someone else did. In situations that resulted in huge amounts of carnage. Yet you would humiliate all the honest respectable unemployed because of 1% who are not. Double standard.
No one suggested testing all the banking executives who got bail out money. This seems to be a case of picking on the poorest and most vulnerable and powerless for political brownie points for the tea baggers.
I am not ignorant about all the potential scenarios involved in drug testing. The doctor I worked for considered doing drug testing to bring in more money. I thoroughly studied all the materials and visited another clinic to observe. I was relieved when the doctor decided against the business. In my opinion, it is a dirty, demeaning business for all concerned.
One problem is that some states use a test not likely to catch anything but pot use, because it stays in the body so long. They will miss most of the hard drugs because they leave the system quickly. Another problem is that the more expensive blood test, which is far more accurate, is rarely used. I would not object to this. It is more dignified. If people don't want to know badly enough to pay for the most accurate test, maybe they don't want to know badly enough.
Perhaps my discomfort with it is that I am from a time when such a thing was unheard of and rarely called for. I am from a time when a prospective employer knew how to judge character pretty quickly upon meeting you.
Although my husband worked for a large company the last 34 years of his working life ,he was never tested. They didn't do so when he was hired. In later years, he could have been tested before being allowed to return to work after illnesses, but they never asked for it. They knew it would have been a waste of their money. He said it was pretty obvious who in the plant needed to be tested. Neither of us has anything against testing FOR CAUSE.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... January 28, 2013 at 6:40 p.m.
inquire please let me know why the word piss in my avatar is crude? Every day people on here say much worse things about other people yet you think this is bad? I guess it's since I don't agree with anything you say.
As far as drug tests my friend who owns a 300+ employee business does not want to drug test; he knows many of them use marijuana.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 28, 2013 at 9:12 p.m.
I've always thought it was a terribly crude word (or corruption of a word), even as a child, and I simply don't use it. It might surprise you to know that a great many people are more careful in their speech than that.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... January 29, 2013 at 12:45 a.m.
Celorica says "We all know the welfare money goes to drugs and not to feed the kids and pay the rent."
Just post your facts and the sources when you make a statement that you want people to believe or else stfu.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... January 29, 2013 at 6:41 a.m.
Let's take away the guns and the drugs, tax sugar and french fries, and make overweight people pay higher insurance premiums. Give people workfare instead of welfare. Send children who are victims of neglect or abuse to lovely boarding schools and summer camps. Make our schools the envy of the rest of the world and provide better financing for college. Our country will prosper only when we all stop being a bunch of lazy, fat, gun toting drug addicts. Now, I am going to go to yoga, and I WILL limit my intake of chardonnay this evening.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Vickie55 says... January 29, 2013 at 8:27 a.m.
In response to Inquire who thinks testing for cause is okay - that is a lawsuit just waiting to happen. How do you select "for cause". Is it based on dress, hair style, number of tattoos, level of intelligence? Is it based on erratic behaviour which could be caused by lots of medical conditions? Isit based on anyone who doesn't look and act just like me? Any of these could be considered profiling.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Whippersnapper says... January 29, 2013 at 10:05 a.m.
BillSmith says
"Just post your facts and the sources when you make a statement that you want people to believe or else stfu."
~
Did BS really just try to tell someone else to cite facts? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Some day, BS boy, you will cite a fact that originated somewhere other than just being pure BS opinion, and then you will have the moral authority to ask others to do the same. You probably better watch the language in your acronyms, BS boy. That's not very nice of you.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... January 29, 2013 at 11:33 a.m.
Hey inquire - "States that have implemented a program for drug testing unemployment recipients on the condition that the person has to pay for the test if they fail it have found it a losing proposition. Nearly all people passed the test and the state had to refund all the money." Just once it would be nice if you would engage in minimal critical thought before regurgitating the latest DNC talking points memo. The reason nearly all people pass the test is druggies don't take the test. Drug addicts had rather forego unemployment benefits than fail a drug test. Is the concept of prevention really that difficult for you to understand?????
Hey Felina - This is absolutely a "no-brainer", unless you have no brain.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 29, 2013 at 1:35 p.m.
Packman, the studies showed that the rate of application for benefits was not impeded by the law.
Vickie, when a worker has the signs of being high while using dangerous machinery around others, it is time to test. A worker who might have the dress or hair style of some druggies, but who is clear eyed, totally coordinated, and obviously mentally proficient, will not be tested just for long hair or scruffy clothes. How difficult is that?
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 29, 2013 at 1:46 p.m.
Packman, I'm more than a little sick of your constantly belittling my mental ability. Most all my teachers and employers would totally disagree with you.
Your kind may be the majority in this state, and think you are really important when you try to bully everyone who has any liberal opinions or is a Democrat on this Republican, tea bagger slanted rag of a paper, but you are now the minority in this country and had just as well accept it. You think you area big frogs in a little state, but remember, it is a big country out there. ( Don't even think of opening up your smart mouth and telling me to move. I was born here, as were all my people. This is our state, too.)
Constantly being arrogant and rude to us impresses no one but your obnoxious little band on here. It drives thinking people away from your party.
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... January 29, 2013 at 2:17 p.m.
employers?what employers?you just said you never had a job that you were drug tested on.so either your lying about that or lying about ever having a job or never had a real job
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 29, 2013 at 5:13 p.m.
Lazybar, you are making no sense. I do not currently work outside the home. My husband is retired. I am unofficially retired.
I have worked (starting as a teenager) as a baby sitter, hamburger stand worker, poultry processor, motel desk clerk, motel bookkeeper, medical records clerk, chiropractic assistant, chiropractic office manager, girl Friday to a printing company, office temp, and retail clerk, if I haven't forgotten something.
And NO, I have NEVER been drug tested. I have usually been hired on the spot at the first interview. As I said in another post, people in charge used to be able to judge a person's character pretty quickly. They all saved money by being able to judge character, because I have never used any illegal drug.
Your bizarre questions and assumptions show an inability to have followed the discussions. Do you need to be drug tested?
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... January 29, 2013 at 6:57 p.m.
Wow! Packman if Inquire wasn't waaaaaayyyyyyy past the age, I'd swear it was her time of the month.
Inquire you're sounding like a bitter old woman. What's wrong beginning to regret voting for your Messiah?
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... January 29, 2013 at 6:58 p.m.
inquire you are an insidious sniveling little self righteous person who constantly says things to belittle others while complaining about others doing the same. How many people are you going to accuse of using drugs? I can tell from your work history (like anyone else who has to hire people) that your skill set put you at the lower end of the spectrum everywhere you worked and based on your multiple jobs you never could stay with one company for very long. I'm sure a good part of that is people got tired of working with a pompous self righteous know it all like you and they found a way to get you to move on. It explains a lot; you were always that one who thought they were worth a Rolls Royce pay grade but were actually a Chevy. It makes it easy to figure out why you are a diehard liberal who thinks people like me are the devil. I can judge your character too, and you are a legend in your own mind.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... January 29, 2013 at 7:47 p.m.
T6,
You are a grumpy old man who just loves to insult and denigrate women. I suspect that you are either alone or married to a mouse.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... January 29, 2013 at 8:27 p.m.
Populist are you saying T6 and inquire would make a good couple? No one will ever post on these pages with a more self righteous pompous attitude than her. I would swear she was a plant by the right wing to prove how pathetic the left wing is.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 29, 2013 at 9:42 p.m.
AIN'T NOBODY, like many women, I have a checkered work history because the most important thing in my life has been my husband and my home. You obviously know nothing about how a married woman chooses to balance her life. When I chose to work outside the home, I chose jobs based on what would fit in with my husband's hours. I left a job when we moved for my husband's work. There have been periods when I needed to be free to take care of sick parents. My last two jobs ended because the businesses closed. The very last one, I was with them from the day before they opened until I helped them shut the place down on the last day.
I have a file in my desk with excellent letters of reference from my past employers.
When I was in medical records, the thirteen doctors and their nurses that I did for told me how much they appreciated my good work, and that they were so relieved to have someone who took their job seriously.
Oh, yes, I forgot one. I worked as a librarian. My boss was the most well loved librarian in this town and has won many community awards. She once told me I was the quickest learner she ever had working for her. She marveled that she only had to tell me a thing once and never repeat herself. I still have a letter from a wonderful, bookish little girl who was heartbroken when I left the library.
I had coworkers at jobs who preferred to work the shift after me because they knew everything would be as it should be; I was organized and no shirker. It made their job easier.
The woman who was manager of the chiropractic office when I was hired had been watching for someone she thought was capable of taking over so that she could leave. I was finally the one.
My skills are excellent.
You know nothing. I know what I am. And I know what you are. I'd far rather be me.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... January 29, 2013 at 9:58 p.m.
AGTFD.....Ah come on now don't insult me like that. I have nothing in common with Inquire. She's always right(in her own mind) and I'm always wrong, about everything in her opinion).
Populist.... Liberal women on here can sling the insults with the best of them. So don't act like you don't.
( permalink | suggest removal )
HotSpringsLawyer says... January 30, 2013 at 8:13 a.m.
There sure some rude rednecks on this comment thread. And yes the drug testing program would be illegal and constitutional. Private employers don't have the same constraints as government agencies..
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... January 30, 2013 at 8:39 a.m.
hsl,explain how it would be illegal to drug test someone before you give them benefits?i have never filed for unemployment or welfare but i would guess there already were guidelines to prove you were unemployed or in need of assistance.why can this not be a guideline?some will state that in states this was tried that it proved only 1% failed,maybe this is because they knew if they failed they would lose thier benefits?
inquire like i said you didn`t really have much of a job but it looks as you had many of them.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 30, 2013 at 10:37 a.m.
Lazybar, you obviously don't know much about the scope of many jobs, or how married women balance their lives. (Maybe when you are old and sick or dying and need constant help for months, your daughters will be "better" than me and keep working and let you fend for yourself.)
Many of my jobs involved being in total charge of someone's business for hours at a time with extreme multi tasking. Any job I've done has involved endless details to be kept track of and tasks to be performed simultaneously. Most required extreme literacy. That would be a real challenge for some of you who think I am so beneath you. For instance at the chiropractic office, in addition to many other things, I filed insurance, kept patient accounts, and did billing. If you were in that position, the doctor would never get paid because no one would be able to read the bills they received. If you make a mistake on an insurance claim, the insurer does not have to accept a resubmission. It is best to have it perfect the first time and not take a chance.
One other little tidbit for all you who are trying to tear me down....I was known for being extremely accurate in cash handling, never coming up short. You have no idea how rare that is sometimes.
I am a married woman with many responsibilities. My husband has always been the main earner. I am not obligated to work outside the home when I choose not to. In capitalism, I am free to sell my labor when, and only when, I choose. That is selling a piece of my life to someone. Anytime I made an agreement to do so, I honored it by practically NEVER being late or absent, and doing an excellent job. The last time I had to miss a day of work that I had agreed to do was in 1974. You people think you know so much. You are like trying to talk sense with a pack of trolls, and you're just not worth it. I have my husband, my books, my music, and my art. I don't need you or your unfair, ignorant judgements.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... January 30, 2013 at 11:02 a.m.
Hey inquire - "Constantly being arrogant and rude...." And you say I belittle people? Bless your heart.
Did it ever occur to you the rate of application could have been affected by any variety of factors? Did it ever occur to you the study had no controls for bias? Did it ever occur to you the study was manufactured for a specific purpose? Critical thought - it's not a bad thing, I promise.
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... January 30, 2013 at 12:19 p.m.
inquire i do know the scope of many jobs.......they are all just a little higher up on the food chain than you.i also know of many women that balanced jobs that were also good wives and mothers.kinda begrading to women for you to think a woman can`t be a good mother and wife while balancing a carreer.
sorry but i see drug testing as a benefit.one most jobs require drug testing and after your hired before you can start work you must pass a drug screen which may take a couple weeks.it would be handy to walk into a work place and say i`ve been out of work for the last 12 monthes and here are my clean quarterly drug test.i personally would feel better about my tax dollars going towards assistance if i know that if the person needed assistance did not have the extra money for drugs,drinks,and smokes.if you can afford these things then you don`t need assistance.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 30, 2013 at 2:28 p.m.
Sorry, Lazybar, I didn't mean to "begrade" anyone. For someone who is barely literate, you are a snob. I never claimed my jobs were ultra high on the food chain. I chose to be an ordinary person with an extraordinary private life. The purpose of a job outside the home was to support my real life; it wasn't my life. All work is honorable and necessary and helps the world turn, except to snobs. The interesting thing is that most snobs couldn't do well the jobs they consider beneath them. When push comes to shove, if given the opportunity, they learn that those jobs entail far more than they imagined, and they often aren't up to it.
My last boss paid me extra for training all new hires because he wanted them taught correctly. (His words.) He and the other partners in the family business made it plain that they wouldn't have shared your opinion of me.
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... January 30, 2013 at 5:19 p.m.
ha yeah i figured you would not miss that.anyways you can call me a snob if you want i have worked plenty of low paying manual labor jobs that were beneath most.i`m not a snob at those who have those type jobs but i am a snob when people complain about what others have when they were not willing to do the work.your a jealous ole bitty who hates everyone who has had success and think just because they had success they should give it to others when others are not willing to earn it themselves.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 30, 2013 at 5:47 p.m.
I believe this discussion was about the pros and cons of drug testing, not jealousy. You're just off on a tangent trying to reinstate prior discussions. I expressed no jealousy toward anyone. I only defended myself against accusations of two of the four resident bullies.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 30, 2013 at 5:53 p.m.
The more I look at your post, Lazybar, the more it seems that it has nothing to do with this discussion. You originally derailed the discussion with your rant at me, which ALSO had nothing to do with the ongoing discussion. Hopefully you have all that out of your system now.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... January 30, 2013 at 7:02 p.m.
Lazybar,
Inquire is highly intelligent and has a husband who loves her. You should not judge her just because she does not work outside of the home. It is none of your business. The people who are critical of those who no longer work for a wage are the first ones to expect us to make all the family arrangements with elderly or sick relatives, do all the cooking, the household repairs, community and church volunteer work, the family investment decisions....the list goes on... Please stop your disgusting old biddy talk. Inquire is middle aged--not old. As a fellow middle ager, I can't wait to be old. Then, I can feign senility and really tell people off. I love Maggie Smith on Downton Abbey. I hope that I live that long.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... January 30, 2013 at 9:23 p.m.
Just in from NewsMax:
Fox News had its worst prime time ratings in January in the coveted 25-54 demographic since August 2001, a 12-year low, and its lowest total day ratings since June 2008, Politico reports.
The year started off badly for Fox’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” in particular, which suffered its worst month ever among the 25-54 demo. January also saw the channel’s lowest total viewership in the 10 p.m. hour since July 2008.
The numbers weren’t all bad. Fox still had nine out of the top 10 shows for the month. The only program to crack Fox' total dominance was MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” which came in at the 10th spot.
*
Looks like what I have been talking about is already happening, I expect to see simular stats about the Tea Party as well. Ha, things are looking up libs.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Whippersnapper says... January 31, 2013 at 9:14 a.m.
BillSmith says
"Looks like what I have been talking about is already happening, I expect to see simular stats about the Tea Party as well. Ha, things are looking up lib"
~
BS boy is crowing because the tenth placed news program is no longer on Fox News, even though numbers 1-9 still are? That's like crowing about how great John L. Smith is because the Razorbacks didn't lose ALL their football games this season. Top 10 shows all on one channel and the other half dozen channels finally squeak ONE in there in LAST PLACE and you are doing a dance like a linebacker who tackled a running back after a fifteen yard gain when his team is trailing by six touchdowns in the fourth quarter. It is so pathetic it is laughable.
( permalink | suggest removal )
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.