Skip to main content

Congress Okays Drug Tests for Unemployment Benefits

Submitted by Phillip Smith on (Issue #722)
Politics & Advocacy

As part of a deal approved Friday to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits through 2012, Congress has given its okay to allow states to drug test people applying for those benefits. The move, initially opposed by Democrats, came after the Democratic leadership bowed to Republican pressure in its eagerness to get the bill passed.

Republicans had initially called for drug testing for everybody seeking unemployment benefits, but Democrats balked before backtracking and agreeing to allow testing for those who lost their jobs because of drug use and those applying for jobs in industries where drug testing is prevalent.

It's worth noting that people fired from their jobs for drug use are fired "for cause" and not laid off for lack of work, and thus are ineligible for unemployment benefits anyway. But the provision allowing for drug testing in industries where it is common could expose hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers to drug tests before they could receive unemployment checks. None of those workers was laid off because of drug use.

The deal effectively moves the burden of drug testing from employers, who freely decide whether they think testing has more benefits than costs, to state governments and their taxpayers -- at least in those states that decide to use the new tool. Drug testing is also more likely to be imposed on lower skilled workers than on white collar workers because those sectors are where drug testing is most prevalent now.

Democratic lawmakers downplayed the extent of drug testing about to be foisted on laid-off workers, while Republicans said they would be widespread. The bill requires the Labor Department to draft regulations to determine who will be subjected to drug testing. Those subject to drug testing will be those unemployed workers "for whom suitable work as defined under the state law is only available in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing as determined under regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor," a Democratic staffer explained to the Huffington Post.

"I think it's a small percentage," Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), ranking Democratic in the House committee overseeing unemployment insurance, told the Post.

But Republicans cited employer surveys to argue that drug testing would be widespread, with one survey reporting that 84% of employers required drug tests for new hires.

"That's total nonsense," said Levin. "No way 80%."

But while Democrats and Republicans quibbled over how many jobless workers would be forced to endure the intrusive and humiliating ritual, the Drug Policy Alliance was clear and concise in its opposition to the move.

"This policy is a terrible one-two punch to the gut for thousands of struggling Americans," said Bill Piper, the group's national affairs director. "Congress has paired a generous taxpayer subsidy for corporations that drug test with a slap in the face for those struggling to find work, feed their families and keep their homes. The American people have a right to be upset over being forced to subsidize the violation of their civil liberties, when they try to access a program that they pay for with every paycheck. Drug testing is expensive and ineffective, and distracts from evidence-based policies that actually reduce the problems associated with drug use and misuse."

Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.


BJ Wheeler (not verified)

Since they want to test these people who were displaced from their jobs (in FL also for assistance), I want everyone who receives monies that we pay in taxes to get tested. Yes, that means every branch of legislature, every one paid from public funds. Every Congress person, every Senator, every one that is employed in running this country.
How many of them would pass with no errors?

Fri, 02/17/2012 - 8:53pm Permalink
Rachel (not verified)

In reply to by BJ Wheeler (not verified)















Fri, 02/17/2012 - 11:53pm Permalink
Anon (not verified)

Drug testing for unemployment relief?  If this isn't proof of a recession or looming depression in the USA, I don't know what else it is.  The economy is falling apart.  If not for the trillions of bailouts dollars being pumped into the system to propel Wall Street and banking, and the phony war on terror fueling law enforcement, security firms, the entire military industrial complex, this country would have bread lines, bank closures, vacant commercial real estate, banana republic currency devaluation, collapse of purchasing power, hyperinflation in food and energy, and people rioting and killing each other in the streets. 

So you should be happy that the USA has been going to war, not just to fight a few thousand real terrorists, but to make sure that the "nation building" is really about putting their guy in to remain favorable to the dollar.  That way America can have a strong currency even without economic fundamentals; they try to do it by keeping oil priced in dollars, even if they have to go to war.

Congress knows what is going on.  They see a disaster waiting to happen.  Any one thing, a war with Iran that goes out of control or a devastating statement from China that hurts the dollar, for example, could send the USA into an economic depression that everyone will feel.  In the not so distant future, Unemployment beneficiaries are very likely going to skyrocket and overwhelm the system. 

And guess what?  There are a lot of drug users out there that can be easily, and legally kicked out.  Congress knows the worse things get, there will be more people that will abuse drugs.  And even need to deal drugs to survive in an economic collapse with scary unemployment.  Because no matter how bad things get, when stable businesses like Wall Mart and McDonalds are in serious trouble and laying people off by the thousands, the illegal drug market will be booming!

And Congress knows that the drug criminal cartels will get most of the business.  This of course creates more need for security, law enforcement, legal system (perhaps?) and the military industrial complex.  So ultimately the government can continue holding everything together; and the USA dives deeper into a police state and prison economy.  The gall and irresponsibility of our leaders, might someday make the evil WWII Nazi's look like amateurs.   

Fri, 02/17/2012 - 10:02pm Permalink
Drewbert (not verified)

"The American people have a right to be upset over being forced to subsidize the violation of their civil liberties, when they try to access a program that they pay for with every paycheck."


This statement is a bit disengenuous since it implies that employees  are paying into the unemployment system out of their checks, which is incorrect.  Unemployment insurance is paid by the employer, not the employee, through taxes levied on the employer.  That means these people are trying to access a program that their previous employers paid into, not them.

Sat, 02/18/2012 - 12:32am Permalink
saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

In reply to by Drewbert (not verified)

since it is paid for by a tax on the employer, not directly by the worker. But both kinds of payments by employers are part of a worker's total compensation package, and it's a grave escalation of the war on users of the 'wrong' drugs to mess with them (and with everyone's right to be free of invasive drug testing without damn good cause).

Sat, 02/18/2012 - 2:37pm Permalink
Drewbert (not verified)

In reply to by saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

Where did I say anything was "fair game" in my statement?  I stated a fact.  If you don't like it, then change the law so that people pay for their own unemployment insurance.  Otherwise, the statement is still disengenuous at best.

Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:38pm Permalink
saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

In reply to by Drewbert (not verified)

When duly earned unemployment insurance can be denied over use of the 'wrong' drug , , , then by the same 'logic', and same justification of the money not coming directly from the worker, half of social security is also fair game for a piss test, as 1/2 of workers' social security is paid for by a tax on the employer. This law is fair warning that, as economic push comes to shove, the Republicans intend to steal the social security benefits of marijuana users and other 'criminals' and criminals, and Democrats will go along with it as a lesser evil to taking benefits away from 'their people'. Unless rebuffed by the courts, this law is an ominous development. It's further cause to despise the ruling duopoly.

There, I left you out of it this time, Drewbert.

Sun, 02/19/2012 - 1:15am Permalink
Drewbert (not verified)

In reply to by saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

You are failing to realize that most employers currently drug test.  That means that if you are using "illegal" drugs, that you are not capable of accepting any job offerd to you, just a very limited subset thereof.  Since being able to accept ANY job offered to you is one of the requirements for receiving benefits, and continuing to receive them once granted, you aren't meeting the requirements you agreed to when you applied.  The simple fact is that if you can't pass the test for unemployment benefits, then you can't pass a pre-employment drug test.  Under current rules in most states, if you are denied work because of an adverse drug test result you are denied further benefits, and in some states you are required to pay back what you already received.  So, in reality, this doesn't change the current system much at all.

Sun, 02/19/2012 - 2:27am Permalink
jimmy (not verified)

In reply to by Drewbert (not verified)

I find your whole post to be besides the point. This is about personal liberty under assault. I myself have very strong conservative leanings, and I am floored by the fact that this whole thing was pushed by people who claim to represent me. I believe in personal responsibility, but I believe that the more important issue at stake here is the principal that an individual should be free from intrusive governmental meddling in their private lives. I must ask what will be next? Will there be a test of my political ideals before I can apply for a governmental program? How about my spiritual beliefs? I think we are entering a very dangerous area by continuing these kinds of policies, and that it is going to take us a a nation somewhere we do not intend. This is not about liberals against conservatives, this is about who we wish to be as a people.

Sun, 02/19/2012 - 1:36pm Permalink
Drewbert (not verified)

In reply to by jimmy (not verified)

I simply pointed out that what was said was not entirely accurate.  Which is still true.  It was saynotohypocrisy that decided I was somehow advocating in favor of testing as a precursor to benefits, which I never said.  I don't like it either, but the statement I commented on was innacurate. It seems rather hypocritical for people here to be pointing out every bit of innacurate information from one side, but to suddenly get bent out of shape when their own side is held to the same standard.  It's hard to take a group seriously when they advocate a discussion on the facts, but then want to avoid the facts when they don't serve their message.

Sun, 02/19/2012 - 8:46pm Permalink
Drewbert (not verified)

In reply to by Drewbert (not verified)

You are failing to realize that most employers currently drug test.  That means that if you are using "illegal" drugs, that you are not capable of accepting any job offerd to you, just a very limited subset thereof.  Since being able to accept ANY job offered to you is one of the requirements for receiving benefits, and continuing to receive them once granted, you aren't meeting the requirements you agreed to when you applied.  The simple fact is that if you can't pass the test for unemployment benefits, then you can't pass a pre-employment drug test.  Under current rules in most states, if you are denied work because of an adverse drug test result you are denied further benefits, and in some states you are required to pay back what you already received.  So, in reality, this doesn't change the current system much at all.

Sun, 02/19/2012 - 2:29am Permalink
saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

In reply to by Drewbert (not verified)

They are perfectly qualified, it's not their fault the employers make the arbitrary demand that people use only alcohol, not cannabis, as a condition of employment. They earned their unemployment benefits the old fashioned way, they worked for them, and denying them to people over use of the 'wrong ' drug is theft. What the hell is the point of letting a drunk driver or wife beater get unemployment benefits, but not a peaceful cannabis user? What a sick perversion of justice that is.

Sun, 02/19/2012 - 1:26pm Permalink
Drewbert (not verified)

In reply to by saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

It doesn't matter if we think they are capable.  They sign a legally binding agreement to be able to accept employment from ANY employer, including those that drug test.  If they can't pass this drug test, then they can't pass the pre-employment drug test and accept the job they were offered.  You can argue about it being some major injustice, but they agreed to those terms when they applied for benefits.  It's no different from the alcoholic who gets denied benefits for losing their job for a DUI or a wife beater losing their benefits because they are in jail and can't report to work.  You're either able to meet the standard or you're not, it doesn't matter if you agree with the standard.


Also, the only thing they did to "earn" those benefits, was be hired by their previous employer.  The employer pays an insurance premium based on the number of employees they have in total.  Each employee does not have a separate account that is being paid into on their behalf.  Under current law they have no rights to those funds until they meet the requirements set out for collecting those benefits, which includes being able to accept ANY job, regardless of the company's drug testing policy.


I agree, drug testing is wrong, except in cases of an on the job accident or something similar that impacts the safety of others.  However, attacking a target that does little to change the current situation is akin to tilting at windmills.  Your time would be better served attacking the existing policies that already achieve the same ends.  Better yet, instead of trying to grandstand and use emotional arguments and rhetoric, you might try attacking using actual data.  More people will respond to an argument that shows these policies have done little to save money as they were advertised to do, and in reality tend to cost more money to the cash strapped tax payer.  That's an argument that directly relates to EVERYBODY, not just those that already share your views and were going to agree with you anyway.

Sun, 02/19/2012 - 8:39pm Permalink
saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

In reply to by Drewbert (not verified)

Like they had a fucking choice. No one agrees to be discriminated against, they just signed a crap piece of paper that a thuggish government shoved in their face.

 On this site, where most everyone agrees with me, there's no point pulling my verbal punches. I used to be much more polite, but no matter how polite I or anyone else is, the prohibitionists won't have a honest discussion about why cannabis is illegal, what the consequences of prohibition are, or how alcohol supremacism over cannabis can be morally or socially justified. Their stonewalling is intolerable to me and should be to you too. So at this point I don't hesitate to speak blunt truth to power. For example the public health and medical community know damn well that killer alcohol is far more dangerous than cannabis. Why are they shirking their responsibility to inform the public of the comparative dangers of alcohol vs. cannabis? Why not call them chickenshit over it, maybe it will shame them into doing their damn job.  

You think this law is unimportant, I think it's brazen highway robbery, but also an ominous precedent for how Republicans would love to help solve the looming Social Security benefits train wreck.  

 As far as data goes, the most important ones to me are how many people cannabis (not the war on cannabis) kills each year, and also how many people are saved every year because alcohol abusers trying not to lose it have available, in spite of the authorities' best efforts, the alternative to use cannabis instead. Apparently the number of people killed by cannabis each year is so low the federal Centers for Disease Control doesn't bother keeping track. It's intolerable to me that a drug/herb with such a low public health footprint is treated so much more severely than such a dangerous substance as alcohol, and I think it should be intolerable to you too. 

I think your time would be better served going after our common enemies (maybe they're just your opponents) and their outrageous, indefensible alcohol supremacist ways. We don't have to convince that many more people about legalizing weed, we may well already be the majority.

Well, if you read all this, thanks.

Sun, 02/19/2012 - 11:22pm Permalink
Drewbert (not verified)

In reply to by saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

They agreed to those terms, nobody made them agree to them.  They were publicly available before the person ever took the job.  You can use obscenities until you turn blue in the face, but your argument is pretty weak.  Any pot smoker can choose to stop smoking to meet the standard.  They are only eligible if they meet the stated requirements for qualifying.  The money paid into the system is a business tax, which makes the funds public funds.  It is not the employees money, it is the public's money, and the public as a whole gets to decide the terms for which it is distributed.  If you don't like the rules, contact your state representative and complain.


You may be on a site where those that are vocal primarily agree with you, but that doesn't mean your commnents aren't read by people that never comment.  I've lurked on this site for a long time, and I've seen any number of comments laced with conspiracy theories and anti-government rhetoric with little basis in fact.  While that might win the hearts and minds of those that think like you, it also alienates those that don't.  You don't need to convince the people that think like you, they already agree with you.  Look at this situation, I've lurked here a long time and commented maybe once in the past, but the one time I point out a factual error, I'm greeted by you harping on about things I never mentioned and attacking arguments I never made.  At no time have you offered any kind of fact based response that changes that the quote was innacurate, but instead offering me lectures on subjects I already knew and agree with.  Do you not see how counterproductive that is?  Do you really think you're going to win people over by acting arrogant and condescending?


I also never said the law wasn't important, I said it was a foolish target.  Since government conducted suspicionless drug testing for has been ruled unconstituitonal, these laws will be ruled against based on case precedent.  The government is already barred from compelling drug tests because it's unconstitutional because it constitutes an illegal search.  New laws can be made that contradict that finding, but the second someone challenges the law it becomes subject to judicial review, and can be stalled from implementation.  Hence, focus on the laws that have been declared constitutional instead of spinning your wheels wasting time on ones that are already being challenged where implemented and have little hope of surviving.


Again, you fail to realize that it doesn't matter what you think is important.  It matters what the person you are trying to convince thinks is important.  You can scream at people and rage all you want, but the cold reality is that some people are NEVER going to agree with you based on safety or personal rights arguments, so continuing to inundate them with those arguments just makes them tune you out.  However, if you approach them from an angle they actually care about, like their pocketbook, they are more apt to listen to you and find a common ground.


I think your time would be better served learning how to have an amicable conversation, rather than resorting to reductive logic and brow beating.  You'll probably find that people are far more receptive to your message, and the more receptive they are, the more likely it is you can find a common ground that makes both sides happy.  Even now, the largest strides being made in the legalization argument have nothing to do with personal freedom or it being safer than alcohol.  The arguments that are making the most headway are the ones that discuss increased tax revenue for cash strapped states, lower taxes for the public due to decreased enforement needs and cutting the primary revenue source for violent cartels  Those are the arguments that almost universaly make sense to people, regardless of their views on marijuana itself.


I've read every word, of every post, you've made.

Mon, 02/20/2012 - 1:23am Permalink
saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

In reply to by Drewbert (not verified)

"Also, the only thing they did to "earn" those benefits, was be hired by their previous employer."

That and not be fired for cause. What more does anyone do to get those benefits?  Are you saying that no one "earns" unemployment insurance?

Sun, 02/19/2012 - 11:41pm Permalink
Drewbert (not verified)

In reply to by saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

No, it's not earned.  Do you earn your insurance check when your house burns down?  No, you are simply receiving the money that was agreed to be paid as long as you meet the proper criteria (e.g. not burning your own house down).  That's not how insurance works.  This is the same situation, except that your employer pays the premium and you are the one allowed to collect the benefit if you meet the criteria.  Consequently, the more employees that are found to be eligible for benefits, the higher that employer's premium becomes.  It's called unemployment INSURANCE for a reason.

Mon, 02/20/2012 - 12:45am Permalink
saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

People are free to comment on all aspects of this, and the indented formatting for replies makes it as easy as it is recommended to skip over the unproductive non-dialogue between Drewbert and me.

I do hope you'll keep an open mind over whether this could be a dress rehearsal for a Republican goal of cutting  social  security benefits to users of the "wrong" drugs.There's going to be a lot of pain inflicted somewhere to right social security's finances, and the ruling duopoly is going to fight like hell to protect their people from feeling it. When financial push comes to shove, illegal drug users could easily be made the scapegoats for America's profligate ways, as they are with this slimy law that Congress just passed.

Mon, 02/20/2012 - 2:18pm Permalink
saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

In reply to by Drewbert (not verified)

 It's part of your pay package that you EARN each week that you're protected by unemployment insurance from a total cutoff of income if you lose your job without cause. The employer is well aware that he has to pay this money out on account of employing a worker, and it's considered when he decides how much he can afford to pay his workers in more direct compensation. If the unemployment insurance law decides to be evil, and wantonly discriminates against marijuana users (as opposed to, say, punishing real criminals like drunk drivers and domestic violence perps, maybe that could be justified), and steal their duly earned unemployment insurance to give to others, I understand that only public opinion or judges can stop it. The contract you mention is signed under duress, and is bogus.You want to respect such bigoted filth, suit yourself.

 "Do you earn your insurance check when your house burns down? "

Yeah, you earned that income by faithfully using previous income to pay all the premiums, like a worker earns his unemployment compensation by faithfully working each week, whether his off duty drug of choice is alcohol or marijuana.


Mon, 02/20/2012 - 2:41am Permalink
tempname_59106 (not verified)

In reply to by saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

You can go in circles all you like.  You can even claim they are under duress when they choose to apply for benefits, which is incorrect.  Workers do not "earn" unemployment.  It's not semantics, it's reality.  Just as it's reality that people lose their benefits all the time as the result of DUIs and domestic violence.  Just as it's reality that benefits on any insurance are only paid if you meet the criteria laid out for collecting them, even if that criteria includes being able to pass a drug test.  Your ignorance of these realities, does not mean they cease to exist.

Why don't you actually try to disprove the statement that started all of this?  You know, the fact that you keep dancing around because you have no way of contradicting it's validity.  Until you can manage to do that, I'm getting off of the mindless rhetoric train.  Either prove my original statement isn't correct, using facts instead of your opinions, or quit wasting my time.

Mon, 02/20/2012 - 4:39am Permalink
saynotohypocrisy (not verified)

In reply to by tempname_59106 (not verified)

You're choosing what to do with your time, not me.

This is the sentence that ticked you off: "The American people have a right to be upset over being forced to subsidize the violation of their civil liberties, when they try to access a program that they pay for with every paycheck." 

I never said this is literally true. But it is bottom line accurate, and each time I make this argument you've ignored it. Money an employer has to spend on unemployment insurance for each worker is money that they can't spend on direct compensation of an employee. So indirectly workers are most certainly paying into the compensation fund, because their employers can't afford to pay their workers as much as they otherwise could because of these payments. It's reasonable to say that workers ARE paying with each paycheck because the paycheck is smaller than it otherwise would be. Where is the flaw in this logic? If you can answer this question, I'll be happy to discuss the subject of who is being disingenuous.

My primary motivation for writing was to point out the similarity between treating employer unemployment insurance payments as community property that can be denied to 'bad' people for reasons not related to job performance, and treating employer payments to the social security trust fund as community property that can be denied to "bad" people. That's why I called this an ominous development. If you like, you can comment on this argument.

Why (and where) do people lose their unemployment benefits from committing domestic violence and DUI's? If I'm wrong on this, I'll stand corrected.

Mon, 02/20/2012 - 1:56pm Permalink
Yuven Tayclue (not verified)

In reply to by Drewbert (not verified)

NJ withholds small percentages from paychecks for UI and Disability.

Sat, 02/18/2012 - 10:48pm Permalink
Drewbert (not verified)

In reply to by Yuven Tayclue (not verified)

That is correct, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Alaska require a very tiny contribution from the employee.  However, it is not used as part of their benefits fund.  It is used to cover the administration costs of employee applications.

Sat, 02/18/2012 - 11:41pm Permalink
PotFelon (not verified)

I hope that since the Government wants to Drug Test, It is the Government paying for it with Tax dollars.

Not the Un-Empoyeed out of money trying to feed himself & or Family person.

I mean if it gets to the point where a person is so down on his or her luck that asking for Public Assistance/ Unemployment Benefits is the only way to pay the Rent, for Food, Medication, or Tolet paper.

I know that Person is Not going to have to rub 2 pennies together to come up with $100.00 or more for a drug test.

And even if that person somehow comes up with that Drug testing money and Passes,

I know the Government is going to take there sweet time given it back to that person even after the Government give that person a deadline in which to beg, borrow and steal it to Pay for the Test in the first place.

Knowing the U.S Government they will most likly give you a funny phone number to call that always goes to a voicemail that is Full so you cannot leave a message, or to an operator that is not assigned and gets you disconnected, or to the phone that is in the closet in the basement that never gets answered.  


I Hate The Government.

And you can give up the Idea of any Government offical getting tested, they will assign that to one of there aids.

Sat, 02/18/2012 - 1:14pm Permalink
NewOldSalt (not verified)

Books like this probably deserve a big share of the blame.

‘Girlchild’ by Tupelo Hassman

Believing herself doomed by DNA, Rory comes of age in Calle de las Flores, a seedy Reno trailer park. Fortunately, Rory is smart; books can save her and pave a path out of there. Unfortunately, intelligence is a double-edged sword. Report cards with all A’s are not prized by Calle residents, who wait until the 1st and 15th of the month to fritter away their welfare checks on slot machines, booze, and drugs. 

Mon, 02/20/2012 - 5:32pm Permalink
joebanana (not verified)

There's a stipulation to being a congressman, "I swear to protect and defend the constitution of the united states". Elected officials who support unconstitutional laws no longer represent the US government". And they damn sure don't represent me. Due process, being forced to testify against oneself, the right to be secure from  unreasonable searches of person, papers and effects, all come into play here. Maybe private companies can violate our rights, but, we don't have to work for them, the government on the other hand doesn't have that luxury. They are bound by the oath of office they swore to, violating that oath is automatic resignation, and perjury. Perjury is a criminal offense. So lets back the truck up, congress is now a criminal enterprise, not representative of the people, or the constitution. The real criminals here are members of congress. As with the NDAA, if one reads the constitution, it's null, void, and unenforceable. Will we see the USDOJ hauling off criminal congressmen? As a governmental agency that operates above the law, I doubt it. What we have here is a domestic enemy, not a government of, or, for the people. Our rights aren't for the government to steal, over-ride, deny, usurp, or modify. To do so is an act of war, it's what domestic terrorists do, it's what the enemies of America do, not the representatives of the American people.

Thu, 02/23/2012 - 3:09pm Permalink
mellifluous998… (not verified)

Well, the taxpayers will be paying this fee for millions of people. If you agree with that, you're crazy.Because that means YOUR taxes will be used. That, to begin with--it would be as if you agreed to pay medical bills for millions more people than are covered now by benefits paid by government. Beyond that, there's this very important and evil intrusion of privacy involved here. And how can the government define an unemployment-benefits candidate as an illegal drug user if he or she uses marijuana legally in any of the many states which now allow its medical use? Levin, of Michigan, represents one of those states. Marijuana's illegal status on a federal level has nothing to do with any reality but that set of laws; it's nontoxic and safer than alcohol and tobacco, and that's actual fact, not opinion. So anyone who likes the idea of this newly added chunk of tax expenditure--easily hundreds of millions of dollars more--it's obvious that you haven't thought this one through. Put down your beer and think about what this entails.

Thu, 02/23/2012 - 6:04pm Permalink
MoparCzy (not verified)

Drug testing is wrong.  Period.  Now having said that studies of the cost to the state for these suspicionless drug tests show that they will waste many more taxpayer dollars than they will save.  Many of the new proposed laws put the burden of paying for the test on the person receiving public assistance.  At least one of the attempts to do this was thrown out by the courts as against the constitution.  I can only hope that they will toss these laws out again.

Fri, 02/24/2012 - 12:11am Permalink
walkdead (not verified)

In reply to by MoparCzy (not verified)

Sure wish I could use, but my right are not as important as the ones living off the money they take from me to try and help them. Just look how that works, the courts and the ACLU are sure working for everyone rights.  Both political parties lose all their rights,  till they restore mine!

Fri, 02/24/2012 - 12:45pm Permalink
bostonjake (not verified)

this is all just too much you smoke some weed so that means you cannot collect the benefits you are entitled to??!!  Also it is always just soo easy to sell out anyone or anything that has a connection to drugs. We are NOT the cause of all the troubles in this country. Wake up everyone and see that bit by bit all of our precious rights and liberties are being eroded. There is nothing worth the price to trade these off!!

Sat, 02/25/2012 - 1:48pm Permalink

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.