Would it hurt to drug test unemployment benefit recipients?
The fun thing about politics, left and right, is that the two ends of the spectrum clash on a routine basis.
Most famously: the Vietnam War; marijuana legalization; the recent Wall Street bailouts. But these are extreme examples. Tussles between Liberals and Conservatives happen all the time.
Like, for instance, the latest squabble in South Carolina over unemployment benefits. The issue: should recipients of employment insurance be subject to drug tests in order to claim payouts?
Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley is the woman behind the proposal, which – guess what! – has got people buzzing in the Palmetto State. So let’s break it down to see who’s right here:
Currently, in South Carolina, employees fired for drug abuse can be disqualified from jobless benefits, though out-of-work recipients are not tested for abusing narcotics. Haley wants to change that so the Department of Employment and Workforce “only pays benefits to those who have earned them,” according to TheState.com.
Under the Haley-backed suggestion, which has been supported by other Republican politicians, drug testing should start with a random sample of 500 first-time benefit recipients. Then, if more than 10 per cent of said random sampling fail the test, three per cent of all new benefit recipients would be tested randomly going forward.
The numbers may sound small, but the gist is there: use the threat of random testing as a deterrent to spook would-be benefit recipients from using drugs. You know, like the threat of drug testing in Major League Baseball between 1990-2004, only the exact opposite.
“I think the people of this state deserve that,” the right-wing Haley said of her proposed testing. “I think personal responsibility matters.”
Democrats, though? They hate this. Such testing would be unconstitutional, one senator said, while another likened it to “telling a bunch of seamstresses working at a local plant – churchgoing, law-abiding citizens – that all of a sudden, when the plant closes, they’ve become drug users.
“It’s sort of ludicrous,” that Democrat continued.
Now, you could go back and forth with the political theory on such a move, but let’s step back a bit. In South Carolina, for example, the state’s jobless benefits fund is bankrupt, so it seems the issue comes down to one question: is it worth the taxpayer’s trouble to potentially offend its benefit recipients?
Because, that’s essentially what’s going on here. Without lending a bias to one side or the other, Republicans simply want to make sure its recipients aren’t smoking, snorting or shooting away its state’s taxpayer money, while Democrats are crying foul because it suggests everyone shouldn’t be subject to drug testing.
To which the obvious reply is, if benefit recipients had no reason to be drug tested – no risk of failing one, that is – why should they mind taking one? Isn’t such a move worth keeping from giving hard-earned cash to people, albeit, admittedly a small percentage, who just use the cash on drugs?
What do you think? Would it hurt to drug test recipients of taxpayer-funded unemployment benefits?
By Jason Buckland, MSN Money
Posted by: Al | Oct 8, 2021 9:32:38 AM
Makes more sense to test welfare recipients! Since the people paying taxes are subject to drug testing in their workplace, it makes sense to test the people who are receiving the taxes!
Posted by: Carl | Oct 8, 2021 9:33:05 AM
Then why not test all politicians they are using hard earned dollars of the people of the state, that's what they are paid out of. So all federal and state politicians should be subject to same testing.
Fair is fair
Posted by: irene | Oct 8, 2021 9:36:42 AM
adsolutely, they should be tested!!!
Posted by: barb smilth | Oct 8, 2021 9:38:37 AM
As soon as welfare people get tested first, there the ones ripping govermenent off, people dont need to b on welfare for longer than 2 yrs tops , ui is a loss of a job , im most cases its not the persons fault for losses there jobs, were as welfare people just take advantage, there should b a time limit for these people, and drug test them first.
Posted by: aaa | Oct 8, 2021 9:51:39 AM
Anyone receiving money because they aren't or won't work, should have to get the get a drug test. If they refuse the drug test, they are automatically, without question, cut off. Possibly then, they will appreciate the money they are receiving without working anyway. Hey, if you haven't been doing any drugs, no problems, right?
Posted by: justaguy | Oct 8, 2021 9:53:17 AM
Hey hey, what about civil liberties here? Oh, wait a minute, this is in the good ol' US of A, civil liberties be damned........lmfao, and glad I am not a Amuricunnnnn
Posted by: misso | Oct 8, 2021 10:03:14 AM
I agree with Al: test the welfare recipients and if the fail rate is over 5% i would say test their representatives too.
Amuricun or not, we'll all get there...
Posted by: gga | Oct 8, 2021 10:24:36 AM
I think it would be an excellent idea to drug test unemployment recipients for drug use. There are so many druggies out there who abuse the social systems and getting away with it. I am very happy to hear this being done and do hope it will someday be mandatory. Enough of this abuse...
Posted by: Me | Oct 8, 2021 10:37:09 AM
I dont agree, EI is money earned from working , It's like the gov is saving the money for you for when you loose your job . ITS YOUR MONEY. Second of all 85% of the population are on dope , especially weed. If they want to pick on people then start in thier own office .I gaurentee alot of people are going to loose thier jobs. Welfare Yes ok ... I agree with that. I can tell you though Ive spoken to alot of people , Secretaries , teachers , contractors , even lawyers and they all smoke pot. I think if thats the case alcohol should be an issue as well , even more then pot.. Check the states , alcohol causes more crap to people then weed .
You take the dope away from some people and your going to have a massive case of" New alcoholics "
How about the GOV in Canada and the states back off and stop stressing people out , then maybe people wont be looking for something to de stress themselves!! There is all kinds of money out there , but the greedy gov takes it for themselves for limo rides and banquet dinners and all that unnessesary crap. Why do they get to ride in a limo to the meeting when everyone else is ok to drive in there minvans and beat up old peices of junk.
Posted by: tcs | Oct 8, 2021 10:41:39 AM
Testing should be viewed as a combined initiative. 1. to help those who have become unemployed and 2. to help those who are unemployed to get off drugs which will make them more employable. Does that make too much sense?
Posted by: Mia | Oct 8, 2021 10:44:44 AM
I don't understand? In Canada, we pay into the Unemployment Insurance with every pay check. You can't collect Unemployment if you don't have a certain amount of weeks worked in the year and paid into it ,via taxes taken from paycheck.
So its ok to take my money every week without drug testing, but when God forbid ,you're out of a job and now you have to drug test to qualify? double standards for sure.
Unemployment is not the same thing as welfare...unemployment is there as a cushion to help you live while you seek employment, its insurance paid just like any other insurance you pay into. Its not a free ride from the government, at least not here in Canada.
Posted by: Me | Oct 8, 2021 10:53:13 AM
I agree with Mia, 100% , It's our money in Canada, we work for that , its EXACTLY like car insurance or house or what ever. I dont agree with blow or any hard drugs , but alot of people come home from work and puff a doobie to relax. I agree that you shouldnt be under the influence at work , but your time is your time and what you do with it is your right! So If I go to a party on the weekend and I puff just one and monday I get tested and loose my job ... well I can say that will make for alot of disgruntle employees , they wont be able to collect EI and guess what crime rate will go up , people will get hurt in order to survive. Is that better? But its ok to go for a lunch meeting and pound back a few drinks before heading back to work ? Talk about hippocricy!!!!
Posted by: Jane | Oct 8, 2021 10:54:24 AM
I am so glad I live in Canada where we have laws that protect workers from bad behavior from employers regarding drug use. A person has rights here and drug use is considered a treatable disability. To deny a person who has lost their job employment insurance because drugs show up in their body is illegal here.
Posted by: Angus 63 | Oct 8, 2021 11:18:39 AM
In Canada we pay into a publicly administered insurance plan. According to the act governing this program the recipioent is only being paid based on a 40 hour work week, the other 128 hrs per week are the doamin of the recipient so it is none of the governments business what transpires during that time as long as the person is available for work 40 hrs per week.
A number of years ago the Canadian federal government "stole" tens of billions, tht's right BILLIONS of dollars form the Employment Insurance fund and put that money intogeneral revenue.
Sounds a little like 'Taxation without representation" to me.
If you want to hear the rest of this rant just say I am full of s*** and I will gladly oblige
Posted by: Reva | Oct 8, 2021 11:48:52 AM
This is just another freedom taken away from you, another step towards a complete policed state,
I mean what do they want, for the people to riot? Is that it? Stupid idea!
Posted by: Joanne | Oct 8, 2021 11:52:50 AM
I cant believe anyone would agree to this! If you worked and paid into EI you should be able to collect when it's neccessary.
Why does anyone want to be policed by the government more than we already are. It's ok to come home and have a drink and a smoke which is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it can eventually kill you but not to have a puff of weed which there is absolutely no known scientific proof that it causes anything other than a relaxed state of mind.
This smells of another money grab. North Americans are becoming so apathetic. We are over-regulated, over-taxed and taking ourselves right into a policed state. Remember how Eastern Europe used to be? I could go on but you get my drift.
Posted by: don | Oct 8, 2021 12:05:47 PM
This is a bad idea. You cant collect unless you have worked and paid into it. If these people where such bad drugggies they would have never held a job that long in the first place. If they were fired for drug use they would not have been eligible to collect either. Our soicety seems to be more and more willing to judge others and what they do. Most who would judge others in this manner would not stand up to the scrutiny themselves.
Posted by: Tanman | Oct 8, 2021 12:31:06 PM
Drug test the welfare recipitents not the people who actually work for a living!!!
Posted by: jill | Oct 8, 2021 12:38:55 PM
I agree that this a money grab.People collecting welfare should be more regulated.What about testing politics,and if were testing for pot matbe they should test for other drugs ,ie cocaine,meds that make you drowsy or wake you up,hey even tobacco.This just another way to control your every move...Quit picking on the people that work !!!!!!!
Posted by: kc | Oct 8, 2021 12:58:48 PM
This is another way for the Americans to get into everyones lives. Someone said to me if you have nothing to hide why wouldn't you take the test? I replied, why don't we put cameras in your house? You know..if you have nothing to hide.