BF2S Forums Urine Test

ReTox wrote:

Parker wrote:

well, i guess you are lucky that you havent been subjected to the same stereotypical discrimination that most of us have had to endure to find employment.
or is it different cause we are being paid by a company, and not the government?

Companies in Canada have provisions for drug screening the same as the US but it is my understanding that those screenings are usually limited to those positions that require high security, life and limb (doctors, EMTs), or top executive positions.  But that is speculation, I know no one who has actually had to take a drug test to gain employment.  In fact, everyone I know who has a government job has never been asked to provide for a drug test.  Including my parents who together have worked for the government for over 50 years.

I wonder, if it is quite common in the US to have drug tests, if it isn't just paranoia or a companies desire to hold power over it's employees.  Maybe there are government funds available to those business' who are fighting the "war on drugs"?  IDK.

i worked the warehouse of a high end electronics store before i got into metallurgy.

not only did i have to take a pre-employment drug test, but when there was a scare that someone was doing drugs at work, i had to take another....completely surprise test.
and THAT was just a shit-heel warehouse job where i hauled big screen TVs.
businesses in america can be held accountable for their employees actions.




now, is that stereotyping and discrimination, or does that only apply to free money?

There should be a full battery of regular testing done on welfare recipients.  Some that come to mind are:
1) urine as defined in the OP
2) random or semiannual home searches
3) benefit renewal interviews every 6 months to requalify for continued welfare benefits
4) transparency in spending (report ALL spending every 6 months at requalification interviews) maintained by benefit recipient
5) completion or certification of having spent xx amount of hours per week becoming educated or pursuing a job
6) if dependent children are of school age, their attendance should be verified as a consideration for requalification of continued benefit

I could go on with the stringent qualifications a welfare recipient should have.  Granted some recipients can't fall into all the categories above so there'd have to be different, but stringent qualifications.  Our tax dollars are worth having such checks and balances and accountability.

Parker wrote:

ReTox wrote:

Parker wrote:

well, i guess you are lucky that you havent been subjected to the same stereotypical discrimination that most of us have had to endure to find employment.
or is it different cause we are being paid by a company, and not the government?

Companies in Canada have provisions for drug screening the same as the US but it is my understanding that those screenings are usually limited to those positions that require high security, life and limb (doctors, EMTs), or top executive positions.  But that is speculation, I know no one who has actually had to take a drug test to gain employment.  In fact, everyone I know who has a government job has never been asked to provide for a drug test.  Including my parents who together have worked for the government for over 50 years.

I wonder, if it is quite common in the US to have drug tests, if it isn't just paranoia or a companies desire to hold power over it's employees.  Maybe there are government funds available to those business' who are fighting the "war on drugs"?  IDK.

i worked the warehouse of a high end electronics store before i got into metallurgy.

not only did i have to take a pre-employment drug test, but when there was a scare that someone was doing drugs at work, i had to take another....completely surprise test.
and THAT was just a shit-heel warehouse job where i hauled big screen TVs.
businesses in america can be held accountable for their employees actions.




now, is that stereotyping and discrimination, or does that only apply to free money?

Wow, that really surprises me.  I worked at an electronics store for quite a while.  I was responsible for thousands and thousands of dollars worth of equipment everyday.  Drug testing wasn't even a policy of the company.

I don't know what I would call that other than disturbing.  If the testing is in fear of theft as in "I need to steal a TV to buy coke" then gambling is far more dangerous... except maybe crack and meth but anyone who has seen someone on those drugs can pick 'em out easy.  No urine needed.

If it is for worker safety than ok, there is a legitimate reason there but still prescription drugs (how many drug TV ads do you see with side-effects of drowsiness?) can be far worse there as well.

I still don't see a need for requiring people down on their luck to piss before getting help.  Presumably they would have had an interview with a social worker first... maybe the money should be spent on better training for the social workers so they can assess the likelyhood of drug abuse and instead of denying benefits they grant them so long as the person successfully goes through rehab.  I just can't justify vilifying everyone for the problems of a few.

sinnik wrote:

ReTox wrote:

I can't believe the ignorance here.  Some of these responses read like the babblings of a 12 year old with no concept of adult life.

Basically you want to have a policy that implies everyone on welfare is a drug addict.  Have you ever been on welfare?  Probably not so you have no fucking clue what you are on about.

Talk about insulting those who are down on their luck... like telling a rape victim they need to take a lie detector test to make sure they really need the support groups and medical help.  Yes there are people who abuse it and the regular meetings with their social working should help weed that out but the majority of those on welfare are there because they need it... not because they're tooling for a buzz.

I really hope you find out some day what hardship is... maybe you'll have a revelation and finally understand the meaning of "colossally stupid".

I'm on what you would call welfare over on this side of the pond... Just had a review with a doctor employed by the government to make sure i wasn't claiming dishonestly and I was kept waiting for 40 minutes to have a consoltation that lasted less than 5 minutes.

DIDN'T EVEN GET THE CHANCE TO EXPLAIN MY WHOLE EFFED UP SITUATION BEFORE I WAS TOLD THAT I COULD BASICALLY PISS OFF WE'RE GONNA KEEP PAYING YOU...

THE LAST THING I WANT TO BE IS ON BENIFIT AND NOT ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE, AND I FIND IT EXTEMELY INSULTING THAT PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING ASSUME YOU'RE A BLUDGER JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE ON BENIFITS FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME...

YOU TRY LIVING OFF LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE WITH THE SAME OUTGOINGS AS PEOPLE THAT WORK AND THEN STAND ON YOUR SOAP BOX AND TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE ALL DRUGGIE LOSERS.....

Little confused here...

Are you agreeing with me or yelling at me?

BTW, in 2005 I lived the entire year on $600 a month welfare benefits (medically could not work) and that is why this red tape jump through hoops shit gets me ticked off.  If had of been asked for a urine sample I would have whipped it out and pissed on my social workers case files.

Last edited by ReTox (2008-03-06 11:18:23)

I'm not assuming everyone who is on welfare is on drugs.  I'm just saying, that I had to piss in a cup for DEP, for Police Internship, for Stockroom work, and Sports to name a few.  Did I feel infringed? No.  It's just one of those things you do.  Why shouldn't other people be held up to the same standards I am?  Does it really inconvenience you to piss in a cup if you are in such a situation?  Honestly doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Give me $2000 for my valuable and famous urine.

...fascists...

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

I'm not assuming everyone who is on welfare is on drugs.  I'm just saying, that I had to piss in a cup for DEP, for Police Internship, for Stockroom work, and Sports to name a few.  Did I feel infringed? No.  It's just one of those things you do.  Why shouldn't other people be held up to the same standards I am?  Does it really inconvenience you to piss in a cup if you are in such a situation?  Honestly doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

you take a whole lot more piss tests in your military career.  Ive taken close toa dozen within the last 8 years probably.

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

[Idea came to me from an email]
If I have to pass a piss test to get/keep a job, from which I pay taxes to help such establishments such as Welfare, shouldn't people recieving welfare checks have to pass a piss test to receive them?  Seems fair to me.

Fuck yeah...   good thread...

I know of no one who has ever had take a drug test to get or keep any kind of job, from you shelf packers to bank tellers to security guards to the military to CFOs or doctors and nurses.

OK this is something I have first hand experience with.  I was on "assistance" as I liked to call it. the short story of how I ended up in that situation is my daughters mother, who worked full time while I worked odd hours after taking care of my daughter and her half sister. she had some  mental issues and ended up in a treatment program leaving my daughter with me and her sister with her father. 

I suddenly had to pay all the bills plus pay for daycare so I could work.  that didn't last long. soon I was 2 months behind on rent and the bills were piling up. so I applied for assistance and received it.  it was the hardest thing I have ever had to do, humiliating to say the least.  while I was on assistance I also applied for grants and went to tech college for auto body, now 15 years later I own my own body shop.   so not everyone abuses the system ( I was getting assistance for 2 years) 

I think there should be drug testing for people who do not follow some strict guidelines  I also agree with alot of the things IRONCHEF laid out in his post. they should have to account for all the money they spend in a monthly report (hey look a valuable job skill!)  if they go for too long without finding a job they should have to enroll in some sort of schooling with on site daycare to keep childcare costs down. hell some of the students can help staff the daycare to of set the cost of it all.  if you didnt know daycare is a major expense for single parents and couples. 

I just wanted people to understand that not everyone who gets welfare is a worthless pile of shit.   but I would say the vast majority are, or end up being. It can be a valuable tool for helping motivated people get out of a bind. but it can also be an enabler to lazy worthless people. if there were strict guidelines hopefully there would be a better outcome for people who are on it.

ReTox wrote:

I can't believe the ignorance here.  Some of these responses read like the babblings of a 12 year old with no concept of adult life.

Basically you want to have a policy that implies everyone on welfare is a drug addict.  Have you ever been on welfare?  Probably not so you have no fucking clue what you are on about.

Talk about insulting those who are down on their luck... like telling a rape victim they need to take a lie detector test to make sure they really need the support groups and medical help.  Yes there are people who abuse it and the regular meetings with their social working should help weed that out but the majority of those on welfare are there because they need it... not because they're tooling for a buzz.

I really hope you find out some day what hardship is... maybe you'll have a revelation and finally understand the meaning of "colossally stupid".

How hard could I have it if I have enough money, not to feed myself, or my kids, but to buy drugs?

Any thoughts on the notion that people could be down on their luck BECAUSE of the drugs? Yeah, I know, a crazy concept.

lowing wrote:

sinnik wrote:

sorry retox - totally agree with your post. This ignorant crap by people that have never been there + 8 years of hell on earth  = me going on a bit of a rant there...

and yes I take drugs.... perscription ones that they went to court to get a compulsory treatment order to make me take that make no difference other than me having to have a blood screen every couple of months to make sure that the meds aren't dissolving my liver...

YOu are not "taking drugs" in the context of this thread. You are perscribed medicine to help you with your medical condition. If you are abusing them, then that is another matter.

Trust me, I'm not abusing them, they're abusing me..

To clarify it's an injection every 28 days plus some oral medication at night.
I'm more pissed off with the perception that people on benefit are nothing but losers who can't be arsed getting a job 'cos they want to go and get wasted every day. Trust me not having to go to work and still get money may sound cool but when the money coming in isn't enough to actually go out and do anything that isn't free you'd be surprised by how quickly you actually want to work. The whole idea of having a social safety net is precisely that, so people WHOEVER they are can be supported and don't die (as some people seem to find amusing to state).
Slightly n.i.m.by attitude isn't it and if you rally belive that then think on...
Never going to happen to you or some one you love??...
1. The depression in the 1930's
2.The fact that mental illness's affect 25% of people

But you are right drugs are evil...

*Draws on cigarrete, sips coffee and wishes there was a beer in the fridge

The way things are going, in 20 years time will you still be happy to piss in a cup to test for that?

Last edited by sinnik (2008-03-06 20:38:56)