Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Why We Should Not Have Drugtests for The Unemployed.



The assumption is that unemployed people do drugs.  It is demeaning to assume that the unemployed automatically do drugs and that they need to prove their purity. Yes, you must pass a drug test in order to work, however, there are many who are relapsing on their drug habits who may never fully kick the drug habit. I've been in situations to know about people who are crack addicts, meth addicts, heroin, cocaine and it's never a matter of if you relapse; It is a matter of when you relapse. By halting those who have serious addiction issues from getting jobs you directly impede the drug addicts' ability to work a job by simply screening them. If we were to allow those who have addiction problems to get a job even though they have addictions to speed, crack cocaine, heroin, etc. this will open up an entire new workforce that will help the economy, put drug addicts back to work and as they are busy working, they may not have so much time and pain to do drugs to escape. This will put them in a more powerful position in their life to inspire them to work harder (because now they can work without the fear of a drug test to pass. As I said, it's not a matter of IF you relapse, it's a matter of WHEN). Not only is this the logical, and best economical action to take, it is the morally just way to take action. Instead of punishing them for something that is not entirely in their control, reward them for their efforts to get a job with a job. This will give them more of a hold on their life, so that they will have a job to wake up to and work hard. They make money, they invest in products, and this stimulates the economy. People make mistakes and take wrong decisions, yes, you must live with your decisions, however you don't have a choice as to what situation you were brought up in, whether you were born into a lucrid family or a poverty stricken ghetto.
One assumption most don't know about, is that it is not a matter of if you relapse it is a matter of when. If you were born in a poverty stricken neighborhood where drugs are dealt and this was your way of escaping a world of violent gang shootings, in which a dear friend was shot to death, you might just buy a dime of marijuana to ease your nerves from the drive-by shootings outside your house. If you were to live in a neighborhood where your only solid deal for a meal was to go to the public school, and so you go to school solely for the meal as a young child why wouldn't you buy marijuana to de-stress? If you have never been educated about the effects of drugs in your life, because you are too young and ignorant, why wouldn't you partake in meth, cocaine, heroin?  These situations do occur! This happens every day in the most degenerate neighborhoods. If you have nothing, no money to your name, no job, no  food, no shelter, and the only way to rise out of it would be to get a job, and yet you can't kick a drug habit (it's very difficult, I knew people in hospitals de-toxing off  heroin and they all said it felt like dieing! Also many who are addicted to heroin would literally kill for more.) You can't kick a drug habit and the only thing stopping you from taking a job is a drug test, where does that leave you? Without a job, without a means to support yourself, back in hopeless poverty and back in dealing illegal drugs which could land you in jail for decades. If this is the situation you grow into adulthood in, how would you know to act differently to not sell drugs on the street corner, or to not take heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, meth?
Another assumption is that unemployed people aren't serious about getting back to work. This assumes that citizens are lazy, that they don't want to work to lift themselves out of poverty. People that are in tough situations fight and strive to rise above and work to their goals. This is the human condition for many people. They want a better situation for their lives and their children and grandchildren. How good could you feel about yourself if you don't even have the money to ensure a good college education for your children? If you want something better than a life in squalor? People are very serious about getting back to work to make money to help their kids and improve their own life and maybe that of a sweet significant other. Citizens wish to work, to improve their lives by making money.
There are unemployed people that do drugs recreationally however it is known that many people who are richer and have more resources are just as likely to do drugs as those who are unemployed. Especially since the affluent have more money to spend on hard drugs, such as cocaine. This puts an unfair advantage upon them, as they have had the good luck in this economy to have a job, and as such do not need a drug test.

2 comments:

  1. 13DEC2012 This is in reply to a classmate's blog "The Donkey's Head" post "Why We Should Not Have Drugtests for The Unemployed" which can be viewed HERE.
    The post is explaining her objection to a possible future law in Texas which would force anybody in the welfare and unemployment system to require periodic drug test to maintain their welfare status.
    I however cannot agree with such a position and this is why. A drug addiction is of course extremely difficult to get off of. Putting these addicts in working positions is a terrible idea. The idea of that an addict will feel powerful or to busy to use drugs because they are at work is ridiculous. These people most likely had jobs and were fired due to their drug activity or stole from the company to maintain it. Addicts needs extensive treatment to be done ONLY in an approve treatment facility. In fact the bill proposes if the person applying for welfare fails their drug test then that person will have the option to enroll in a state treatment program. This is exactly what should happen. That person will then have three chances to get clean or will be permanently booted from government assistance. My tax dollars are not here to maintain somebodies drug habit. If these people want a government freebie then they will be enrolled in the treatment program where they can detox and learn the skills to prevent relapse. Only at that time should the state be willing to further assist. I'm not sure if this would save money or not due to the fact many will be in a state funded treatment program but I do believe that is the better way of handling such problems.
    Another point brought up was about the unemployed are not lazy and demand jobs. I agree that most people are not lazy and many do want jobs but I also feel as long as the government continues to extend unemployment benefits to about a year and a half then many will not look for a job until that deadline arrives. The last point brought up was how the rich have more money to spend on drugs and may use them just as much. I agree as well that some of the rich are on drugs, I see it all the time in athletes but again the rich are not on government assistance and using tax dollars to pay for their habit.
    So in conclusion I believe this bill should be passes to not only protect the taxpayer and state revenue but as well get these people in bad shape the help they need. These people need to be in treatment programs to get off the addictions and then the state can further help them on their way to jobs which will hopefully lead them in the right direction. It's up to the individual to make their own difference not the states or anybody else.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To answer this a question must be asked. What happens to the drug addict when he/she fails at kicking the drug habit? She/he becomes a drag on the economy and will immediately fall back into poverty. By being in poverty without a job this individual will not be contributing well to society. By letting these people work they will not need your tax dollars, they can support themselves. In fact if they don't work and collect welfare checks, then tax payers are paying. If they are allowed and do work then tax payers won't be paying in the least. They will support themselves (granted minimum wage would have to increase). If they aren't allowed to work until they go to rehabilitation facilities then once again tax payers are paying for these state funded facilities. If they are not allowed to work and do not have a way to get into a rehabilitation facility then tax payers will pay even more for their welfare checks. The only way to keep your hard earned money is to let them work for themselves, otherwise they will receive welfare checks or use your hard earned money going to rehabilitation facilities which tax dollars pay for. This is purely economical stance. The solution in order to keep from giving out government "freebies," or as I like to say "help," is to get these people back to work so they can support themselves and not spend your hard earned money for them to go to rehab, or staying on welfare checks. Tax payers will pay either way. If they receive welfare tax payers will pay and if they instead decide to go to rehab in order to work then tax payers will pay as well. Put them back to work so they can support themselves and advance themselves. So from an economical standpoint not allowing a drug test would be the solution to keeping your money which you worked very hard for.
    Another assumption is that all drug addicts have a way to get to locations they need to be. Many addicts live in very poor degenerate neighborhoods and do not have a means to get to a rehabilitation facility.
    An assumption my colleague makes is that drug addicts are shiftless. He assumes that drug addicts most likely were fired because of their drug habit or because they stole from the company. It is true that when you are on Heroin you would almost kill for more, however to say that all drug addicts would most likely steal is a very cynical and inaccurate way to judge the character of those who have made the choice for drugs. Also, the drug/crime relationship isn't as clear as those who do drugs will commit crimes. The likely hood is higher in probability but there are other factors to crime-committing that include economic, personal, and situational circumstances.
    The assumption that people won't look for jobs until the deadline arrives for government assistance to stop requires that people don't look ahead and don't care for their own welfare. That they will procrastinate on taking care of even the most basic of their needs until the very last day putting themselves in a very dangerous position of starving, losing their home, living on the streets, having the inability to afford hospital care and medication, or in fact not being able to pay for anything else that requires money which they will need to survive.
    To permanently deny government assistance to someone simply for the inability to kick a drug habit is inhumane. It's kicking a dog when it's down. You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps? I'm going to deny you help because you couldn't kick a drug habit on your own even though it's a dangerous addiction. Incredibly cruel. A person needs help, needs a job, and shouldn't be denied a job simply for having an issue with drugs.

    ReplyDelete