Sen. Hatch wants unemployed to face mandatory drug tests

Source: The Hill

Welfare and unemployment beneficiaries would have to pass a drug test to qualify for programs under an amendment offered Tuesday by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

Hatch introduced an amendment to the tax extenders bill that would require those who are applying for some of the benefits in that bill, including unemployment and welfare benefits, to pass a drug test in exchange for the benefits.

"Drugs are a scourge on our society — hurting children, families and communities alike," Hatch said in a statement. "This amendment is a way to help people get off of drugs to become productive and healthy members of society, while ensuring that valuable taxpayer dollars aren’t wasted.”

Under the Hatch amendment, individuals who fail to qualify for benefits because they failed a drug test wouldn't necessarily be jailed, but would be enrolled in a state or federal drug treatment program.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/103357-hatch-wants-drug-tests-for-recipients-of-federal-benefits

right out of my...er...fingers...I was thinking that, or in cleanser or detox manufacturers...gotta sell dem drugs to get rid of other drugs..

:woohoo: :rofl: :hi:

Perhaps this Senator Ahole will step up as a fine example to take the first test.

This stupid shit voted in favor of the Iraq and Afghan wars and he still babbles about not wasting taxpayer money. What a joke.

instead of anybody who knew what was going on and actually remembered things that happened a couple of years ago or more.


I can readily agree that structural changes need to be made to level the playing field and take away the advantages of incumbency in electoral races as much as possible.

But term limits just hurt you when you find somebody who is good at the job and you have to hustle them out before the job is finished.

If he were smart he'd only target welfare, but tens of millions more can identify with the unemployed or have collected benefits at some point or another.

Like his fellow legislators are going to go along with that. They know they're next in line.

this stands a good chance

Test all the pesky negroes

Can these fools be serious? Do they pick up a newspaper, like, ever? This isn't about a 'crime spree' or 'drugs on parade' this is about people with long careers who can't find work in their field or any other they are qualified to do (per the pick-n-chose employers who require an MBA for a $9/hour office assistant role).

Makes me want to spit nails.

:grr:

That guy is such a turd ass!

nt

on drugs? HA! I fucking wish

Batshit insane, party of one your tables ready!! :crazy:

That's what I get from this faux moralistic gas bag suggesting this.

to be insinuating that unemployed people are blowing their benefit payment on illicit drugs?

Orrin Hatch needs to be educated a bit if the answer to that question is yes

I think it's so insulting and downright stupid on his part to come up with this idea.

Oh, and the senior executives of any corporation of which the majority of their gross revenues come from the federal taxpayer.

nt

Fuck you.

Fuck anyone who doesn't wish you were dead.

Anyone.

Lets start with people in places like the MMS!

If Hatch required everyone who received gov't aid to do so

CEO's, Boards of Directors, etc at banks and corporations that receive corporate welfare would have to undergo drug screening to get the money.

From all the stories out there, most of the drugs purchased are by people making 9 figure salaries

Denying personal freedom to big shots does not make up for denying it to regular Americans.

Two wrongs and all that.

I know you had another response saying two wrongs don't make a right, but for me it is about fair play. It's also a dare - like how serious are about this. So many of these strict law types claim "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear." Well, I wonder how much they would like being watched peeing in a cup every six months.

I would also say that when it comes to those receiving government aid, if one does not pass the drug test they would still be able to collect as long as they took part in a treatment program, with their costs based on ability to pay.

Although one could argue that there is a difference with unemployment compensation since it is more like insurance than welfare.

how much drugs would you need?I would need a very large boatload of drugs.

who pays for the tests? Hatch is an asshat.

The unemployed can't afford them and neither can the government.

Somebody please shut that arrogant fucker up.

Fuck you, man!

and senators must take a semi-annually drug test that also measures the amount of alcohol in their system to see if they are sober enough to work.

They are on the government payroll, so I think that would be a good thing. Random drug testing for all of Congress.

nt

like the regular citizens while the assfuck corporations pay little to no taxes and get billions in subsidies to pollute the gulf with their cost saving shortcuts.

Fuck you Hatch!

You can't even identify the problem!

Resign you douchebag!

down businesses have caused more damage to families and communities, more than drug pushers. It's ironic Hatch should mention destroying families.

They would have to improve by several magnitudes to reach that level.

You come over and apologize to the crap in my septic tank right now!!

:D

People should pass all tests that people receiving government funds must meet. Of course intelligence is not one. Unless that becomes a requirement.

He just doesn't understand how the world works. All this will do is create more crime and starve poor people.

It will be interesting to see if any democrats sign off on this. If any do, they will definitely be crossed off from my list.

I won't be able to take anymore. This man has dementia and he's paraded around like he's main stream. He's a paid for Whore, that has outlived his usefulness. Please, for the love of God, RETIRE !

mandate in the era of wars, depressions and deficits.
It's bad policy; wasteful spending; and assumes that people are unemployed because of drug problems.
The craving for drugs can motivate a person to work very, very hard, Mr. Hatch. If you're looking for drug users, you won't find many among the unemployed.

This also has to do with the belief also held by liberals and progressives that poor people "contribute" to their own suffering. It is a common understanding. So, the obvious result is draconian measures like this.

I appreciate your thoughtful responses!

seems like a fair trade.

You've gotta be kidding me.

This amendment is just another way to blame the victim for their circumstances.

The bills they've passed have made it so companies can lay off workers here and hire over seas and sell back to us, hire H1-B visa workers here to replace people working here, cut or end retirement benefits all together, and their policy's have made it so drug and medical companies are unregulated when it comes to prices they can charge meaning anyone needing them goes bankrupt and likely will be too unhealthy to have a job.

"Under the Hatch amendment, individuals who fail to qualify for benefits because they failed a drug test wouldn't necessarily be jailed, but would be enrolled in a state or federal drug treatment program."


seriously?? Hummmm someone needs to tell Hatch that due to No New Taxes budget cuts that State and Federal drug programs have been cut to almost nothing sooooooo.. guess the Unemployed can go to jail if they don't pass the drug tests.. Lets see.. isn't Haliburton in the business of building jails???

children, families and communities alike,"

It makes you want to write -

"Alchoholism is a scourge on our society — hurting children, families and communities alike,"

And nicotine and caffeine, for that matter.

for beating the Corporate-Republican tirade to impress the shallow minds of haters.

Of course, drugs can do what he says, alchohol also.

But the entire drugs war is hypocritical as we are the drug dealers - our branches of government.

He probably said the same thing during the Iran-COntra connivance.

He probably knows whose drugs were seized in the Mexicn plane crashes.

He know it all. His body may be free of stuff other people load up on, but his mind is drugged for plenty of illegal stuff - including the theft of elections.

He's a phoney. Sorry to be so blunt.

Better to test the religiously insane for mental illness....

and killing a Christian, Jew, or Muslim neighbor or to hang by race or burn by gender or steal the wealth of the Middle East and take it to certain people in the West. To decide superiority-inferiority.

He has absolutely NO idea how much this would cost, or what a nightmare this can turn into. You have to have places for the people to go to pee in a cup. The cup has to be sealed a certain way. Ideally you have to have an "observed void" so you know that the person didn't cheat. There are dipsticks that measure temperature immediately after voiding so you know it came out fresh and somebody else's urine wasn't substituted. You would have to have regional collection facilities and transportation of specimens via courier lined up. The big national labs are now SALIVATING for this business, believe me.

Regardless of which lab ends up with this lucrative contract, I would suspect there would be increasingly slow turn-around-times. If you tested everyone in the country that was on unemployment the backlog of testing would be amazing. I don't think that there are enough technologists in lab toxicology departments to handle that type of workload. Then you have the problem of what do you do if the specimen tests positive? There can be many interfering substances that can cause false positives (i.e. poppy seeds ). To determine if you have a real drug level or a false one, you have to go to GCMS confirmatory testing (gas chromatography mass spectrophotometry). Not all labs have this expensive capability, but it's the only way to get an accurate drug test result. Will the government pay for this expensive confirmatory testing?? Hmmmm....

THEN you have the matter of accurately confirming a positive cannabinoid test. Many of the pitfalls are listed here on CDC's site:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000138.htm

Please note that this is dated 1983. I was selling testing in 1986, so this was a pretty new thing. I would imagine that there may be new technology, but the problems with collection, transport, payment, etc. are still the same in 2010 as it was back then.

I don't think we want to open this expensive can of worms.

I just sort of assumed it would be expensive to test a few million people. It's helpful to hear specifics.

Since the attendent cannot watch you whiz, you are not under arrest, that little bottle under your nads with the temp strip saying 98+ works fine.

These tests are only for idiots and republicans!

Observed collection has been used by some companies to screen their employees. That being said, the labs/hospitals I have worked for who have required drug testing never made me pee in front of anyone. They have, however, had sinks in the bathrooms that were rendered unusable. There is also special tape they use to seal these urine specimens - any little bit of twisting of the cap will cause the tape to kind of shatter. This keeps chain of custody intact.

You are supposed to state what prescription drugs you are taking in case of any positives. This is entered on the form for the lab, I believe. Again, the last time I was tested was in 2000 (all negative, LOL) and the last time I sold any drug testing to a client was in 1987.

The specimens have to be followed by chain of custody throughout the process from urination to actual testing. This means that every courier hand-off has to have paperwork signed. The specimens go into locked refrigeration until testing. The tech has to sign a log each and every time the refrigerator is opened. The labs also keep the urine specimens for a specific amount of time after testing is completed. The logistics of how to do this in the numbers that would be tested is mind boggling. The logs, courier slips, and other paperwork associated with the specimen has to be retained for a certain length of time (years) after the testing is completed.

Laboratories do this for drug testing every day of the week. These systems are now in place. What I don't understand is how these systems will hold up under the weight of a huge influx of test specimens. Granted, this would be spread out all over the U.S. but just think about it...the unemployed person would have to receive a notice that they are required to show up somewhere to give a specimen by such and such a date. Assuming there are no transportation issues involved, the person would have to report to a collection center. All of these centers would have to be contracted with the lab that would do the testing. This happens now, of course, but you would have TONS of people having to show up. Would you have the people to deal with it? The logistics of all of this has not been thought out.

:rofl:

Congress is trying to hide the fact that job growth is too slow to keep up with unemployment.

Congressmembers. Hatch is a trolling asshole.

see how many fail

that Orrin needs to start taking some drugs. He is even more out to lunch than usual.

They want "hands off" the rich and the coporations, but infinite oppression for the weak.

Mr Hatch would get serious about stopping child abuse in his state. Evidently that doesn't have a high priority for him.

I'm sure it's there though, we just have to wait until he opens his mouth again... when he gets that shoe out...

a momentary break from reality.

Right here on DU, the bastian of liberals, we read constantly statements to the effect that poor people "contribute" to their own suffering.

When this is the majority view of even those who consider themsevles "aware", then the responsibility of these draconian measures lie with US.

Maybe "new democrats" but I haven't seen any posts blaming the poor for their environment by "progressives."

Ignoring people is the same as saying "No"

I sure as hell don't want to pay for such a wasteful, expensive, idiotic, "big brother" program that further invades people's privacy.

From the taxpayers, you asshat...:wtf:

this is so fucking ridiculous...I don't use these drugs he speaks of, so let them implement this

:P

then see how they like it. How about a weekly test? If you fail, you have to quit.

:eyes:

Orrin the Mor(m)on is nuts.

posted that she had joined a group that wanted to test those on welfare or receiving unemployment compensation for drugs, alcohol and tobacco and deny them money if they tested positive for any of the three. I pointed out in the "Comments" section that 2 out of the 3 items were legal to purchase in the US. Her snappy comeback "Well, they shouldn't be."

--I said that! :-)

Seriously - that asshole needs to shut up

as if they were more superior... how about you place that magnifying glass on your own class of parasites. The poor are not destroying the country... the rich and wealthy are.

have been with hookers.

Big Brother is watching your drug intake...

Hey, asshole, end the phony "war on drugs(tm)" and you won't have to worry about it! But, that would hurt the GDP which is the only acceptable measure of "progress" in the USAmerikan Empire...

Hey, Orrin, fuck you and the horse you rode in on!

asking people if they approve or disapprove of drug testing for welfare recipients. Answers are always, overwhelmingly in the "approve" column.

I call the posters on this BS whenever I see it. And I know, Facebook is hardly a bastion of intellect. But it still appears that ol' Orrin is just one in a long, loooooooong line of stupid, vindictive people.