I am sick of A-Rod, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and the rest of the professional athletes who used illegal performance enhancing drugs and their lame apologies. I know they are so very very sorry …. NOW! Big deal – I am NOT impressed with their feeble attempts at remorse. Everyone is sorry when they get caught! These guys and many more have tarnished the entire game through their irresponsibility. In fact, the results of every game they played in is now suspect in my opinion. It’s pure-D-crap folks. Bottom line: They broke the law. Prosecute them as illegal drug users.
Drugs are a problem in our society. We all know that. We have tried to stop it at the source. That hasn’t worked so well has it? No. My feeling is that if you want to stop drug abuse, hit people where it hurts the most: in their pocket. When you take money away from people, when you take their jobs away from them, when you deny them their rights and freedoms, then you will get their attention.
My son and I were talking this past week and he told me that he had to have a UA (urinalysis) test the next day. He is a cop in Phoenix and takes the test routinely as a part of his job. He was also in the Army for eight years and had tests there too. We were talking about how in our city, as in most, police and firemen have to pee in a cup, but other city employees don’t. Somehow, that didn’t hit me as fair. I know that a guy who sits at the DMV and passes out driver’s licenses and the lady who does data entry down at City Hall are not the same as cops and firemen. However, it is my tax dollar that pays them and I think what is fair for one, seems fair for another. I think if one city employee’s job depends on them being drug free, then every city employee’s job should depend on being drug free.
So in typical Larry Winget fashion, my mind started to get carried away with this thought. I think that drug testing should be expanded to include anyone who gets a check from the government. It would be a great way to reduce the workforce. I know it would take some tax dollars to do it, but it would get rid of lots of people who are breaking the law. I think the program would pay for itself pretty quickly and then actually end up helping these governments balance their budgets by reducing the workforce. Plus, I believe it would send a strong signal that we as tax-payers are not willing to pay for people’s drug habits. (If your tax dollars pay their salary and their salary goes to drugs, then you are financing their drug habit.) I’m not willing to do that, are you?
Want to know how far I would take this? I warn you, I am willing to take it pretty far!
1. As I have already said, if you work for any city, county, state or federal entity, you are going to have to take a drug test. If you are found to be a user, you get fired. Period. Tax dollars don’t go to pay drug users.
2. Welfare. No one gets to pick up their check without a drug test. If you have drugs in your system, you lose all rights to your welfare check forever. That should knock out about half of the people on welfare. Gee, at that point, they might have to get a job like the rest of us. Unfair? Deal with it. I’m right and you know it.
3. Unemployment benefits. You don’t get any if you can’t pass a drug test.
4. Student loans. A drug test. I am betting momma and daddy would get very much involved in their kids lives if they thought that all student loans, (plus all grants and scholarships) would be denied if the student failed a drug test.
5. IRS refund check. Yep, it takes a drug test. This one will bother some folks I know, but I’ll stick with it. You don’t get your refund if you can’t pass the test. If you fail, your refund check is forfeited to fund anti-drug legislation, drug rehab facilities and to help children born to drug users.
6. Social Security Checks. Don’t kid yourself. Sorry granny, you take a test to get your check too.
7. Driver’s license – passport – citizenship: Pass a drug test.
I know many of you will have a problem with this and I’m fine with that. And I know it is a drastic step. But isn’t it time for drastic steps? I also know it is costly. But what is drug abuse costing all of us? So while my solution is not perfect by any means – it would work. Or it would at least get some people’s attention!
Have fun with this one!
Facebook: Sign up as my friend and join the Larry Winget Unofficial Fan Club. You will get immediate notification of television appearances and more.
People Are Idiots And I Can Prove It: A New York Times Bestseller. If you don’t have your copy yet – why not?
I cannot agree more, Larry. Even with a sorry, they have already earned so much money during the process and took away the opportunities from real athletes who actually deserve to win. A sorry simply doesn’t fix that.
I love it, Larry.
1) Can you imagine how cheap drug testing would get if we were doing that much of it that routinely? Opening easy, quick and inexpensive drug testing centers would be a stimulus to the economy.
2) “I know it would take some tax dollars to do it…” At the moment, spending tax dollars doesn’t seem to be much of a problem for our government. We might as well spend it on something with concrete and transparent results!
How can we make it happen?
As a non-drug user, and person who has purchased all but the most recent of your books, I must say I cannot agree more. I think if they wanted to fund this they could divert some money away from drug raids and police maneuvers (which you may not agree with) but I think your idea would reduce the need for that. Build it into the system. You didn’t mention congress, jurors, or the president specifically, but there are times when I think they’re all on drugs… Thanks again for the thought provoking blog entry!
Hey Larry, did you know they actually sell at-home drug tests now for parents to spring on their kids? Every responsible parent of teenagers should stock up on these. Too many parents take the “not MY kid!!” attitude, even when the signs are staring them in the face and/or they are told the kid is doing drugs. “Oh, that’s not possible. Sally’s a good kid. She’d never do anything like that. You don’t know her like I do.” Really? Have Sally pee in a cup once a week, and find out just how well you DO know her.
Larry – I agree, but only to a certain extent. That extent is in regards to government employees. Although I’m not a drug user, what I do with MY money that I WORKED FOR is no ones business even if you are paying for my salary. If the “drug using” government employee does his/her job well, who am I/you to say what they do with their money?
But, any government funded subsidy (welfare, etc), yes, those should be tested. They are getting free tax money and not working for it, and they are usually the biggest users of drugs.
Larry,
I agree 100%. And don’t forget public housing and vouchers. Any form of government subsidy sould be subjected to testing. As for those who say “its no ones business what I do with MY money.” They are right, until you do something ILLEGAL with it. As for Ray, get real. It sounds like drug testing is good for everyone but you. Is it o.k. for someone to fund terrorism if they use THEIR money that THEY WORKED FOR? Its not whoes money it is that is the issue. Buying illegal drugs is AGAINST THE LAW! If Ray worked for me he would be in the bathroom right now.
Sounds good to me. The ad campaign for your plan could even be a parody on GOT MILK?
GOT CLEAN URINE?
Thanks!
I have been pondering over your list of seven trying to think of an area that you missed, but I believe you have it covered. All I can say is BINGO. I believe that if it is enforced the way you want it, (which it should be) enough people would quit, which would drive the price of drugs would go up to the point where not even the users could afford it. You get my vote.
Once again wisdom shines through. Thank You Larry. I wish our government listened to you.
Sorry Larry
“My feeling is that if you want to stop drug abuse, hit people where it hurts the most: in their pocket. When you take money away from people, when you take their jobs away from them, when you deny them their rights and freedoms, then you will get their attention.”
The gov has been doing this for 5 years and all we have to show for it more prisons with more people rent a cops (prison guards). The increase to the public pocketbook just to enforce stupid drug laws is absurd.
I have no issue with using drug test to collect gov money or use their services. I have absolutely no issue with drug test for jobs. But the way current drug laws are written and enforced it keeps a lot of people employed in LE and people warehousing.
Larry, I agree 100% and it would affect me. I don’t mind the inconvenience to be sure that everyone else is following the same rules as I do. I drove a school bus for 30 years and was subjected to random drug tests several times a year. I didn’t mind, because I wanted to be sure that all the other bus drivers who transported my own children were clean as well.
All of congress and all others on capitol hill should be included as well. I also think that before the IRS asks me for a receipt to prove a $250 charitable deduction, that EVERY member of Congress should be subjected to a detailed IRS audit to be sure that they are truly paying all the taxes they owe.
Congress never has to meet the standard which is expected of the regular American citizen. They should have to live with the same programs offered to me. Social Security, Medicare, self purchased health care, securing bank loans. The list is endless!
As a teacher of twelve years, I have never had to take a drug test. I began teaching in the state of Illinois ,and now teach in Arizona. Isn’t this crazy? I know I’d pass, but I know many others who wouldn’t. Why wouldn’t we want to weed out the ones who are standng in front of our kiddies everyday – the ones who are supposed to be the example? What is everyone so afraid of? If we have regulated no trans fat in foods, can’t we regulate drug-free employees?
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me.
I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine
test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is
the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine
test. Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check
because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I
have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on
the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their
ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money
the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a
public assistance check? something
has to change in this country — and soon!!!!!
I guess we could title that program, ‘Urine or You’re Out’. Just
a thought.
Nope, couldn’t disagree more. Legalize the drugs and stop throwing money at trying to stop the morons from putting a ILlegal substance into THEIR OWN BODIES. It’s pretty simple. We have this idea that we can “control” people and their habits. That’s working well, isn’t it?
Anyone ever sit and think how ridiculous it is that we spend all this time and money on athletes taking “performance enhancing drugs?” Let them blow themselves up as big as trucks and hit the tiny white ball a half mile out of the stadium. Who in the hell cares? (Old men living in the past off their athletic accomplishments is the answer to that question) Actually, for my entertainment dollar, THAT would be something to see. They ARE entertainers, aren’t they?
Larry, You rock. We need to get you onto Obama’s team.
Please be aware that certain over-the-counter medications and something as harmless as a poppyseed bagel can sometimes produce a false positive on a drug test. I don’t think we should have to submit urine to get basic documents if we have a history of law-abiding behavior. If you treat people as if they were what they were supposed to be, they often live up to your expectations. Conversely, if you treat people with suspicion, they will eventually resent it and may “live down” to the way you treat them.
There are so many kids in our jails and prisons now because of one mistake that perhaps we should rethink our system. If personal behavior doesn’t negatively affect judgment or job performance, perhaps we should be educating people instead of incarcerating them. Everybody makes at least one bad decision in his or her life.
The only problem, Larry, is that we would lose half our senators, and who would run the country???? (wink)
I love it – especially for anyone using my tax dollars as their “wage”!
Larry this is such a great idea but as you well know we have a Congress and Senate that has no interest in solving this problem. They are like the ballplayers it would not be good for them. The only solution we have is to vote for no incumbents in the next election to send a real message that the people are going to take back the government. We need to start a website called votenoincumbents.com If we could get rid of all incumbents at one time all the new people coming in would get the message and maybe we could get real change.
Larry, although I don’t use drugs (unless you count caffeine, here and there), this one I have to think about. We already have so much government intrusion in our everyday lives. But overall, I think I get your point: why should the taxpayers cough up support, whether it be in the form of welfare or a good salary for a public employee not focusing on his/her work, because s/he’s stoned? If I’m helping to pay your household bills with my tax dollars, you have been found to be in some sort of need. Drugs are not a necessity. If I’m helping to pay your salary as a public employee, and you are too out of it to give me proper advice and help, you are obviously making too much money to be able to afford drugs along with your food, medicine, shelter, etc. As I said, gotta think this one through more. But it’s an idea worth discussing, thought provoking and intriguing indeed. Happy Valentine’s w/e to all, too.
Larry,
I agree with most of your premise. Anyone receving any form of public subsidy should be required to test clean. That money comes from tax payers. I think private employers should be able to make their own call. That’s not to say that i don’t think they they should choose to test, only that it none of the governments business. Anyone that thinks that these bureaucrat buffoons could manage a program with this type of scope, without corrpution, probably also believes that spending a trillion dollars on doggie parks and more payoffs to ACORN will create jobs and stimulate the economy. It’s time to get the government out of your business, not further in.
Jennifer,
That is crazy…in NJ where I live though, the teachers union is so strong that even if 50% of the teachers were doing heroin, if they were tenured, we wouldn’t be able to get rid of them…we would have to pay for them to go to a country club – eerr I mean a rehab. LOL.
I totally agree, Larry! I hear Ray’s complaint regarding personal freedoms, and I’m a personal freedom fanatic; but I don’t get how this interferes…we do not have personal freedoms to break the laws of this nation. Our society would be more efficient and self-sufficient when clearer heads pervail. I would want a provision regarding false positives, knowing that a poppy seed muffin can be BAD NEWS for a CDL trucker and that some cold medecines can show up as a problem…but I’m sure a 2-step test for positives could greatly reduce the error margin. And I think Congress falls under that any federal entity you mentioned. Great job.
I got this from someone in an e-mail……….
NBA or NFL?
36 Have been accused of spousal abuse
7 Have been arrested for fraud
19 Have been accused of writing bad checks
117 Have directly or indirectly bankrupted businesses
3 Have done time for assault
71 Cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 Have been arrested on drug related charges
8 Have been arrested for shoplifting
21 Are currently defendants in lawsuits, and
84 Have been arrested for drunk driving in the past year
Can you guess which organization it is? The NBA or NFL?
NEITHER!!!!!
It is the 435 members of the US Congress
The same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of in line!
Let’s start the drug testing there…also might not be a bad idea to give a breathalyzer to them when they come back from lunch or immediately preceeding any vote that they cast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Scott – that is actually an old study and has been around for about ten years. It does make interesting points though. The point for me is that these people really are “representative” of their constituents!
Christine, “Urine or You’re Out” is the funniest thing I have read in a long time – I wish I had titled the blog that! THANKS
And thanks to each of you for your comments.
Thank You Big Brother for keeping me drug free and on the straight and narrow. Not sure I could do it without your brillant plan.
completely disagree. The last thing we need is more government in our everyday lives. Maybe rich guys like you should have to pass a colonoscopy-level tax audit to get their drivers license? I mean, if total obedience to the law is the issue, I think that would be totally fair. Imagine what the government could do with all the cash you write off as ‘entertainment’.
Hi Larry, your plan is tooooo complex to implement and will require much costly oversight; how about this:
DMV
Every man, woman, or blind invalid who wants to drive a car (license renewal) has to drug test. Make the renewal twice a year, and the cost could be included in the renewal fee.
BANK (money mart, payday loan)
You want a bank account? bring in your clean drug test. You want to cash your social security cheque? bring in your test result.
This would result in the testing business becoming a growing industry across america, and clean tests could be used for advantages; clean test = lower insurance (or whatever else business can dream up).
That’s my two cents
I couldn’t agree more! I live in a community that has many, many people on welfare of some form. I fully support drug testing as a condition of receiving “free” money. I work as a crane operator and you can bet that not one us operators are allowed on the jobsite without a drug test. You fail the test, you don’t work there. Thus, no pay. Why not hold everyone that standard. Do what ever you want, but don’t expect the taxpayers or the government to support your illegal activities. Thanks for being you Larry.
Larry, I also would like to address the food stamp issue. I think if you receive food stamps & you smoke cigarettes, there should be a deduction from the amount of assistance you receive. If you can’t afford to feed your children, you can’t afford to smoke either. It also affects the child health through second hand smoke. I agree about the drug testing of government employees as well. Not too long ago I was out on my front porch & watched a government employee using a government car buy drugs right in front of my house. I live in Tulsa & actually was a salesman for a company that use to do some printing for you & your wife about 18 years ago when you were on south Lewis. The area I live in use to be considered one of the nicer middle class neighborhoods, now it’s a cesspool of section 8, drug dealers & gang activity
I can’t agree more. I have tried drugs a few years back and it was wrong and I know that it was. I don’t do drugs at all and never plan on doing them again. I do smoke cigarettes but that’s a whole other story. I believe if someone we actually made all of this possible that we would actually be living in a much better society. I have/had some friends who do drugs and I don’t agree with it at all. Some of them I don’t concern myself with any longer for the simple fact that they really aren’t good friends in the first place. Maybe that’s because of the drugs, maybe not… Either way. I support this 100%. Good job Larry. Keep up the good work and good thoughts!
Sorry! I’ve got to side with the “live and let live”policy on this issue. I don’t care what get people through the day as long as they get through it. Besides legalizing would be an economic stimulus that would probally help the country out of the financial problems it is facing…
Be careful what you wish for; your idea has merit but I wonder where it would end.
Among the responses above we have already identified certain foods and over the counter medications which would trigger a positive response and certainly with such a program we would discover more. It is therefore inevitable that there would have to be exceptions to the rule. At the end of the day, the only ones I can see who will really benefit from this would be the lawyers who would defend the innocent people (if they could afford such action) and, more realistically, the guilty people who could afford lawyers capable of getting them off and this brings me back to the professional athletes.
We all know that many professional athletes are grossly overpaid. I believe slapping them with a fine would lack the impact we are looking for. If you want to send a real message, do like they do to the amateur athletes; test positive in the Olympics and you are stripped of your medal. If a professional athlete tests positive, take away his world series ring or strip him of his record!
Total agreement. There is always a price to say…you want this…you do this.
Love Helene’s comment, like the got milk campaign
Want stuff…..pee in the cup!!
I guess you are proving your point, that most people are Idiots, including you.
That’s exactly what we need, more government oversight in our lives.
And who will pay for all this testing?
How has Roger Clement’s or Arod’s alleged steroid use affected you?
And it’s reassuring to know that your son is a cop who will be on the
front line jailing all these low life’s.
Keep up the good work big brother.
Hi Larry, I live most of the time in a third world country, maybe we could take a lesson. To get a work permit you must take a drug test, aids test, no exceptions, sounds like a plan to me, Jack
I agree! However, the only tweek I would make is……I would make the “employees” pay for the drug test. Why would tax payers have to pay? If they want the job, they pay to prove that they deserve it! As far as tax refunds….that’s a tough one….technically the money is an overpayment of taxes by the individual….so, this may have to be on the tax payers dime. Great article….you have my vote.
I agree with most of what Larry had to say about drug tests. Unfortunately, we are too shortsighted and too liberal of a nation to “deprive” anyone of their “right” to personal freedoms to break the law or suck up billions of dollars of our money.
As a Superviosr responsible for hiring approximately 100 people a year and managing a DOT mandated drug and alcohol program for nearly 1000 employees who perform safety sensitive jobs, drugs are a huge problem. While we go through the “effort” of hiring the brightest and best, I basically end up with anyone who can pass a drug test – not as easy as you think. All the postions for which I hire start at no less than $20 an hour (plus excellent benefits) and in this economy, you would think that people would be clamoring at my door, but no, they have to pass a drug test first and apparently that is just too much to ask. It is easier to stay at home smoking dope and watching Oprah while those of us who do work our tails off, pay for it.
And for those of you who think we should legalize drugs and move on, you must be on crack! I certainly do not want my child’s doctor smoking dope, or the 18 wheeler driver on meth on the same road as my child’s school bus or the captain of the cruise ship with my parents on board to be shooting up. Anyone who thinks we should give up the fight and let people do as they want in regards to drug use are obviously on drugs themselves. It would be one thing if the only person they hurt are themselves but that is never the case. How stupid can anyone be to think that there shouldn’t be some kind of control over the substances that people put in their bodies when the behaviors and consequences can be so devastating.
I don’t always agree with everything Larry has to say but on this subject, I don’t think we can go too far in attempting to stave off this increasing menace to our society.
I am totally against government intervention in our lives. That being said this would be a far better use of the goofy stimulus money and far cheaper. For the folks we would get off of the payrole and dole we’d come out ahead.
Larry – now that’s a solution!
For those of you who did not understand my point here. I am NOT for government intervention in the lives of those of us who do jobs and get paid and pay taxes. I do not endorse the Big Brother mentality. If you know my stuff at all, you would know that. However, this if for making sure MY tax dollars do not go to support the drug habits of the people my tax dollars pay. I don’t want MY money to pay for illegal activities. Seems fair to me. I don’t spend a lot of time defending my positions. I take a position and let you work it out. But on this one, while I knew it would fire folks up, I want to be clear. I am for LESS government, not more government. I just want anyone who receives a government (tax provided) check to not be on drugs. Period. Thanks to all who have commented. And by the way, you can’t legalize drug use. Holy crap, people! Think about that one before you endorse it.
Not to brag, but for once, I’d qualify handsdown! That’s what good parents will do for ya! If you listen.
Larry,
I once talked to a roofing company rep at a trade show here in Hawaii. He couldn’t take on any more jobs because he didn’t have enough workers. Too many applicants tested positive for drugs. Larry, drug users are addicts. They will steal from their grandmothers to support their habits. The rep said he has all prospective employees take a drug test and they have to pay for it with their own money. If they pass, they get hired and get reimbursed for the test. The crazy thing is, a LOT of people fail. They shell out good money and they are so messed up they don’t figure they won’t pass, so they don’t get hired and they lose their money. That makes no sense, but druggies don’t think logically. Long story short: If a private company can have mandatory drug tests, I don’t see why all branches of government can’t, either.
But I’m not sure it’ll work. Our state’s teacher’s union is fighting drug testing as an intrusion on the teachers’ privacy. Random searches of students’ lockers for drugs have also been protested. This is one point where I part company with a union’s opinion. If someone’s working with kids, I wouldn’t want that person to be high on drugs, mind-altering or performance enhancing or otherwise. A lot of times, users are also pushers. Do we want teachers selling drugs to our kids?
As for welfare checks hinging on drug tests: good idea. Some people here are homeless because they hit a really bad spot in their lives. Or they have serious mental illnesses that aren’t treated. But others go on welfare and end up homeless because they get caught up in self-medication with illegal and legal (alcohol) substance abuse. These are the people who get kicked out of homeless shelters because they cause problems and won’t kick their destructive addictions, so they end up on the streets. I think taxpayers are willing to help people who are simply down on their luck struggling to survive. What is making us all tired are the scammers who are scamming the system to support their habits.
The other day the City Council of Honolulu wanted to kick out the homeless camping at Kapiolani Park, which fronts Waikiki, because they were acting nasty, charging tourists to use public restrooms, and making a general nuisance of themselves. At first I felt sorry for them. But my wife said, “The hell with those people! If they need a place to stay, they can go to a shelter. They’re ruining the tourism industry, and without tourist coming, the hotel workers will be out of jobs! Don’t be such a bleeding heart!” You know, she’s right.
Helping people who are down and out is necessary for a compassionate society. But folks who abuse themselves and impose upon the welfare and rights of other people don’t deserve to get money from the government, whether it’s welfare, a government salary…or even in sports. They’re cheating. Period. A-Rod and all the others are sorry NOW when they got caught. Boo hoo. What about before when they were raking in the bucks and swearing they didn’t use steroids? They are symptomatic of the jerks in our society who think they deserve everything because of a sense of entitlement, like the overly paid bank executives who ran their companies into the ground…and then gave themselves huge raises and parties.
Tax Dollars?! Wonder what else upsets you and the others who sucked up to your point of view? In the end, the tax dollars of the USA are out of my personal control. There are so many dollars spent on things I don’t agree with, not to mention things and issues that are absolutely wrong. Focusing on “drugs” is just “pissin’ in the wind”. Take global warming for example, total hoax! However, billions of dollars are spent to convince the American public that “we” are responsible, that we should change our ways to “save” the world from climate change! Come on – who’s fooling who here? So, in order to get “funding”(tax dollars), there should be absolute “proof” that “humans” are to blame for global warming, and the “piss in the cup” and “prove it” if you want your funding would be a great beginning! Folks who, without proof, believe in global warming are on drugs! Should be a “piss-in-the-cup” test for almost everything. Too simple a “reaction” to a hot button issue. Of course, I go to extremes here.
Gee, Larry, you finally managed to find a subject where we disagree.
I’m an RN and I have to keep my urine clean. And I do, because I’m not a drug user.
Still, I want LESS government and not more. Your plan would extend Big Brother’s reach into our lives to a greater degree. I’m against that.
Also, there is the small matter of false positives in drug testing. It happens. And from the sound of your rant, you’d have people “guilty until proven innocent,” (if they failed a drug test) which is rather unAmerican.
Drugs ARE a problem. The cure you’re suggesting might be worse in the long-run. Mandatory testing would quickly move users from things like Marijuana which hangs around in the body for a month or more to quick disappearing drugs like DMT and LSD.
Rick Fries – how did we get from pissing in a cup to a global warming debate? I am not disagreeing with you, but it was a bit of a jump.
My big problem with drug use in baseball is from a labor standpoint. What about that poor young athlete that got cut from the team because he didn’t use? His whole career was shot because so many others cheated to make the team. Why should this be? To me, these players have committed fraud – and have cheated many non-drug using players out of professional careers. I don’t know how they are not all tested regularly and if they fail – they are fired. No more baseball.
No greed
No selfishness
No inflated egos
Contribute to make this world a better place
Pay attention to our own bull-dookee
Hmm… sounds like a lot of work.
Where do we begin?
How ’bout with a cool shot of Te’zon tequila.
Drug use is not illegal per se it is the possession or purchase of drugs. And what people do with their money and bodies is nobody’s business, until it affects someone else e.g. second hand smoke.
That being said I agree with drug testing for welfare, unemployment, food stamps. They are using other people’s money. But rather than a requirement for work, drug testing on a case by case basis is what is called for. Unless there is reason to believe job performance is being affected by drugs it’s no ones’ business what one does on thier own time with money they have earned.
That being said there is one notable exception, the receiving of insurance benefits should require drug testing, non-smoking, little to no alcohol (there are benefits to a glass of wine)and weight control. Smokers, drug users, heavy alcohol users and overweight people use much more of insurance benefits, driving the cost of insurance astronomically for those of us that try to live a healthy life style. This also increases costs in the private and public sector, raising prices and taxes, and requiring the cutting of services in order to pay for people who refuse to take care of themselves.
It’s interesting how many people assume that drug users just cannot help but be stoned, high or otherwise off their faces all the time. Candice – does your child’s doctor drink alcohol? I wouldn’t want a drunk pediatrician!
I’ve never taken drugs, not because it’s illegal or from any moral reasoning, but simply because I don’t feel I need to. I can stay up all night dancing on a couple of cans of Coke, I don’t need a couple of lines.
I have friends and acquaintances who do use various substances to raise or lower their mood or metabolism. But these are true “recreational” users. They use drugs in the same way that I use alcohol – the same way that most people who drink use alcohol – as a relaxant or to get a party going, or just because it’s enjoyable.
I would not turn up to work drunk. I will sometimes have a glass of wine on a work night, but I won’t get drunk enough to have a hangover the next day. I make sure my alcohol consumption does not impede my ability to do my job.
My friends who enjoy cannabis have the same attitude. People I have known who use cocaine or various upper pills have the same attitude. In part this is because we all know we would get fired if we did!
I live in England, and thanks to Margaret Thatcher the unions over here don’t have much power, so it’s still relatively easy to fire someone who doesn’t perform at their job thank goodness. I’ve sacked someone who turned up to work with a severe hangover. I would have no problem sacking someone who turned up to work stoned, high or on an obvious come down.
From some of the posts here, that seems not to be the case Stateside. Can’t you guys get fired for incompetence? Working under the influence? You don’t need to get someone to pee in a cup to tell if they’ve had a spliff before coming to work; the dazed expression, pasty face a five Mars Bars in their back pocket should give you a clue!
If the people who work as what we Brits call “civil servants” want to have a hash brownie on a Friday evening, I feel that’s their choice. They’re adults, they know the risks. If they choose to have a hash brownie for Monday lunch, I’d kinda hope their supervisor might notice a lack in productivity Monday afternoon and fire their ass.
Empower the employer, and you wouldn’t need to take the piss.
Right on Larry. I agree with all except the tax refund. They are just getting their own money back anyway. All the others, line up and pee.
Larry said, “And by the way, you can’t legalize drug use. Holy crap, people! Think about that one before you endorse it.”
Sorry, Larry, but the same thing was said about alcohol.
Who decides on the degree of mind, or body, altering substance that one can take?
I understand your position about YOUR money being given to these people but that is another subject of why YOUR money is taken from you by government force and given to the non-producers of the world.
Get ready people… Atlas is warming his shoulders for a great big shrug in this country.
Dear Larry,
I just read your latest blog about you being a Democrat and voting For Obama. I am a long time Republican and I am NOT outraged! (lol) I have bought three of your books and I am looking forward to the next one.I respect your political opinion even though I do not agree with it. Your politics do not change my opinion of you or your message. Keep up the great work and thank you for enriching my life.
-markcigar
Larry, one additional thought. You say “I don’t want MY money to pay for illegal activities.”
Now I find this a little hard to swallow (please forgive the pun) but apparently in certain states of the so-called “Land of the Free”, there are things called “Crimes against nature”. Even between consenting adults.
This begs two questions:
1) Why would anyone want to live in those states? Please, someone tell me I’ve been mis-informed!
2) Assuming this is true, would you object to a government employee in one of those states using your tax dollars to fund such activites, perhaps by buying “adult toys” or other items specifically to enjoy themselves in those ways?
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts….
Clair – I have an issue with people using my tax dollars for funding illegal activities. Things they could/should go to jail for. People can buy all of the adult toys they want and enjoy themselves how they want.
Again, I am NOT trying to be Big Brother here. That is the farthest thing from my intent you could imagine. We have a problem. Lots of them actually but in this blog I am attacking drugs. Drugs should NOT be legalized – that’s stupid. Drugs can’t not be stopped at the border nor have we been able to stop crack house and meth labs from popping up. So, we stop at by attacking the user/abuser. How? Through testing and by enforcing consequences. I would do it by making sure as best we can that our tax dollars to not support the drugs habits of people who receive government monies.
Some who are reading this are over-thinking my point.
I agree with all Larry’s proposals. What about the alcoholics on SSI because of their alcoholism?
Larry, I totally agree! The testing would do a lot more than just impact the test taker, it would also influence those around him/her observing the impact and consequences of the test results.
Case in point, when my son was in high school he played on a football team ranked year in and year out in the top 25 teams in the country. The high school, not the football team, had a random drug test policy, and if you didn’t agree to this testing policy you didn’t get to attend this high school (private parochial). The school administrators seemed to favor testing the football team on a regular basis. Someone on the football or basketball team (basketball ranks in the top 5 teams in the country every year) was tested every single day. When a player tested positive for a drug everyone knew it. It became a black mark on him, his teammates, and his friends. Don’t get me wrong, this is an typical suburban high school in America, there were plenty of black marks, some kids just didn’t care, but for the majority of kids they were bound and determined not to let down their guard and let the abuse of drugs or alcohol ruin their “something” in this case their ability to participate in football.
As you mentioned, and anyone paying attention during the last 40 years knows, drugs are a problem in our society. When you change the rules by placing a known testing policy in place, and the subjects of the tests have everything riding on the outcome of the tests then you will see how motivated people become to discontinue any drug or alcohol use. In my sons case (he’s now a sophomore in college) he has since told me the drug policy at school allowed him to use the drug policy as an excuse to NOT drink and to not do drugs when he was out at parties and other social activities. In fact, he told me it wasn’t until after the end of his senior football season that he got “drunk”. And why not until then? Because he feared what he would lose if he tested positive for alcohol!
Uuuuuuuur more right on the money than i think you give yourself credit. Force people to test drug free, give then an excuse to say NO, and we will not only turn drug dealers into a rare oddity, but we will put good people with bad habits back on track to add something positive to society.
Hey Larry –
The concept is great. Implementation worries me some:
1 – False positives, innocent mistakes – The people who do routine UA/drug tests are not white-coated research folks. They are put-vial-A-in-slot-B-press-button-C techs. In a high volume operation, they confuse samples, so a verification test is always necessary. More tests, more verifications, then the verifications have something like the same volume problems.
2 – Some “fun” stuff is illegal all the time – marijuana, cocaine (VERY limited exceptions). Other (oxycontin, hydrocodone, xanax) are available by prescription, yet most of what’s used is used illegally. Forged ‘scripts are common. Also, sadly, there is a portion of the medical community (generally the hacks) which makes a nice living out of doing bullshit exams and handing out high-test pain med ‘scripts. Prosecuting those docs criminally or within the licensure system is rare and difficult.
3 – Out-and-out fraud in the collection and testing process. There WILL be a cottage industry in beating the system. Hell, there already is.
That being said, we are LOSING THE WAR AGAINST DRUGS. WE ARE GETTING OUR ASSES KICKED AND WE ARE TOO F***ING DUMB OR LAZY OR SCARED TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT. It’s worth a BIG effort to turn the tide.
R
Ah Larry, so true. I’m married to an airline pilot who works for a poorly run airline. They took his pension, cut his pay and he still has to pee in a cup all the time to prove his ability to fly. Too bad the CEO who “runs” his company doesn’t do the same.
The former head of the local humane society was busted for ordering thousands of vicodin for personal use. She made 90 grand a year and when they busted her, the donations to the shelter tanked.
Animals died for her drug use, the DEA spent thousands one her case and all she got was a $500. fine and rehab. Too bad she wasn’t peeing in a cup, would have saved everyone.
I Love You!
Larry, I disagree with you completely. Stopping the government flow of money will never stop drug use. And the idea of requiring my 94-year-old mother to take a drug test so she can get her Social Security check is brutal and wrong.
I can understand your outrage over these athletes who are making public apologies when they probably are just sorry they got caught. But they undoubtedly feel forced to take the drugs just to remain competitive with their rivals who take drugs. Try being a wrestler without bulking up, for instance.
I am anti drugs. Never used them, never will. But I am pro legalizing drugs. Why? Because Prohibition did not work and neither has the war on drugs, nor will it. People want addictive substances and ways to get high, and you can’t stop them from obtaining them. Glue is legal, and so are household cleaners, and kids huff them all over the world. Booze and cigarettes are legal, too, and are killing people everywhere. As for the currently illegal drugs, legalize, purify, and regulate them, and you will stop the murderous international drug trade cold.
I’m sorry, Larry. I wish we could just make people do the right thing. But we can’t. Holding government payments hostage isn’t a solution.
Larry,
Alright as easily as you had me, you lost me. Know what I am sick of, people telling me what I can and can’t do when it has not affect on them what so ever. We have so many laws to stop people from breaking laws, that stop people from breaking law that half the time we don’t know why we created the law in the first place. I am tired of being told how to raise my family, what kinds of guns are safe, what kinds of activities are too dangerous for me, and what I can put into my body when it has no affect on the person or society giving me these orders. This is still the USA, land of the free isn’t it? The irony is that the people telling me this stuff are the ones now begging to be helped out by the government. “whaa we were not financially savvy, the mean bankers tricked us.” Well you are not doctors or sociologist either, so quite telling me what to do with my body and my life.
Yes my pay stub has “The department of” on top of it. The government won some intense negotiations for me against a private sector company. Ultimately I turned down a job offering twice what the government was offering because, oddly enough, I was tired of working for company after company that fell on hard times and I was out looking for work again. I chose job security over wages. It paid off, the other company doesn’t exist anymore. But, the bottom line is just because I do a job you wouldn’t want in the hands of the private sector, shouldn’t mean that I get treated with less access to the rights to freedom.
I am subjected to random screening as well. That is a decision made by my employer, as it should be. Mine is a job that should be done while in a clear state of mind. But that should be the determining factor, not “you can’t do it because we say so.”
When it comes to sports I think all drugs should be on the table. Look at the 18 yr old kid leaving school to take up “underwater basket weaving” at the bit 10 conference college with his potential future in the NFL. Say to him, “Sure your balls are going to shrink to the size of peas, and you will probably be dead of kidney failure by the time you are 45, but what a 25 years it will be. If the stars line up and you get picked to go pro, you will live more life in just 2 years then most people live in a lifetime. Of course the perspective pro ball player will have to be informed that it is a gamble (or as people like to call them these days, an “investment”) to take steroids, but everybody else is doing it and it is really the only way to be fair. It would be the only way to make things fair. No testing needed, everybody is doing it. An athlete that makes it without doping would be a rare and inspiring commodity. In the end, I don’t care what my athletes are on. As long as they can catch, throw, jump, run, and punch better then the team or guy I am rooting against. (of course stock markets, lotteries, insurance, and 30 year mortgages are legal, betting isn’t. So I would never bet on a sporting event. I am just rooting for the guy.)
I feel the same way about drugs in our culture. IF the guy at the BMV can get my information processed and my picture taken and have me back at the office in time to beat the lunch hour, he is doing a fine job. I could care less what he is smoking, snorting, or injecting. It’s a free country. Can you do your job? Good then do whatever else you want to. This is still “the land of the free” right? If it doesn’t adversely affect society, then let the people do it.
Look, if the insurance companies want to drug test me? Fine. If an employer wants to put it in my contract, that is fine too. But a bunch of hypocrites that are on the take from one recreational substance distributor is lobbied to outlaw a competitive recreational substance and then a blanket policy is created, that I am not fine with.
And by the way, I pay taxes too.
Good points, Larry – but you missed one key group of people who should pass a drug test…
—> CONGRESS <—
Actually make that anyone who is in public office…
The next prequalifier for these public officials is to pass a credit check and a criminal background check.
Heck, I do this for the tenants in my apartment buildings, and it should be a minimum qualification for our Congressional Officials, as well.
I would wager that many of the guys and gals spending OUR gazillions in taxes can’t even run their own finances, and some may have trouble with the credit check, as well. Hmmm… makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
I’ll speak just to the baseball aspect of your post.
I don’t care. I do care we spend our federal money and time on this. Why can’t major league baseball take care of this themselves. But my bone to pick on this entire issue is that when it comes to being successful most all successful people do everything possible to succeed. And I would suggest that all of us do something illegal at some point in time. Late for an appointment? Drive over the speed limit to get there? It’s illegal and if we don’t get caught we don’t give it a second thought. Now speeding may not give you an unfair advantage bu that is just a simple example of people doing what it takes to succeed. Let’s take our time and money and focus on more importatnt things then professional baseball players on the juice.
Interesting where everyone draws the line on ‘drugs’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug – From Wikipedia – “A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that alters normal bodily function. There is no single, precise definition, as there are different meanings in medicine, government regulations, and colloquial usage.”
It seems to me this country was founded on drug tax (Boston Tea Party anyone?) in Taverns. We tried prohibiting alcohol and learned that was not a good idea. In fact many drugs were legal for years and our country did not collapse, in fact many refer to it as the ‘good old days’ – http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne32.html
“Few people are aware that before World War I, a 9-year-old girl could walk into a drug store and buy heroin.
That’s right – heroin. She didn’t need a doctor’s prescription or a note from her parents. She could buy it right off the shelf. Bayer and other large drug companies sold heroin as a pain-reliever and sedative in measured doses – just the way aspirin is sold today. Cocaine, opium, and marijuana were readily available as well. No Drug Enforcement Agency, no undercover cops, no “Parents – the Anti-Drug” commercials. Just people going about their own business is whatever way they chose.
Seeing today’s never-ending crisis of teenagers using drugs, you can imagine how bad it must have been when there were no laws to stop children – or adults – from using drugs. But, in fact, there was no drug crisis at all. A few people were addicted to heroin or cocaine, just as a few people today are addicted to sleeping pills or Big Macs, but there was no national uproar about it. Such people, if they wanted to break their habits, could freely consult doctors without fear of being sent to prison.”
Of course there has been no discussion on the pharmacueticals ‘hooking us’ on their drugs. Many people on their drugs are impaired, but can afford the more expensive variation that is government sanctioned version that the poor can not afford so they self medicate with a ‘few’ glasses of wine. Wine this year is determined to be helpful/healthy. Are we so sure we know EXACTLY where to draw the line between healthy and hurtful for EACH individual. Could it be my needs/level are different then yours. Maybe at 6’5″ my tolerance is different then yours at 5’0″. Perhaps your metabolism is different when you run a marathon (or triatholon) a week then my sitting on my duff all day. Are you that sure you know what is right for my brain chemistry? It is amazing to see how many authorities in brain physiology there are willing to comment on the issue.
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2007/03/lies-damned-lies-statistics-and.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04148/322560-150.stm
http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/preprohibition.htm
Before Prohibition:
Images from the preprohibition era when many psychotropic substances were legally available in America and Europe.
Many of the substances prohibited today were legally available in the past. This small exposition contains samples of the many psychoactive medicines widely available during the late-19th century through the mid-20th century. Some of the pictures are oversized to improve legibility. Additional photographs are available for some products in the author’s private collection. For a quick comparison with current drug regulations, see Drug Schedules.
Where do you draw the line – over the counter medicine, Coffee, tea, a glass of wine, anything that is illegal today (don’t you think someone will always be coming up with a new drug that is legal, because is has not been excluded as illegal).
Of course since we are testing everyone one the ‘dole’ I assume that is everyone that has their streets swept or plowed or pot-holes patched, every business (and all employees and contractors) that gets money or service from the government, anyone with police protection, or fire protection.
The one part I agree with is getting more involved with government (rather then government getting more involved with me) – call and write your legislature and share you opinions. Have your congressman/woman’s phone number on speed dial and call after every time you listen to the news. Amazing how your view of the world will change.
PS. My drug use is limited to soda, alcohol in moderation, aspirin, prescribed uses of prescriptions when required (no need in last 2 years), junk foods and other processed foods.
I think that you are right about this on a lot of levels. Not so sure how this would play into affect but it does sound great. The only one that I have a real problem with is the IRS check. I think that this one just isn’t going to happen. First and foremost I am not really into the whole big brother thing for the common citizen. They have paid their money now give it back. With the exception of course being any free money, i.e.: earned income credit, stimulus money, ECT.
Anyone that has their hand out should be required to do a drug test. I would definitely do its part to bring the world back into a balance.
As far as the whole SSI check only being for granny anyway that is a crock. The disability ssi claims are the real problem. There are a lot of people getting these checks that really could work if this money wasn’t so easy to come by. And what do they do with their free time. They certainly are volunteering to help out in their community.
I don’t think that any of us are specifically talking about the people that really truly are in need of assistance, we are talking about the abusers. And honestly if my peeing in a cup would rid the handouts I pay out from my hard earned dollar I would be willing to do it.
I totaly agree with your insights on drugs.
I totally agree with you, my step-sons mom just had her house raided in a 5 million dollar drug bust Wednesday because her boyfriend was dealing. We have been trying to get custody of him for over 2 years now and keep getting denied because the courts don’t see her as unfit. Let me tell you about her she has been on welfare for almost 4 years now, not because anything is wrong with her but because she is too damn lazy to go and get a job. Her job consists of popping out one kid after another (she has a newborn, a 1 year old, a 3 year old and my 6 year old stepson) Oh yeah and they are all by different fathers and guess what welfare pays her medical bills. My husband and I are both Marines and Iraq Vets and we are sick of paying for her too be lazy. We pay her child support and the only time she uses it on him is when she feels the need to buy him $70 sneakers. What 6 year old needs sneakers costing that much money? Now back to the drug raid we have been at the court house all day trying to get at least temporary custody of him and once again they said they see no reason for us to have him. Are you freakin kiddding me she is allowing drugs to be sold out of her home and allowing her kids to be exposed to that. Also they are refusing to investigate her welfare claims because they can’t prove that she was involved in the drug ring. Well sorry about my venting I am just pissed that our tax dollars are paying for her and her low life boyfriend to live for free and buy drugs with.
Oh yeah and all of this could of been resolved if they would of made her take drug tests at some point in the last 5 years.