|
Drug screening is a needless and, quite frankly, stupid procedure when a given applicant is seeking a private, merit-based position. After all, who cares about what that applicant is going to do with their money? If an employer sees that someone is a regular cannabis user based on, say, a piss test, that shouldn't distract said employer from the applicant's potential as a worker, especially when his or her resumé is flawless. If the applicant is refused from the position on the basis of their harmless drug use even after providing evidence of his or her accolades while using the drug, it's a shame. An acceptable and legally-covered shame on the part of the employer, but a shame nonetheless.
Still, what we're dealing with here in Florida isn't a private, merit-based position. This is essentially a "free money" handout given to those who are unable to effectively make money on their own. And that "free money" comes in the form of taxpayer dollars through the state. And while it's unfortunate that the only drug that tends to show up for piss tests is cannabis (as practically all other illicit drugs tend to leave the system within a week after use), it's for the good of the economy that the tests are mandated. After all, if someone tests positive for cannabis (which typically leaves the system of an infrequent smoker within a week and that of a heavy smoker within three weeks) then it's entirely possible (if not probable) that they're going to use at least some of the taxpayer dollars given to them to buy more cannabis and/or other illegal and wasteful products. That means that a large portion of that money will most likely take a long time to get back into circulation due to the circular funding of a typical grow op (i.e. the buying of seeds, the cultivation of crops, the selling of the finished product and then the use of the money from the sell to fund the further growing of the operation) and therefore be unavailable to the mainstream economic flow for some time. This, of course, is a drain on the economy. And why should taxpayers, those most affected by changes in said economy, suffer for what they've paid into?
That's why screening is so important in a situation like the one Florida is in now. A large percentage of its population uses government handouts for wasteful and often harmful purposes. Considering that a lot of my family's friends (and friends' families) receive government-supplied benefits, I'll gladly testify that this is indeed the case with a sizable amount, if not the majority, of welfare recipients. The typical beer-and-cigarettes-for-poor-people routine is old but is quite accurate. I was over at a friend's place the other day and his family has insisted on buying nothing but alcohol, junk food and luxury items (e.g. a new TV, new furniture, a hot tub, etc.) with their taxpayer-provided welfare money. Mind you, this is in fairly upscale south Florida, around Fort Lauderdale; it's even worse in the northern parts of the state, with most families being typical redneck trash by this board's standards. But regardless of the characteristics a given region exhibits, wouldn't it be frustrating to know that you're helping to pay for someone's unproductive and irresponsible habits?
Like Azelma said earlier, people should earn their vices. If you want to drink, get a job. If you want to smoke, at least have some sort of legitimate income. If you want to splurge on stupid shit, make sure you're using your own hard-earned money. Because people who leech off the system without even trying to contribute are scum and should be treated as such.
|
