How many out there have changed jobs recently? Come on, it's nothing to be embarrassed about. At least you have a job. Many can't find work these days, at least not one that will pay all their bills. Fortunately for them, and for others, the government is here to help.
Every state has assistance for the unemployed. Everything from career centers, where one can get help writing a resume or work on interview skills, to a check in the mail every week. This is an important safety net for American citizens, and not to be taken lightly. Things happen, and most of us have been unemployed at one time or another, for one reason or another. The bill collectors, however, do not take time off. They want their money, and the kids gotta eat. Sure, it's only half of your previous salary, but every little bit helps, and the idea is not to stay on it forever.
Unemployment insurance exists to help people through tough times until they can find another job.
Speaking of jobs, back to my original question. I'm not sure about any of you, but just about every employer I've encountered requires new employees to submit to a drug screen. Many even require a background check and a credit history as well. Some of this is for insurance purposes. The employer wants to cover himself in case one of his employees has an accident, causes someone harm, steals something, etc. Most of the reasoning is so that employers can see what type of person they are entering into a contract with.
Yes, employment is a contract. You are offering your employer an honest day's work, they are offering you a day's pay. In simplest terms, this is what a job is.
The motivation behind drug screening, background checks, and credit history checks is more than just saving a few bucks on bonding or insurance. The employer is making an investment in the employee. What person would make an investment without doing any sort of research into their investment? What employee would take a job with a company without doing some research into the company they could be working for? Would you take a job with a company that filed for bankruptcy every six months, reopened with a new name, and refused to pay back their debts? What if the owner was the town drunk? What if he had a criminal record as long as a gangsta rapper? Would you want to work for him?
When entering into a contract, it is important to have as much information as possible in order to make an intelligent decision. That's why, when the federal government tried to auction off the rights to some environmentally friendly, green energy something or other, not one single business even showed up. A spokesman for Solar Energies Industries told the Denver Post that, "It's not smart business to commit to something until you've read the fine print." Too bad Pelosi, Reid, and Obama didn't think of this when they were signing Obamacare into law.
Which brings us directly to the point. A judge in Florida has ruled that any requirement for drug screening of recipients of government assistance is unconstitutional.
Libertarian leanings aside, it is my humble opinion that the government has a responsibility to ensure that the money it spends, invests, or gives away is being used in the manner for which it is intended. Unemployment assistance, and every other monetary assistance given by the government to its citizens, is intended to help in a time of need. It is not intended to allow the recipient to buy a big bag of weed, a case of Doritos, 3 bottles of Diet Coke, and watch reruns of Yo MTV Raps in their underwear in their parent's basement.
Is it a violation of our civil liberties to be subjected to intrusive tests such as drug screens? Probably. If you feel so strongly about it, don't take the job. If you feel so strongly about it, don't accept the government assistance. For once, the government is attempting to be responsible about the money it throws around, and some judge in Florida decides that it's unconstitutional? Has she been drug tested recently?