Drugs are illegal right? You wouldn’t know it based on the data. Regardless, fully 8.7% of our population uses illegal drugs (28,700,000 PEOPLE). More people are using illegal drugs than in any other time in history.
In the last three weeks 102,811 people have been arrested for illegal drugs. We’ve spent $2.5 billion on the “war on drugs” already the first three weeks of this year (2013). http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock
Turns out, people are unemployable because of their drug use. Employers do drug tests on prospective employees. It’s so bad around here, a new Wal Mart that opened had to delay opening because more than 50% of applicants couldn’t pass a drug screen.
Even in states where marijuana is “legal” now, drug screens are preventing people from getting jobs. An unintended side effect of the war on drugs; people can’t get jobs. All the better for the government, they can get on welfare or disability and get paid to take drugs. Documented use of illegal drugs (or incarceration for drug offenses, sales, or distribution) never prevents a person from getting on disability or welfare (but does preclude getting a job). When will the madness end?
Give Us Your Poor, Your Unemployed, Your Dope Fiends
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/22/2013
The Great Recession had one effect on Americans you don’t hear much about – regular illicit drug use increased by approximately 2.5 million users in 36 months, from 2007 to 2010. The year 2011 (the most recent data available) saw a slight decline to an estimated 8.7% (from 8.9%) of all Americans regularly using illegal drugs, but, as ConvergEx’s Nick Colas notes, this is still 19.5 million people who would find it difficult to pass a pre-employment drug test. The NIH’s National Institute of Drug Abuse & Addiction 2012 survey found that 17.2% of unemployed adults are current users of illicit drugs versus 8.0% who are full-time employed. While this is certainly only a partial explanation of the current still-high domestic unemployment rate, it does highlight how well-intentioned state-by-state decriminalization of drugs such as marijuana can work against a better national employment picture.
Via ConvergEx’s Nick Colas,
Drug testing is commonplace in American business. Every year, millions of employees and prospective hires submit to either random testing or required pre-employment screening. Passing is a prerequisite of employment for new hires and can lead to dismissal in the case of an existing employee. Whether you want a job as a truck driver in the Bakken or an investment banker in New York, chances are very good that you will have to submit to, and pass, a test for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, heroin/opiates and PCP. Put another way, the specimen cup is the gateway to employment.
One of the less-discussed features of the Great Recession relates to the same topic: more Americans became regular users of illegal drugs during this period than at any point in the last decade. A few salient datapoints from the last published National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2011):
Some 22.5 million Americans reported using illicit drugs in the prior month. That is 8.7% of the over-12 year old domestic population, with the 2010 survey showing a similar 8.9% usage rate. Prior to the 2007 Financial Crisis and subsequent recession, that number was 8.0%.
The entire pickup in illegal drug usage over the 2007 – 2011 timeframe is from an increase in reported use of marijuana. Seven percent of the over-12 population reported using the drug in the prior 30 days in 2011, up from 5.8% in 2007. Seizure data from the FBI, tracked by the U.S. Census, supports the survey results. In 2010 (most recently available data) U.S. law enforcement seized 4.5 million pounds of marijuana from smugglers, dealers and users, up from 3.0 million pounds in 2006.
Among the unemployed, reported illicit drug usage was 17.2% of that population, versus 8.0% for their counterparts who are employed full-time. It is worth noting that the survey protocol is in-person, with participants answering questions by filling out a computerized questionnaire. They receive $30 for completing the survey. Given the sensitive nature of questions over illegal drug use, it is entirely possible that the survey understates such use – perhaps materially –despite assurances of anonymity and confidentiality.
Putting these two points – pervasive drug testing and rising rates of drug usage – together raises a useful question: how much of the current still-high rates of U.S. unemployment is due to prospective employees who cannot pass a drug test? It is a question that the Boston branch of the Federal Reserve actually highlighted in their contribution to the most recent Beige Book. One of their contacts mentioned that they were having trouble hiring low-skill workers, in part due to failed drug tests and quoted the source as saying that this problem, along with spotty attendance, “May result from behaviors developed during extended periods of unemployment.”
Some observations using Google Trends (and several supporting charts immediately following the text):
Searches for the phrase “Failed drug test” on Google have increased 2-5x from pre-recessionary levels in 2005-2006. Likewise, “Positive drug test” searches have doubled over the same period. Oddly, “Beat a drug test “ is roughly flat over the same period. Modern chemical testing is tough to “Beat” and users – drug and Google alike – may know that.
The Google maps which highlight above-average levels of search volume by state show a clear correlation between state-level unemployment (table included) and “Failed”/”Positive” drug test search volume. High unemployment states such as Michigan and most of the southern USA are clearly also areas where Google sees a higher level of interest in these queries.
California is a disproportionate contributor to the nation’s still-high unemployment picture, so it deserves special mention here. The most recent unemployment rate in California is 9.8%, well above the national rate of 7.8%. And Google searches for “Failed”/”Positive” drug test results are above average as well. But lest you think the state’s well-known medical marijuana laws have somehow seeped into broad enough usage to skew the unemployment picture, think again. There have only been some 66,000 cards issued for medical marijuana use since the inception of the current program eight years ago.
So, given the Google Trends data, it seems clear that an increasing number of Americans are concerned about how their drug usage may affect their employment prospects. At the same time, U.S. corporations are unlikely to change their policies towards the issue. The Department of Labor actively promotes drug testing on its “eLaws Advisors” website, chronicling both the costs (billions of dollars annually) and successes achieved by companies with stringent drug testing requirements for new and existing workers. That means that drug testing is not only a condition of any Federal employment, but also in safety sensitive jobs, where agencies such as the Department of Transportation hold sway.
The intersection of government drug policy and employment is in the recent trend for U.S. states to decriminalize marijuana possession. Recall that this is far and away the most popular illegal drug among Americans. As of January 2012, California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington state, Colorado, Nebraska, Minnesota, Alabama, Ohio, North Carolina, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine all have varying laws which make the possession of small amounts of marijuana either legal or subject to a de minimus penalty. In New York, for example, possession of 25 grams or less on a first offence is a $100 fine and considered a “Violation,” akin to a traffic ticket.
But for all these lessening of the strictures, marijuana use will still trigger a positive drug reading on the standard pre- and current employment urine test. The minimum standard used by most employers, courtesy of the U.S. government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), tests for:
Marijuana/Hashish
Cocaine in all forms
Amphetamines
Opiates such as Heroin
PCP
The critical issue is that while states might set their own laws, the Federal government still rates marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, alongside heroin, LSD and Ecstasy (MDMA). As recently as December 2012, both SAMHSA and the Department of Transportation – where drug testing is understandably important – reiterated that marijuana remains part of their established “Panel” (those five drugs mentioned above) and that they do not recognize any medical use or state exemptions for criminality. Even Colorado, which last November passed some of the most relaxed drug laws in the country, allows employers to continue to test for, and terminate/not hire, marijuana use.
In summary, drug use and testing does not (of course) explain the still high levels of national unemployment on their own. Issues of cyclical sluggishness and select structural issues still hold the reins here. But as policymakers struggle to keep the country’s unemployment rate on a downward trajectory, it does seem clear that national drug policy and state-level lawmaking are working at cross-purposes. With drug use among the unemployed at levels double their full-time employed peers (17% versus 8%), and marijuana use on a solid uptrend, national drug policy and macroeconomic priorities appear to be on different – and conflicting – tracks.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-22/give-us-your-poor-your-unemployed-your-dope-fiends
ecliptix543 says:
Heh… I recognize more than half of those evil substances in the top picture… 8)
*A few interesting others are missing from the pic… ahh, the memories of all those hazy weekends.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
22nd January 2013 at 3:45 pm
KaD says:
Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn’t be worth it to just make ALL drugs legal and let the morons who take them Darwinize themselves the fast and easy way.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
22nd January 2013 at 4:12 pm
AWD says:
SSS must be taking a long nap….
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
22nd January 2013 at 7:23 pm
Steve Hogan says:
SSS, call your office!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
22nd January 2013 at 7:31 pm
sangell says:
I got the news a few weeks ago. A plumbing inspector I had worked with ( making around 50-60K with no OT and with full medical and 20 years towards a defined benefit pension) got fired. There’s no doubt more to it than I know but the official reason was he failed a pee test after backing his company vehicle into a light standard in the corporation yard. Tested positive for marijuana.
Because we operated pipelines, we came under Department of Transportation regulations which meant we were subjected to random drug testing. Furthermore, as a municipal utility, the city had a zero tolerance drug policy. Beyond that, if you were involved in a motor vehicle accident , you were required to take a pee test. Officially at least but unless there was an injury or something else going on, we didn’t do it because it meant a supervisor pulling a subordinate off his job after the accident and taking both of them going to our Occupational Health provider facility and waiting to take the test.
I had cautioned my friend about his work habits. I retired in August 2010 one month after I became eligible. The extra month was only to cross any i’s and dot ever t they might discover after I gave my notice. The housing boom had ended and we had more plumbing inspectors than we needed. A government job with little or no work to do may fly if you’ve got political protection but not in my neck of the woods. So, anyway, he backed into a utility pole in the yard in a company vehicle, they ran him down to occupational health, drug tested him, came back positive and he got fired. No unemployment, too young to claim his pension and a stain on his resume that really hurts. After 3 years you can reapply but you won’t get your old job back. Smoking dope can have severe consequences.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
22nd January 2013 at 8:14 pm
Steve Hogan says:
sangell,
What you’re describing is a breach of contract. If the terms call for termination, so be it. That’s different than involving the criminal justice system and the military to stop production, transportation and consumption of pot and other drugs.
Criminal justice should concern itself with actual crimes – violations of other people’s rights. Voluntarily exchanging pot for money means no legitimate crime has taken place.
Putting someone in a cage for years for the “crime” of smoking a doobie and taxing the rest of us to keep him there is beyond stupid.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
22nd January 2013 at 9:34 pm
biggtmofo says:
Sangell your post does explaine the consequences of pee sniffing that are severe and perhaps overkill. I mean the next thing is people who don’t sleep enough for reasons of health. I am excluding benders here. The issue has to be thought of more as to why free citizens are treated like they are on probation. I understand DOT regs for sobriety more than say working in Taco Bell. I also know that a postive pee test is a sign of past use and not intoxication. This is a monitoring tool for the P.O. to see what you are up to. I think the whole drug testing program that has really gone full steam for the last thirty years has to subject to a C.B.A. Who benefits? This is not done in Europe and Canada nearly as much. As this article suggests that unemployed people are getting stoned or college kids too. Ok didn’t the baby boomers do this too?
I will state again that it’s time to put the pee sniffers and hair testers out of business. If the courts rule it to be a search for welfare than for the government to force employers to search us should be struck down or severely limited. I will admit my bias that facts have show the drug war to be a war on liberty with the same affects of violence, corruption and dis regard for the law.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
22nd January 2013 at 10:26 pm
IndenturedServant says:
Only 8.7%!!?? Yeah right!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
22nd January 2013 at 2:27 am
Makati1 says:
Steve, you are correct! We spend on average, $35,000 per year per convict. That is over $70 billion dollars per year and most are in for drugs. But then, prisons are ‘for profit’ corporations now and any drop in prisoners is a drop in profits.
Indentured, you too are correct! That is maybe a small fraction of the actual illegal drug users. Then add in all of the hypochondriacs that get prescription drugs for the same recreational use. Then there are the ‘legal drugs’, alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine (They have better lobbyists.). You get 99%+ addiction and a hundreds of billions of dollars of profits overall every year. Why, even school kids are drugged today to make them docile.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
22nd January 2013 at 2:37 am
SSS says:
AWD and Steve Hogan
Thanks for thinking of me, but I’m not playing. After the beating I took during the last illegal drug post and thread, I’m still recuperating. Doctor said I should be fine in another week or two.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
22nd January 2013 at 4:28 pm
Administrator says:
SSS
Did the doctor prescribe you some weed?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
22nd January 2013 at 4:30 pm
llpoh says:
Makati – Sheriff Joe spend around $0.35 per convict per year. And hardly any of them want a second dose of his prison after they get out. They tend to move to other locals if they intend to keep up their criminal ways. The $35k per year figure (thought it was a lot more) could be a fraction of the price if prisoners were not coddled. I personally believe prisons are for punishment, and fuck the “rehabilitation” bullshit. Rehab efforts, which do not work, are what costs. Punishment is cheap.
A lot of prisoners have better lives in prison than out. Not in Joe’s prisons. I think that should be the norm everywhere. You would see a lot fewer repeat offenders.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
22nd January 2013 at 5:42 pm
llpoh says:
Well, fuck. That first abortion of a pic was the best.
Try again:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
22nd January 2013 at 5:50 pm
John A says:
SSS,
I hope you get well soon. Rest and drink lots of hot, organic green tea with lemon.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
22nd January 2013 at 5:50 pm
SSS says:
Average cost to ALL the states per prisoner: $31,286.
States with the HIGHEST cost per prisoner: NY @ $60,076 (Mama Mia!!!!) and NJ @ $54,865. Any surprise both states are controlled by liberal Democrats. Of course not.
States with the LOWEST cost per prisoner: KY @ $14,207 and IN @ $14,823. Any surprise both states are controlled by conservative Republicans. Of course not.
Arizona comes in at $24,805, well below the national average. I’m sure that is due to conservative Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County who feeds his prisoners for 35 cents a day (per Llpoh’s statement above), which is offset by dumbass liberal Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, who feeds his prisoners on 35 dollars a day.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
22nd January 2013 at 6:36 pm
Eddie says:
I started to post this yesterday. I was looking up estimates of the economic effects of drug incarceration, and I ran across this.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/making-economic-case-legalizing-drugs
This is the second article I’ve read that comes up with 40 odd billion in savings if drugs were legalized.
I do support drug legalization, for several reasons:
1. Drugs are with us. We have to deal with it.
2. Illegal drugs contribute greatly to the wealth of bad guys now.
3. We have enough people to survive and prosper if all drug addicts self-destruct. Why not make it easy for them?
4.Taxing drugs that are now illicit would generate a shit-ton of revenue.
5. I have a problem telling other people how to live their lives.
However, the matter of doctors PRESCRIBING drugs like SSRi’s and” Benzodiazapines to millions of my fellow Americans makes me twitch. I definitely subscribe to the “pharmacological theory of school shooters”. If nothing else, drugs lower inhibitions. Duh!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
22nd January 2013 at 7:21 pm
sangell says:
Reasons to not legalize
Drug convictions prevent many FSA from voting in some states forever.
Drug violence eliminates many thugs… permanently. If the shooter/s are caught its a ‘twofer’.
Drug dealing provides income for many low lifes who would have no other option but to steal
Drug money and property confiscation provide another source of funds for police besides taxes.
Drug laws allow police to arrest low lifes and squeeze them or have them turn states evidence.
Drug use, especially street drugs, cause increased mortality reducing medicaid and SS costs.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
22nd January 2013 at 8:36 pm
ron says:
Drugs are like drinking a beer.To me its a personal choice and a freedom thing.
Drug testing,ive had my share of it for years,watched many lose their job because of it.
Many nice folks i know who like to smoke pot.Just start theyre own buisness.
Or you could go into poilitics,they all seem to be on something! If they were tested we could clean house.
I like Sherriff Joe,but you have to relize the poor slobs in tent city are usually just there for something like drunk driving.SJ also costs the state a lot of money because he gets sued all the time.Here in az people all cry about illegal aliens getting busted and anything thats done to deter illegals,and sue everyone.The whole country dosent get that they are ILLEGAL aliens.
Oh and many just dont get that there is a big difference between pot and most other drugs.Its like not seeing that beer and drinking moonshine are worlds apart from each other. And the fact that the gov. dosent see a big new tax source makes you wonder.
Ive had problems with drunken a-holes all my adult years.But never with someone who smoked pot.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
22nd January 2013 at 4:27 pm
SSS says:
“SJ also costs the state a lot of money because he gets sued all the time.”
—-ron
Not really. He does get sued a lot, as in 2,200 lawsuits filed against him, but nary a one gets any traction in a court of law. He’s an elected public official and a law enforcement officer. That affords him an enormous amount of protection from (mostly frivolous) lawsuits while in office.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
22nd January 2013 at 6:30 pm