#Login Register


  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
Home 


Why drug testing of welfare recipients is a bad idea
JollyRoger Show this Post
03-04-2013, 02:13 AM #31
JollyRoger Incognito Anonymous
 
(03-04-2013, 01:05 AM)Captain Six Wrote:  
(03-03-2013, 10:01 PM)JollyRoger Wrote:  I don't know about you, but I don't like giving money for taxes that goes to welfare recipients who just take that money and buy crack with it. Or even trade food stamps for drugs.

Once you accept money from the Govt., you submit to their rules pertaining to the receipt of said money.

If you don't like the regulations or attempts to reform welfare...

Don't use it. And if you do, don't buy drugs with it.


Only 2% of people on welfare use drugs.

Should college students have to submit to a monthly drug test of they are getting a government grant?

Should you have to submit to a drug test in order to get your tax return?

Should a drug addict be left to starve in the streets?


Only 2% huh?

How did you get those numbers unless YOU TESTED THE WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR DRUGS????


I call bullshit.

get a life.
03-04-2013, 02:14 AM #32
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 01:25 AM)I⊥∀NIW∩LLIʞ Wrote:  The welfare system is a joke and a large number of people cheat the system which cost billions as well.

When you test the person and they're positive the check gets cut off which much cheaper than the testing. When you weed out the people cheating the system and people using while on welfare that saves billions.


Cheating the system is fraud, which is already illegal and they can go to prison for it. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

And why shouldn't a drug addict be allowed to eat, or have shelter?

Would you deny a homeless veteran a meal because he smoked a joint in the park last week?

As far as cost goes, you are dead wrong, and you obviously didn't bother to read the article. It costs over $100,000 to weed out just ONE drug user who might get $9000 a year in benefits.

The program in Florida, and earlier in Michigan proved that it costs taxpayers millions more than they saved by denying a few people benefits.

People who shouldn't be denied benefits anyway. Just because someone smoked a little weed or is a hardcore addict has NO bearing whatsoever on their need for assistance. Actually, the real addict has probably even MORE need for the assistance.


STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


03-04-2013, 02:17 AM #33
TheMadHatter Member
Posts:15 Threads:1 Joined:Feb 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:03 AM)Captain Six Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 01:21 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 01:03 AM)Captain Six Wrote:  
(03-03-2013, 06:11 PM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  Where do you get this $75 a person number?

The police use a much cheaper version for things like DUIs and probation tests that cost a couple bucks each.

I would like to see where the data comes from proving these cost otherwise pee in the cup if you want help or just get a freaking job and not our problem.


The cost of the test is more than just test strip itself. The drug testing company charges a rate. In Florida I believe that actually turned out to be $55 per test, by the company owned by the Governor who made the law. Talk about conflict of interest.

But now on top of the $55, you have to factor in the cost in man-hours and all the paper shuffling that goes along with it. Basically you are creating a whole new agency of the welfare department, all on the taxpayer dime.

A massive expansion of welfare does not shrink welfare or save money, not matter how you figure it.


Again, where is the data to back this up?
Maybe a link?



Average cost in 2002 was $42 dollars.

U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Robert L. DuPont, Teresa G. Campbell and Jacqueline J. Mazza, Report of a Preliminary Study: Elements of a Successful School-Based Student Drug Testing Program 8 (2002)


But even if the test only cost $5 you are STILL spending MORE money on EXPANDING welfare.


Your math is waaaaaay off, look at the above post.

At $42 per for 56.6 million with a 2% rejection it's $2,377,200,000 with an annual savings of $3,056,400,000

Numbers don't lie and it looks like you didn't do the math.
03-04-2013, 02:20 AM #34
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 01:27 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  What business is it of ours?!

They aren't trading their food for pills they are trading our money for them, that card isn't food it's tax dollars, they aren't going to safeway getting some food then going to their dealer trading fruit roll-ups for some smack.

What they are doing is called fraud which is illegal if they want to do drugs I don't care but I do care is if American tax payers are footing the bill so passing a drug test that you still haven't proven would be the cost you claim it to be because they have instant test not just blood test that do cost around the range you are speaking of but nothing you have shown proves this is the test they would have to submit to and even if they did the number of applicants would drop substantially due to the fact that drug users know they are dirty and wouldn't apply just like when an employer advertises they drug test for employment, the druggies don't show up.


And fraud is already illegal. That still doesn't justify violating the 4th Amendment just to check and see if there is anything illegal going on. That's no different than the police stopping your car without cause and giving you a cavity search just to make sure you don't have any drugs. Hey, it's a public roadway, paid for in tax dollars. Gotta make sure everyone is safe.

"Drug testing will stop druggies from applying for welfare."

FALSE. An internal document states unequivocally...

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload”


This shows that there is no "hidden" cost benefit to the program. It also shatters the myth that poor people use illicit drugs at a significantly higher rate than the national average. Studies done on the subject reject
that myth, and many show that people in poverty are actually less likely to use illicit drugs. That conclusion is supported by the Florida statistics too. If there was no sudden downturn in the number of welfare applications when the drug-testing went into effect, then the 2.6% who did test positive is a fairly accurate assessment of detectable drug use among welfare applicants at any given time, seeing that the program provided no significant deterrent.

Read more: http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.co...z2MWPma8LU


STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


03-04-2013, 02:22 AM #35
TheMadHatter Member
Posts:15 Threads:1 Joined:Feb 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:20 AM)Captain Six Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 01:27 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  What business is it of ours?!

They aren't trading their food for pills they are trading our money for them, that card isn't food it's tax dollars, they aren't going to safeway getting some food then going to their dealer trading fruit roll-ups for some smack.

What they are doing is called fraud which is illegal if they want to do drugs I don't care but I do care is if American tax payers are footing the bill so passing a drug test that you still haven't proven would be the cost you claim it to be because they have instant test not just blood test that do cost around the range you are speaking of but nothing you have shown proves this is the test they would have to submit to and even if they did the number of applicants would drop substantially due to the fact that drug users know they are dirty and wouldn't apply just like when an employer advertises they drug test for employment, the druggies don't show up.


And fraud is already illegal. That still doesn't justify violating the 4th Amendment just to check and see if there is anything illegal going on. That's no different than the police stopping your car without cause and giving you a cavity search just to make sure you don't have any drugs. Hey, it's a public roadway, paid for in tax dollars. Gotta make sure everyone is safe.

"Drug testing will stop druggies from applying for welfare."

FALSE. An internal document states unequivocally...

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload”


This shows that there is no "hidden" cost benefit to the program. It also shatters the myth that poor people use illicit drugs at a significantly higher rate than the national average. Studies done on the subject reject
that myth, and many show that people in poverty are actually less likely to use illicit drugs. That conclusion is supported by the Florida statistics too. If there was no sudden downturn in the number of welfare applications when the drug-testing went into effect, then the 2.6% who did test positive is a fairly accurate assessment of detectable drug use among welfare applicants at any given time, seeing that the program provided no significant deterrent.

Read more: http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.co...z2MWPma8LU


That's a blog how about some real links?
03-04-2013, 02:22 AM #36
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 01:27 AM)I⊥∀NIW∩LLIʞ Wrote:  How do you know only 2% are using without the testing ? I don't think you thought this argument through.


Florida ended up with a rate of 2.6%

Michigan was running between 2-4% before their law was stricken down as a violation of the 4th Amendment.

STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


JollyRoger Show this Post
03-04-2013, 02:23 AM #37
JollyRoger Incognito Anonymous
 
(03-04-2013, 02:22 AM)Captain Six Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 01:27 AM)I⊥∀NIW∩LLIʞ Wrote:  How do you know only 2% are using without the testing ? I don't think you thought this argument through.


Florida ended up with a rate of 2.6%

Michigan was running between 2-4% before their law was stricken down as a violation of the 4th Amendment.


That is NOT 2% of ALL recipients. That is 2% of two states.

Like i said. I call bullshit and this is propaganda.

Test welfare recipients. if positive. cut their asses OFF.
03-04-2013, 02:24 AM #38
KILLUMINATI Made Ya Look!!
Posts:4,764 Threads:1,046 Joined:Jun 2012
(03-04-2013, 02:14 AM)Captain Six Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 01:25 AM)I⊥∀NIW∩LLIʞ Wrote:  The welfare system is a joke and a large number of people cheat the system which cost billions as well.

When you test the person and they're positive the check gets cut off which much cheaper than the testing. When you weed out the people cheating the system and people using while on welfare that saves billions.


Cheating the system is fraud, which is already illegal and they can go to prison for it. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

And why shouldn't a drug addict be allowed to eat, or have shelter?

Would you deny a homeless veteran a meal because he smoked a joint in the park last week?

As far as cost goes, you are dead wrong, and you obviously didn't bother to read the article. It costs over $100,000 to weed out just ONE drug user who might get $9000 a year in benefits.

The program in Florida, and earlier in Michigan proved that it costs taxpayers millions more than they saved by denying a few people benefits.

People who shouldn't be denied benefits anyway. Just because someone smoked a little weed or is a hardcore addict has NO bearing whatsoever on their need for assistance. Actually, the real addict has probably even MORE need for the assistance.


It does not matter what I would do so that argument is fallacious.

Welfare is not SSI or veteran pay and I never said anyone was a hardcore addict for smoking weed (another fallacious argument).

If a person has money for drugs they clearly don't need welfare and if they want a good job a drug test is required most of the time anyway.



JollyRoger Show this Post
03-04-2013, 02:26 AM #39
JollyRoger Incognito Anonymous
 
A UA is too easy to beat. I say give them blood and/or hair follicle tests.
03-04-2013, 02:29 AM #40
TheMadHatter Member
Posts:15 Threads:1 Joined:Feb 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:26 AM)JollyRoger Wrote:  A UA is too easy to beat. I say give them blood and/or hair follicle tests.


I'm still waiting on him to refute my math argument based off of his 2% number even though the blog he linked to was 2.6%
03-04-2013, 02:31 AM #41
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 01:32 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  Very good point, even at $75 a person it's still much lower than the few hundred dollar check they would get every month I would even agree with a part of the bill saying that if you fail the test you become ineligible for benefits for the next 12 months.


You're forgetting that you have to test hundreds of thousands of people just to find a few hundred drug users.

Let's assume a cost of $35 per test. That's $3.5 million for 100,000 welfare recipients to be tested. Out of that, 200 will test positive. Figuring an average $9000 annual benefit, you will save $1.8 million on rejected applicant benefits.

Net loss. of $1.7 million.

And that is before calculating ANY of the other added expenses aside from the drug test alone. You are talking about hundreds of thousands of man-hours paid to state employees to process all of the drug testing information.

Now you also have to realize that the person who was refjected, will now turn to crime in order to survive. So now you will still wind up paying for their meals, but only after they go out and shoot some single mother in the face who was working the graveyard shift at the gas station.

STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


03-04-2013, 02:33 AM #42
Wicked Oblivion Member
Posts:10,776 Threads:720 Joined:Oct 2012
On the subject of drug testing,what about the police? who are (supposedly) drug tested one time,when they're hired and then never again,because of strong arm union tactics and the police carry high powered weapons and confiscate drugs all the time,wtf's up with that?! but the guy or girl bagging groceries is drug tested,thats f####d up and here in boston two fire fighters were killed while fighting a blaze and both of them had cocaine in their systems and still the fire fighters union refuses to drug test firemen and thats seriously f####d up...

The San Luis Obispo County Sheriffs do not drug test their employees > http://www.kcoy.com/story/21013749/shoul...rug-tested
03-04-2013, 02:38 AM #43
Captain Six Member
Posts:80 Threads:6 Joined:Mar 2013
(03-04-2013, 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  1. Proof of "Only 2% of people on welfare use drugs"?

The average has run from 2-4% in every place they tried this. 2.6% in Florida.

(03-04-2013, 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  2. "college students" Yes, why not?

Then why not all Americans? At some point in our lives, every single American will partake of some government benefit in one form or another, even if it just means driving down a public highway.

(03-04-2013, 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  3. "tax return" If it was government assistance I would say yes but since it's your own money that you are getting back because you over paid then no.

Your fault for over-paying to start with. You want your check? Drug test. We need to make sure we aren't giving tax breaks to drug addicts who will only use their deductions to go buy drugs.

(03-04-2013, 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  4. "drug addict be left to starve in the streets" Yes, if they wont get off the dope or can't hold a job then they are just a drag on society, remember "your fare share" well they are not doing anything but dragging us all down with them and taking away from those that truly do need the help.


You are assuming that drugs are the reason for unemployment. There are plenty of drug addicts with jobs, and 98% of people on welfare who don't have jobs, don't use drugs.

So your argument is a red herring.

STATION.6.UNDERGROUND - "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." ~Dante Aleghieri


03-04-2013, 02:43 AM #44
TheMadHatter Member
Posts:15 Threads:1 Joined:Feb 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:31 AM)Captain Six Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 01:32 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  Very good point, even at $75 a person it's still much lower than the few hundred dollar check they would get every month I would even agree with a part of the bill saying that if you fail the test you become ineligible for benefits for the next 12 months.


You're forgetting that you have to test hundreds of thousands of people just to find a few hundred drug users.

Let's assume a cost of $35 per test. That's $3.5 million for 100,000 welfare recipients to be tested. Out of that, 200 will test positive. Figuring an average $9000 annual benefit, you will save $1.8 million on rejected applicant benefits.

Net loss. of $1.7 million.

And that is before calculating ANY of the other added expenses aside from the drug test alone. You are talking about hundreds of thousands of man-hours paid to state employees to process all of the drug testing information.

Now you also have to realize that the person who was refjected, will now turn to crime in order to survive. So now you will still wind up paying for their meals, but only after they go out and shoot some single mother in the face who was working the graveyard shift at the gas station.


Try reading post #30...
I did the math for every person 56.6 million total welfare recipients in America.

"Now you also have to realize that the person who was refjected, will now turn to crime in order to survive."

That's where the 2nd amendment comes in.
03-04-2013, 02:50 AM #45
TheMadHatter Member
Posts:15 Threads:1 Joined:Feb 2013
(03-04-2013, 02:38 AM)Captain Six Wrote:  
(03-04-2013, 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  1. Proof of "Only 2% of people on welfare use drugs"?

The average has run from 2-4% in every place they tried this. 2.6% in Florida.

(03-04-2013, 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  2. "college students" Yes, why not?

Then why not all Americans? At some point in our lives, every single American will partake of some government benefit in one form or another, even if it just means driving down a public highway.

(03-04-2013, 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  3. "tax return" If it was government assistance I would say yes but since it's your own money that you are getting back because you over paid then no.

Your fault for over-paying to start with. You want your check? Drug test. We need to make sure we aren't giving tax breaks to drug addicts who will only use their deductions to go buy drugs.

(03-04-2013, 01:37 AM)TheMadHatter Wrote:  4. "drug addict be left to starve in the streets" Yes, if they wont get off the dope or can't hold a job then they are just a drag on society, remember "your fare share" well they are not doing anything but dragging us all down with them and taking away from those that truly do need the help.


You are assuming that drugs are the reason for unemployment. There are plenty of drug addicts with jobs, and 98% of people on welfare who don't have jobs, don't use drugs.

So your argument is a red herring.


1. Still waiting for proof not just you saying it.

2. How the hell is driving down a road welfare?
I would really like to hear this argument.

3. Okay I will take a drug test and those that don't want to can just pay less during the year and make up the difference at the end.

4. If they have a job they don't need welfare now do they? (Why would they be starving in the street if they have a job?)
Still waiting on the proof of 2%
I wasn't assuming anything, if they can pass a drug test they can get public assistance.

Your circular logic is interesting though, wrong, but interesting.



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com