TN - Less Than 1% Of Welfare Applicants Used Drugs.

[Newell Steamer]

Because it doesn't seem to save any money?

Unless drug tests are done every X amount of days - you won't bust anyone. And, even then, the cost/process will far outweigh the amount spent on welfare. Also, you may end up bleeding the person dry! Which, I am not too sure supporters of this consider it to be a problem,...

:hmm:

Furthermore, these initial tests just means people won't dope up before sticking out their hands, asking for money.

What then - hook up every welfare applicant to some sort of device that monitors blood and activity,.. that's some pretty big brother crap right there.

These tactics are just to abuse the poor; Need help? OK, I need to monitor every facet of your life, before I give you anything. Vilify, demean and abuse those you just don't like.

 

[Vic]

Because it doesn't seem to save any money?

The people pushing this agenda aren't actually interested in saving taxpayers' money.

 

[Vic]

Random Drug Tests.

Employers can do it. With Welfare one is one a type of government payroll. So why not?

You realize that this is terrible logic, right?

Employers can also restrict their employees' freedom of speech, so why not let government do the same?

 

[Ketchup]

You realize that this is terrible logic, right?

Employers can also restrict their employees' freedom of speech, so why not let government do the same?

Then, oh, I don't know, maybe people would actually WANT to get off welfare?

Silly discussion on my end because a change in the welfare system will never happen (not in my lifetime) but I do like seeing where this thread is going.

 

[fskimospy]

The people pushing this agenda aren't actually interested in saving taxpayers' money.

Oh I know. I just wish they were upfront with their motives.

I always find it funny that small government conservatives push for such intrusive requirements though.

 

[Slew Foot]

less than 1% of liberals read an article before posting about it online

 

[Slew Foot]

Because it doesn't seem to save any money?

take the cost of the test out of their welfare check. then its cost neutral.

 

[Vic]

Then, oh, I don't know, maybe people would actually WANT to get off welfare?

Silly discussion on my end because a change in the welfare system will never happen (not in my lifetime) but I do like seeing where this thread is going.

Drug testing doesn't get people off welfare, it just denies benefits to any applicant who tests positive for certain drugs.
And given the narrow detection windows for most substances, they're pretty much pointless unless you're going after potheads. An alcoholic with a hangover could pass a urine test.

 

[Ketchup]

Drug testing doesn't get people off welfare, it just denies benefits to any applicant who tests positive for certain drugs.
And given the narrow detection windows for most substances, they're pretty much pointless unless you're going after potheads. An alcoholic with a hangover could pass a urine test.

That's nuts (and I really don't doubt you one bit). And this, to me, makes the type of test described in the OP that much more ridiculous.

 

[Vic]

take the cost of the test out of their welfare check. then its cost neutral.

You mean the welfare check that they're not supposed to get after the drug test?

 

[Engineer]

take the cost of the test out of their welfare check. then its cost neutral.

Florida did that but had to give it back if the test came back negative. It was estimated that Florida lost $45,000+ by doing the test vs not doing the test. Of course, I know you mean to take it out of the welfare check AND NOT give it back if the test comes back negative.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Perhaps a better example, Florida, which recently had it mandatory testing for welfare applicants declared unconstitutional.

"Florida passed the measure in 2011, and the case was being closely watched by several other states, including Georgia, which passed similar legislation in 2013 but found it dogged by legal challenges. State data in Florida also showed that the measure produced few results. Only 108 out of 4,086 people tested — 2.6 percent — were found to have been using narcotics. State records showed that the requirement cost more money to carry out than it saved."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/u...-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html?_r=0

"From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them."

"Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said."

"As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said."
And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases."

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload,” the document said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html

 

[nehalem256]

No, I mean the drug testing seems pointless. Other states have tried it and the returns are so low it costs more money than it saves. If that's the case, seems like a self defeating policy.

Assuming of course the only purpose of drug testing is to save money.

There is also a little thing called justice.

Also, you are assuming that the very fact they do drug testing does not deter drug users from going on welfare. If you know welfare requires a drug test who do you think won't be applying for welfare? :hmm:

 

[nehalem256]

Drug testing doesn't get people off welfare, it just denies benefits to any applicant who tests positive for certain drugs.
And given the narrow detection windows for most substances, they're pretty much pointless unless you're going after potheads. An alcoholic with a hangover could pass a urine test.

WTF. Are you really arguing that someone that doesn't get welfare benefits is on welfare?:hmm:

 

[Greenman]

P&N is getting a lot stupider.

 

[Slew Foot]

What makes drug tests for welfare recipients unconstitutional but not say for pilots, or baseball players, or other occupations?

 

[Zaap]

 

[glenn1]

Just pay welfare recipients in drugs. The ones who aren't using can just resell them on the street for cash.

 

[etrigan420]

It all fits in with the "smaller government through bigger government" narrative of the Conservotards.

 

[Matt1970]

It all fits in with the "smaller government through bigger government" narrative of the Conservotards.

Right, when liberals claim 1 in 6 is 1%, it's clearly a good time to call conservatives retards.

 

[ZaneNBK]

Right, when liberals claim 1 in 6 is 1%, it's clearly a good time to call conservatives retards.

Which was actually 5/10 since 4 turned the test down for obvious reasons.

edit:

However, I don't believe that failing a drug test means they're abusing the system and means they should no longer get welfare. I'm 100% behind legalization (of MJ at least). If it's not drugs they're "wasting" their money on, it could be booze, cigarettes, energy drinks, unhealthy food, food you don't agree with (vegans hating them buying meat). Who decides exactly where that line is drawn? Should they not be allowed any excesses or comforts?

That's an extremely slippery slope. Regardless, it's off topic as the main topic is that this article makes bullshit conclusions from the data it's using that even grade school kids should be able to see through.

 

[Matt1970]

Which was actually 5/10 since 4 turned the test down for obvious reasons.

I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, but you are correct.

 

[etrigan420]

Right, when liberals claim 1 in 6 is 1%, it's clearly a good time to call conservatives retards.

Oh inorite?

When conservatives get retarded, I call them retarded. Do you need some Boudreaux's?

At least OP isn't posting DuffelBlog articles...

 

[Oldgamer]

Way to go righty,.. you booted 1 of 800 from the government teet

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/08/07/3468610/tennessee-welfare-drug-test-positive/

Hahahaha.. this really does put egg on the face of the asses who were trying to prove some stereotypical point doesn't it?

Quote: "Despite stereotypes that the poor people who need welfare assistance use drugs at a high rate, other states have had similar results.

In Utah, just 12 people tested positive in a year of drug testing applicants. In Florida, 2 percent of applicants failed the tests in 2011 but the state has an 8 percent rate of illegal drug use.

And when Maine’s governor set out to prove that welfare recipients in his state were using their benefits to buy drinks and cigarettes at bars and strip clubs, he turned up next to nothing."

So lets see... wonder how much this is costing the state to perform these tests and have the staff to handle the questionnaire forms and the screening process?

 

[Vic]

WTF. Are you really arguing that someone that doesn't get welfare benefits is on welfare?:hmm:

In fact, no. I wasn't.