It tested new applicants, who knew they had to be clean before joining the program, right?
What about for all the others on the program with random screens? Wouldn't that be a more accurate measure?
This. The Florida program only had a couple hundred fail, but they had a ton more that decided not to continue with the application and had overall applications drop significantly.
But why bring reality into this...
So everyone that didn't continue was a drug addict? Couldn't be because they had gotten a job?
It's pretty easy and inexpensive to beat drug screens when you know they are coming. Extremely easy.
Maybe some actually got a job because they were afraid of getting cut off????
It tested new applicants, who knew they had to be clean before joining the program, right?
What about for all the others on the program with random screens? Wouldn't that be a more accurate measure?
This. The Florida program only had a couple hundred fail, but they had a ton more that decided not to continue with the application and had overall applications drop significantly.
But why bring reality into this...
So everyone that didn't continue was a drug addict? Couldn't be because they had gotten a job?
It's pretty easy and inexpensive to beat drug screens when you know they are coming. Extremely easy.
Maybe some actually got a job because they were afraid of getting cut off????
You are going under the assumption the welfare folk are smart enough to fake a drug test.
It tested new applicants, who knew they had to be clean before joining the program, right?
What about for all the others on the program with random screens? Wouldn't that be a more accurate measure?
This. The Florida program only had a couple hundred fail, but they had a ton more that decided not to continue with the application and had overall applications drop significantly.
But why bring reality into this...
So everyone that didn't continue was a drug addict? Couldn't be because they had gotten a job?
It's pretty easy and inexpensive to beat drug screens when you know they are coming. Extremely easy.
Maybe some actually got a job because they were afraid of getting cut off????
You are going under the assumption the welfare folk are smart enough to fake a drug test.
It tested new applicants, who knew they had to be clean before joining the program, right?
What about for all the others on the program with random screens? Wouldn't that be a more accurate measure?
This. The Florida program only had a couple hundred fail, but they had a ton more that decided not to continue with the application and had overall applications drop significantly.
But why bring reality into this...
So everyone that didn't continue was a drug addict? Couldn't be because they had gotten a job?
It's pretty easy and inexpensive to beat drug screens when you know they are coming. Extremely easy.
Maybe some actually got a job because they were afraid of getting cut off????
You are going under the assumption the welfare folk are smart enough to fake a drug test.
It tested new applicants, who knew they had to be clean before joining the program, right?
What about for all the others on the program with random screens? Wouldn't that be a more accurate measure?
This. The Florida program only had a couple hundred fail, but they had a ton more that decided not to continue with the application and had overall applications drop significantly.
But why bring reality into this...
So everyone that didn't continue was a drug addict? Couldn't be because they had gotten a job?
It's pretty easy and inexpensive to beat drug screens when you know they are coming. Extremely easy.
Maybe some actually got a job because they were afraid of getting cut off????
Then why fucking bother? Companies do it because their dumb fucking insurance companies demand it, so they waste a bunch of money testing people that have no problems passing the test so they can say - there you go, our work force is drug-free.
But when states do it, their taxpayers have to watch their money get pissed away on another stupid fucking program that solves no problem.
This. The Florida program only had a couple hundred fail, but they had a ton more that decided not to continue with the application and had overall applications drop significantly.
Feel free to provide a source that can at least infer that the overall applications dropped because of the drug test, and not, you know, the recession ending.
In 2011 in Florida over 1,500 people of the ~8,500 that applied for welfare stopped when the drug test came around.
Statistics show that the % of people on govt assistance are ~40% more likely to be on drugs than the general population, so if less than 1% are "testing positive" its pretty much statistically impossible in being a representative sample of anything.
It means either the state is either really shitty about testing (usually a written test asking people if they do drugs isn't the "best test"...) or the others got pushed off the system (doubt it happened here but isn't this the point...).
The fact some are too dumb to grasp the statistical impossibility of this and are running with this as proof of anything other than more shitty govt is just sad.
It tested new applicants, who knew they had to be clean before joining the program, right?
What about for all the others on the program with random screens? Wouldn't that be a more accurate measure?
This. The Florida program only had a couple hundred fail, but they had a ton more that decided not to continue with the application and had overall applications drop significantly.
But why bring reality into this...
So everyone that didn't continue was a drug addict? Couldn't be because they had gotten a job?
This. The Florida program only had a couple hundred fail, but they had a ton more that decided not to continue with the application and had overall applications drop significantly.
Feel free to provide a source that can at least infer that the overall applications dropped because of the drug test, and not, you know, the recession ending.
In 2011 in Florida over 1,500 people of the ~8,500 that applied for welfare stopped when the drug test came around. Statistics show that the % of people on govt assistance are ~40% more likely to be on drugs than the general population, so if less than 1% are "testing positive" its pretty much statistically impossible in being a representative sample of anything.
It means either the state is either really shitty about testing (usually a written test asking people if they do drugs isn't the "best test"...) or the others got pushed off the system (doubt it happened here but isn't this the point...).
The fact some are too dumb to grasp the statistical impossibility of this and are running with this as proof of anything other than more shitty govt is just sad.
Bullshit. What fucking statistics show the drug usage rates in the general population?
This. The Florida program only had a couple hundred fail, but they had a ton more that decided not to continue with the application and had overall applications drop significantly.
Feel free to provide a source that can at least infer that the overall applications dropped because of the drug test, and not, you know, the recession ending.
In 2011 in Florida over 1,500 people of the ~8,500 that applied for welfare stopped when the drug test came around. Statistics show that the % of people on govt assistance are ~40% more likely to be on drugs than the general population, so if less than 1% are "testing positive" its pretty much statistically impossible in being a representative sample of anything.
It means either the state is either really shitty about testing (usually a written test asking people if they do drugs isn't the "best test"...) or the others got pushed off the system (doubt it happened here but isn't this the point...).
The fact some are too dumb to grasp the statistical impossibility of this and are running with this as proof of anything other than more shitty govt is just sad.
Bullshit. What fucking statistics show the drug usage rates in the general population?
Its absolutely idiotic to think the rate of drug abuse for someone who doesn't have a job and all of the responsibilities that go with it would be the same or less than someone who has a full-time job. You can not like reality, but don't deny it or human nature.
This. The Florida program only had a couple hundred fail, but they had a ton more that decided not to continue with the application and had overall applications drop significantly.
Feel free to provide a source that can at least infer that the overall applications dropped because of the drug test, and not, you know, the recession ending.
In 2011 in Florida over 1,500 people of the ~8,500 that applied for welfare stopped when the drug test came around. Statistics show that the % of people on govt assistance are ~40% more likely to be on drugs than the general population, so if less than 1% are "testing positive" its pretty much statistically impossible in being a representative sample of anything.
It means either the state is either really shitty about testing (usually a written test asking people if they do drugs isn't the "best test"...) or the others got pushed off the system (doubt it happened here but isn't this the point...).
The fact some are too dumb to grasp the statistical impossibility of this and are running with this as proof of anything other than more shitty govt is just sad.
Bullshit. What fucking statistics show the drug usage rates in the general population?
Its absolutely idiotic to think the rate of drug abuse for someone who doesn't have a job and all of the responsibilities that go with it would be the same or less than someone who has a full-time job. You can not like reality, but don't deny it or human nature.
Whether drug use is higher or lower for welfare recipients than good working folk. Fact is, the program isn't effective.
BTW, I have known many people that make six figures that have terrible drug habits, from pot to coke (no meth or heroin in that income range that I have met.)
This. The Florida program only had a couple hundred fail, but they had a ton more that decided not to continue with the application and had overall applications drop significantly.
Feel free to provide a source that can at least infer that the overall applications dropped because of the drug test, and not, you know, the recession ending.
In 2011 in Florida over 1,500 people of the ~8,500 that applied for welfare stopped when the drug test came around. Statistics show that the % of people on govt assistance are ~40% more likely to be on drugs than the general population, so if less than 1% are "testing positive" its pretty much statistically impossible in being a representative sample of anything.
It means either the state is either really shitty about testing (usually a written test asking people if they do drugs isn't the "best test"...) or the others got pushed off the system (doubt it happened here but isn't this the point...).
The fact some are too dumb to grasp the statistical impossibility of this and are running with this as proof of anything other than more shitty govt is just sad.
Bullshit. What fucking statistics show the drug usage rates in the general population?
Its absolutely idiotic to think the rate of drug abuse for someone who doesn't have a job and all of the responsibilities that go with it would be the same or less than someone who has a full-time job. You can not like reality, but don't deny it or human nature.
Oh, they took surveys, did they? And you're going to cite those as accurate statistics? Did you ever fucking think someone with a job might say they don't do drugs when they really do?
Christ - you made a statement about the "general public". Except the general public never takes a drug test. In fact, those that work at "drug-free" companies usually take a pre-hire UA and then never take another one unless they are injured on the job.
fleabag: Liar me: actual data fleabag: yeah, well who cares if its true over millions of people because I knew a guy once fleabag: and I have no idea how the survey was done but I'm sure it must be wrong. fleabag: And I'm sure people with jobs would statistically lie about drug use more than those without, but I'm sure you cannot differentiate between those two groups on any other behavior such as actual drug use...
Effin a...
Funny thing is, your last example although wrong in your application of logic shows why HondoFS is so stupid in buying into that stupid story. Of course people lie when money is on the line...hence having people fill out a survey in their welfare application and considering it a "drug test" is, well, HondoFS...
fleabag: Liar me: actual data fleabag: yeah, well who cares if its true over millions of people because I knew a guy once fleabag: and I have no idea how the survey was done but I'm sure it must be wrong. fleabag: And I'm sure people with jobs would statistically lie about drug use more than those without, but I'm sure you cannot differentiate between those two groups on any other behavior such as actual drug use...
Effin a...
Funny thing is, your last example although wrong in your application of logic shows why HondoFS is so stupid in buying into that stupid story. Of course people lie when money is on the line...hence having people fill out a survey in their welfare application and considering it a "drug test" is, well, HondoFS...
You're such a fuckin' pussy. Your actual data is garbage, put together by faggots, and lapped up by you like pablum.
If people are asked if they use drugs, and there is any chance that the response comes back to bite them in the ass, they lie. Hell, probably in most cases where there isn't any chance that the response comes back to bite them, they lie.
The premise is fundamentally flawed at both ends.
Occam's razor tells me that unemployed people are more likely to use drugs. They also don't have anything else to do, and if they are chronically unemployed and are in a community with 40+% unemployment (like many blick folks are) they are unlikely to Horatio Alger themselves. So roll that fatty guys!
All that being said - I can't say that I would trust anyone's data on this topic. I also think that weed should be not only legal but mandatory. So I'm probably an outlier.
fleabag: Liar me: actual data fleabag: yeah, well who cares if its true over millions of people because I knew a guy once fleabag: and I have no idea how the survey was done but I'm sure it must be wrong. fleabag: And I'm sure people with jobs would statistically lie about drug use more than those without, but I'm sure you cannot differentiate between those two groups on any other behavior such as actual drug use...
Effin a...
Funny thing is, your last example although wrong in your application of logic shows why HondoFS is so stupid in buying into that stupid story. Of course people lie when money is on the line...hence having people fill out a survey in their welfare application and considering it a "drug test" is, well, HondoFS...
You're such a fuckin' pussy. Your actual data is garbage, put together by faggots, and lapped up by you like pablum.
So fuck off.
Said in a manner that only a true intellectual giant could...
fleabag: Liar me: actual data fleabag: yeah, well who cares if its true over millions of people because I knew a guy once fleabag: and I have no idea how the survey was done but I'm sure it must be wrong. fleabag: And I'm sure people with jobs would statistically lie about drug use more than those without, but I'm sure you cannot differentiate between those two groups on any other behavior such as actual drug use...
Effin a...
Funny thing is, your last example although wrong in your application of logic shows why HondoFS is so stupid in buying into that stupid story. Of course people lie when money is on the line...hence having people fill out a survey in their welfare application and considering it a "drug test" is, well, HondoFS...
You're such a fuckin' pussy. Your actual data is garbage, put together by faggots, and lapped up by you like pablum.
So fuck off.
Said in a manner that only a true intellectual giant could...
lol - lick up the pablum, Einstein. Then explain the drug usage of the general public when the general public has never been drug tested.
You know what board you're on, don't you? Good Then let me reiterate - fuck off.
Comments
Maybe some actually got a job because they were afraid of getting cut off????
Do you think their new job requires a drug test?
Mods?
Staff??? True??
The right loves big government and government intrusion when it comes to useless shit that makes no difference, but sounds tough like this.
I don't like habitual Welfare queens. I probably hate them as much as anyone on this bored. Trust me. @loadsock and @DerekJohnson can back me up.
But this idea was stupid to being with
But when states do it, their taxpayers have to watch their money get pissed away on another stupid fucking program that solves no problem.
This is just another paver on the road to hell.
Statistics show that the % of people on govt assistance are ~40% more likely to be on drugs than the general population, so if less than 1% are "testing positive" its pretty much statistically impossible in being a representative sample of anything.
It means either the state is either really shitty about testing (usually a written test asking people if they do drugs isn't the "best test"...) or the others got pushed off the system (doubt it happened here but isn't this the point...).
The fact some are too dumb to grasp the statistical impossibility of this and are running with this as proof of anything other than more shitty govt is just sad.
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSDUHresults2013.pdf
p27...rate based on employment status
More data:
http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k2/GovAid/GovAid.htm
(the number I remembered which is ~40% higher for those on Govt aid)
More data:
http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief02/
Its absolutely idiotic to think the rate of drug abuse for someone who doesn't have a job and all of the responsibilities that go with it would be the same or less than someone who has a full-time job. You can not like reality, but don't deny it or human nature.
BTW, I have known many people that make six figures that have terrible drug habits, from pot to coke (no meth or heroin in that income range that I have met.)
Christ - you made a statement about the "general public". Except the general public never takes a drug test. In fact, those that work at "drug-free" companies usually take a pre-hire UA and then never take another one unless they are injured on the job.
Quit being such a fucking dope.
He's like the logger at the tuff logger bar that is smart and will kick your ass too
fleabag: Liar
me: actual data
fleabag: yeah, well who cares if its true over millions of people because I knew a guy once
fleabag: and I have no idea how the survey was done but I'm sure it must be wrong.
fleabag: And I'm sure people with jobs would statistically lie about drug use more than those without, but I'm sure you cannot differentiate between those two groups on any other behavior such as actual drug use...
Effin a...
Funny thing is, your last example although wrong in your application of logic shows why HondoFS is so stupid in buying into that stupid story. Of course people lie when money is on the line...hence having people fill out a survey in their welfare application and considering it a "drug test" is, well, HondoFS...
So fuck off.
The premise is fundamentally flawed at both ends.
Occam's razor tells me that unemployed people are more likely to use drugs. They also don't have anything else to do, and if they are chronically unemployed and are in a community with 40+% unemployment (like many blick folks are) they are unlikely to Horatio Alger themselves. So roll that fatty guys!
All that being said - I can't say that I would trust anyone's data on this topic. I also think that weed should be not only legal but mandatory. So I'm probably an outlier.
You know what board you're on, don't you? Good Then let me reiterate - fuck off.