Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Welfare recipients are heavy drug users
Comments
-
How the fuck else would they have these statistics ya fuckin burnout?dflea said:
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?HoustonHusky said:
There are a ton of them. A few examples...dflea said:
Bullshit. What fucking statistics show the drug usage rates in the general population?HoustonHusky said:
In 2011 in Florida over 1,500 people of the ~8,500 that applied for welfare stopped when the drug test came around.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.
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.
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.
The only way you would know is by a criminal conviction. You need to go back to Unleashed. That place is more your speed Corky. -
Well, gee - that's the point you ignant cunt. If your data comes from questionnaires, then it isn't reliable data.salemcoog said:
How the fuck else would they have these statistics ya fuckin burnout?dflea said:
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?HoustonHusky said:
There are a ton of them. A few examples...dflea said:
Bullshit. What fucking statistics show the drug usage rates in the general population?HoustonHusky said:
In 2011 in Florida over 1,500 people of the ~8,500 that applied for welfare stopped when the drug test came around.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.
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.
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.
The only way you would know is by a criminal conviction. You need to go back to Unleashed. That place is more your speed Corky.
Why should I go back to Unleashed? Do you need someone to make you look like a fuckin' idiot over there, too? You're doing a fine job of that here without any assistance at all.
