Welfare recipients are heavy drug users
According to the Tennessean, since the screening process was first established in 2014, a mere 65 out of 39,121 applicants for cash assistance through the Families First in Tennessee program have tested positive for illegal drugs. That means that just 0.17% of applicants have been found to be using illicit drugs.
That number is even lower than what the data revealed after the first year of the screening program. At that point, 0.19% of applicants failed a drug test.
The power of these two numbers lies not in their difference, but their similarity — it's clear that the screening process is consistently finding barely any evidence of drug use among welfare applicants. In fact, the number is strangely low; the general population's illegal drug use rate stands at around 9%.
http://m.mic.com/articles/134650/tennessee-s-drug-testing-program-for-welfare-recipients-is-still-as-ineffective-as-ever#.Fs7nmGxkq
Comments
-
Who cares? This bullshit has been debunked since Rick Scott was hammered for it back in 2011. That one of the hick states is still experimenting with it is hardly interesting news to anyone outside of that shithole.
-
Yeah that's how you argue with republicans, with facts and stats and studies.
-
Should abolish all public welfare regardless. No one is entitled to someone else's money just for being born, unless they choose to donate it out of free will and aren't forced to by threat of fines or imprisonment.
-
Your opinion is wrong.PurpleJ said:Should abolish all public welfare regardless. No one is entitled to someone else's money just for being born, unless they choose to donate it out of free will and aren't forced to by threat of fines or imprisonment.
-
I'm against all drug testing.
-
Disagree.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Your opinion is wrong.PurpleJ said:Should abolish all public welfare regardless. No one is entitled to someone else's money just for being born, unless they choose to donate it out of free will and aren't forced to by threat of fines or imprisonment.
-
Someone should abolish you.PurpleJ said:Should abolish all public welfare regardless. No one is entitled to someone else's money just for being born, unless they choose to donate it out of free will and aren't forced to by threat of fines or imprisonment.
-
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? -
I think you have to renew your application at a certain point and it includes a drug test. Could be wrong tho.whatshouldicareabout said: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?
Either way, they just have to go 2 days for the coke to leave their system. -
I'm against drugs and testing.
-
I'm for drugs and against testing. Drug tasting on the other hand ...
-
Even Hondo gets it. When you know you are going to get drug tested don't do any for a few days. This isn't tough to figure out.
-
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.whatshouldicareabout said: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?
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?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.whatshouldicareabout said: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?
But why bring reality into this... -
That would be a good thing too.2001400ex said:
So everyone that didn't continue was a drug addict? Couldn't be because they had gotten a job?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.whatshouldicareabout said: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?
But why bring reality into this...
You want to get a job you have to drug test at a lot of companies. I was against this when it started happening but the courts ruled you don't have a right to a job so the employer doesn't need cause to search your bodily fluids -
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. -
When is the tasting?
-
In doing a quick search it turns that courts are ruling drug testing of public assistance users unconstitutional. I guess because its public money.
-
But what about tasting?RaceBannon said:In doing a quick search it turns that courts are ruling drug testing of public assistance users unconstitutional. I guess because its public money.
-
I was for common sense drug testing before I was against it.RaceBannon said:I'm against all drug testing.
-
It's pretty easy and inexpensive to beat drug screens when you know they are coming. Extremely easy.2001400ex said:
So everyone that didn't continue was a drug addict? Couldn't be because they had gotten a job?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.whatshouldicareabout said: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?
But why bring reality into this...
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.salemcoog said:
It's pretty easy and inexpensive to beat drug screens when you know they are coming. Extremely easy.2001400ex said:
So everyone that didn't continue was a drug addict? Couldn't be because they had gotten a job?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.whatshouldicareabout said: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?
But why bring reality into this...
Maybe some actually got a job because they were afraid of getting cut off????
Do you think their new job requires a drug test? -
So only stupid people are on welfare?2001400ex said:
You are going under the assumption the welfare folk are smart enough to fake a drug test.salemcoog said:
It's pretty easy and inexpensive to beat drug screens when you know they are coming. Extremely easy.2001400ex said:
So everyone that didn't continue was a drug addict? Couldn't be because they had gotten a job?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.whatshouldicareabout said: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?
But why bring reality into this...
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?? -
BingoRaceBannon said:In doing a quick search it turns that courts are ruling drug testing of public assistance users unconstitutional. I guess because its public money.
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 -
Reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit.RaceBannon said:
So only stupid people are on welfare?2001400ex said:
You are going under the assumption the welfare folk are smart enough to fake a drug test.salemcoog said:
It's pretty easy and inexpensive to beat drug screens when you know they are coming. Extremely easy.2001400ex said:
So everyone that didn't continue was a drug addict? Couldn't be because they had gotten a job?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.whatshouldicareabout said: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?
But why bring reality into this...
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?? -
Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
BingoRaceBannon said:In doing a quick search it turns that courts are ruling drug testing of public assistance users unconstitutional. I guess because its public money.
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
-
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.salemcoog said:
It's pretty easy and inexpensive to beat drug screens when you know they are coming. Extremely easy.2001400ex said:
So everyone that didn't continue was a drug addict? Couldn't be because they had gotten a job?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.whatshouldicareabout said: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?
But why bring reality into this...
Maybe some actually got a job because they were afraid of getting cut off????
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. -
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.
-
You would be dumb enough to think this.2001400ex said:
So everyone that didn't continue was a drug addict? Couldn't be because they had gotten a job?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.whatshouldicareabout said: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?
But why bring reality into this...
-
don't careGrundleStiltzkin said:Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
BingoRaceBannon said:In doing a quick search it turns that courts are ruling drug testing of public assistance users unconstitutional. I guess because its public money.
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
