Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Welfare recipients are heavy drug users
Comments
-
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. -
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.
-
Whether drug use is higher or lower for welfare recipients than good working folk. Fact is, the program isn't effective.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.
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.) -
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. -
@dflea is one of my favorite classy poasters.
He's like the logger at the tuff logger bar that is smart and will kick your ass too -
A summary...
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.HoustonHusky said:A summary...
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. -
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. -
Said in a manner that only a true intellectual giant could...dflea said:
You're such a fuckin' pussy. Your actual data is garbage, put together by faggots, and lapped up by you like pablum.HoustonHusky said:A summary...
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.
-
lol - lick up the pablum, Einstein. Then explain the drug usage of the general public when the general public has never been drug tested.HoustonHusky said:
Said in a manner that only a true intellectual giant could...dflea said:
You're such a fuckin' pussy. Your actual data is garbage, put together by faggots, and lapped up by you like pablum.HoustonHusky said:A summary...
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.
You know what board you're on, don't you? Good Then let me reiterate - fuck off.
-
No shit the program isn't effective. But numbers don't lie, and writing or peddling a story that suggests drug use among those on welfare is statistically significantly less than (or even equal to) the general population from that "data" is just FS.2001400ex said:
Whether drug use is higher or lower for welfare recipients than good working folk. Fact is, the program isn't effective.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.
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.)
And nobody gives a shit about knowing somebody with a drug problem that made $294,432.425t43636452365234...why do people think anecdotal evidence means something? That does not impact the overall sample populations.
-
Don't have to.dflea said:
lol - lick up the pablum, Einstein. Then explain the drug usage of the general public when the general public has never been drug tested.HoustonHusky said:
Said in a manner that only a true intellectual giant could...dflea said:
You're such a fuckin' pussy. Your actual data is garbage, put together by faggots, and lapped up by you like pablum.HoustonHusky said:A summary...
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.
You know what board you're on, don't you? Good Then let me reiterate - fuck off.
Its absolutely stupid to think the groups have the same drug abuse %, but we'll live in your world for a sec...who cares if its 5% or 10% of the population. Statistically its pretty much impossible to find a broad subset of that population which is 0.19%, which means either the program is amazing (i.e. its incredibly efficient in pushing drug users away from welfare which no one believes), or its statistically impossible and therefore meaningless jibberish and an inane, stupid article to begin with, and an even dumber article to cite as proof of anything.
But keep pounding in hopes of proving something...anything really... -
You made the comment that common sense dictates that people with jobs are unlikely to be crackheads. I'm making the point that many successful people are fucked up drug addicts. It's actually shocking the number of functional potheads and cokeheads I know.HoustonHusky said:
No shit the program isn't effective. But numbers don't lie, and writing or peddling a story that suggests drug use among those on welfare is statistically significantly less than (or even equal to) the general population from that "data" is just FS.2001400ex said:
Whether drug use is higher or lower for welfare recipients than good working folk. Fact is, the program isn't effective.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.
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.)
And nobody gives a shit about knowing somebody with a drug problem that made $294,432.425t43636452365234...why do people think anecdotal evidence means something? That does not impact the overall sample populations. -
Can't we get back to tasting drugs?
-
Fixed, and still true.2001400ex said:
You made the comment that common sense dictates that people with jobs areHoustonHusky said:
No shit the program isn't effective. But numbers don't lie, and writing or peddling a story that suggests drug use among those on welfare is statistically significantly less than (or even equal to) the general population from that "data" is just FS.2001400ex said:
Whether drug use is higher or lower for welfare recipients than good working folk. Fact is, the program isn't effective.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.
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.)
And nobody gives a shit about knowing somebody with a drug problem that made $294,432.425t43636452365234...why do people think anecdotal evidence means something? That does not impact the overall sample populations.unlikelyless likely to be crackheads. I'm making the point that many successful people are fucked up drug addicts. It's actually shocking the number of functional potheads and cokeheads I know. -
Numbers lie when they're compiled using garbage data.
You're like the global warming alarmists you have sand jammed in your mangina about constantly. Defending pissing away taxpayer money on ineffective garbage programs is so typical of liberals like you. -
Not ALL Muslims are radicals
Not ALL successful people are clean -
This board has almost convinced me to start doing heroin and go on welfare. Some of you right wingers make it sound like a great life of luxury.
-
Math is hard....dflea said:Numbers lie when they're compiled using garbage data.
You're like the global warming alarmists you have sand jammed in your mangina about constantly. Defending pissing away taxpayer money on ineffective garbage programs is so typical of liberals like you.
for some I guess. -
I need drugs after reading this thread
-
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.
