More Than $1M On Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients

[fskimospy]

My evidence is that these drug testing programs cost more than they save, which has been clearly evidenced.

This is how the government 'creates' jobs.

Yep.

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

Depending on implementation they may also be unconstitutional.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's quite remarkable how raving Righties are so eager to impose non-judicial retribution on drug users & their children. In Tennessee, that's only done to the most honest applicants. Tick "no" on 3 questions- no drug test. Tick "yes" on any of them- drug test.

It's one of those "tell me you love me & then you can fuck me" deals as practiced by fundie Christian teen bimbos.

Repub politicos obviously understand the headsets of their constituents rather well, given that they can successfully substitute this sort of bullshit for actual anti-poverty efforts. Not that they need anything like that, with only 1.1M (18%) of 6.5M Tennessee residents living in poverty. Somewhere in their system of "values" denying benefits to 37 families seems to be an adequate solution. The pleasure of seeing lawbreakers busted overrides everything else. Shaming & blaming makes everything else OK. Gotta have somebody to look down on.

Somewhere in all of this, Righties also fail to comprehend the larger picture- that poverty/ unemployment is just another job slot as defined by the ruling Job Creators. It's quite literally a job they create by not creating others. It's a structural feature of the economy they create.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

It's because they already have a strong deterrent. Drugs aren't cheap. While alcohol is (relatively) cheap and doesn't show up on most drug tests.
The purpose of welfare drug testing was to give some government contracts to some drug testing companies. No other reason. Your populist interpretation was just the sales pitch.

My evidence is that these welfare drug testing programs cost more than they save, which has been clearly evidenced.
This is how the government 'creates' jobs.

It appears Vic is the only one here that gets it. Mommy Government doesn't give a damn about you, and would, tax, drug, poison, jail, or kill you for a profit.


A citizen and a politician were out walking together and came upon a homeless man. The citizen gave the man his business card, told him to come to his office for a job, or help finding one and gave him $20 from his own pocket. Then they came upon another homeless man. The politician gave him directions to the welfare office, took $20 from the citizens' pocket, kept $15 for his administrative fees, and gave the homeless man $5. Now you know the difference.

 

[IronWing]

The purpose of this type of drug testing is not to catch people, but rather to act as a deterrent.

That testing shows a lower rate than normal makes me curious and/or doubtful.

Fern

The purpose is to demonize welfare recipients as druggies. The proponents of drug testing don't give a damn whether or not recipients are druggies. They want to create the impression in the minds of the voters that recipients are druggies so they can rationalize cutting benefits to pay for the tax cuts they already handed out to their rich buddies. It's a lot easier, politically, to cut off benefits to a bunch of druggies than to cut off a bunch of little kids, which is exactly what welfare cuts actually do.

 

[CitizenKain]

Rightwingers still too stupid to understand simple concepts.

 

[HomerJS]

The purpose of this type of drug testing is not to catch people, but rather to act as a deterrent.

That testing shows a lower rate than normal makes me curious and/or doubtful.

Fern

Any change of Republicans proposing random drug testing for public sector workers including politicians?

After all we need those deterrents.

 

[berzerker60]

A citizen and a politician were out walking together and came upon a homeless man. The citizen gave the man his business card, told him to come to his office for a job, or help finding one and gave him $20 from his own pocket. Then they came upon another homeless man. The politician gave him directions to the welfare office, took $20 from the citizens' pocket, kept $15 for his administrative fees, and gave the homeless man $5. Now you know the difference.

Congrats on your dumb make-believe story. Here's a more realistic one:

A citizen and a politician were out walking together and came upon a homeless man. The citizen spat on him and told him to go get a fucking job (ignoring that that's just about impossible for someone without a permanent address, and even more so without money to buy medicine for his mental illness). Then they came upon another homeless man. The politician also didn't help very much, because he's pandering for votes from other greedy assholes like the citizen.

 

[thraashman]

..... and your evidence for this is? Let me guess, it's one of those things you just "know".

This has to be the least self-aware statement I've ever seen a human being made after you posted this retarded crap.

Link is to "thinkprogress", more aptly called "thinkstupidity", so anything stated there has to be taken to be as truthful as the Inquirer reporting on the birth of bat-boy alien babies.

Regardless, if you think the level of drug use among the poor is less than that of the general population, you're delusional. Obviously, the stats are wrong or the 'study' is just bs. People who know they will be tested are less likely to apply. They can also stop using for a while to test, then resume. Either way, the conclusions are obvious garbage.

You literally just posted earlier in the thread an "I just know" post, and then try to call someone else out who you believe is doing the same. I wouldn't believe it was possible for a literate individual to be this stupid if I hadn't just seen you post it.

 

[MagickMan]

As I said: "You can argue that out with the Tennessee Department of Human Services who supplied the info to the Tennessean."

what's to argue, it's obviously a load of BS either way.

 

[MagickMan]

My evidence is that these welfare drug testing programs cost more than they save, which has been clearly evidenced.

I showed that, at least in TN, that's not the case at all. Care to try again?

 

[berzerker60]

I showed that, at least in TN, that's not the case at all. Care to try again?

You're only factoring in the cost of the physical tests. The bureaucracy to implement drug testing also costs a ton, including an appeals process. Then there's the cost of kicking people off of welfare if most of that money WAS going to non-drug expenses, because poverty costs us all - unpaid ER visits, crime, etc.

 

[Jhhnn]

I showed that, at least in TN, that's not the case at all. Care to try again?

You also showed how pointless & dishonest it really is.

Saying "yes" on any of those 3 questions is volunteering for a drug test. Otherwise, no test.

37 really dumb people out of thousands were therefore denied benefits, & their children, too.

It's a real moral victory, I tell ya, a real win for conservative values.

 

[ivwshane]

The purpose is to demonize welfare recipients as druggies. The proponents of drug testing don't give a damn whether or not recipients are druggies. They want to create the impression in the minds of the voters that recipients are druggies so they can rationalize cutting benefits to pay for the tax cuts they already handed out to their rich buddies. It's a lot easier, politically, to cut off benefits to a bunch of druggies than to cut off a bunch of little kids, which is exactly what welfare cuts actually do.

Bingo! It's play number five of the republican play book; create shallow policies that reinforce talking points you've used to demonize your opponent or their position. Reagan perfected the play with his "welfare queen" comment and resulting policies.

 

[Victorian Gray]

what's to argue, it's obviously a load of BS either way.

So are you claiming that your State govt. is lying?

 

[Victorian Gray]

I showed that, at least in TN, that's not the case at all. Care to try again?

No, you made a claim to that effect but, based on the figures provided by your state govt., that claim would appear to be incorrect. You didn't even have the correct number of applicants tested.

It would appear that you need to prove that the official numbers are incorrect and that yours are correct.

So, by all means, try again.

 

[Darwin333]

Or knowing that they will be tested; suspend use of the items until the test is completed.

Ding ding ding. They aren't THAT dumb to go in for the drug test that lets them keep their benefits and not be clean. I would like to know where they get their supplies from, you can buy standard 5 panel dip stick drug tests on amazon along with the specimen jars (or for a bit more specimen jars with the tests built in) for dirt friggen cheap. From there you just need some asshole with gloves on to dip the stick in and record the results. Any positive has to be sent off to an actual lab for confirmation anyway.

With that said, it's impossible to modify the numbers either way with any kind of real information so unfortunately, this study is all we have (that I know of at least).

 

[kage69]

I'd suggest random breathalyzers, particularly after lunch on Friday.

While we're wishing, can we throw in some basic history, science and math aptitude tests as prerequisites for running for office?

The Hill needs more of a barrier for the mildly retarded and the drunks and cokeheads IMO.

 

[umbrella39]

You're only factoring in the cost of the physical tests. The bureaucracy to implement drug testing also costs a ton, including an appeals process. Then there's the cost of kicking people off of welfare if most of that money WAS going to non-drug expenses, because poverty costs us all - unpaid ER visits, crime, etc.

Not to mention the reimbursement costs of all the people who tested negative.

 

[Jhhnn]

i think it's remarkable how some seem to be able to attach lack of moral value to being poor. The way we do things in this country, there will be as many poor people as the Job Creators decree. They won't just say that, of course- they'll just make it happen.

For the rest of us, it's a bit or a lottery to see who gets the shitty end of the stick. Some people are born holding it. A person needs to get over themselves in order to realize that, and therein lies the problem.

As a society, we have to decide just how big & how shitty it is in the choices we make. Obviously, we need to compensate for Capitalism or we'd have a gilded age distribution of wealth & income.

OTOH, we can just get all pissy & self righteous over what really is a systemic failure rather looking at that squarely. That's why we have stupid grandstanding about drug testing in general, mostly to backdoor social injustice on cannabis users.

That joint you smoked responsibly in your living room Friday night can get you fired Monday morning. Denied welfare benefits, too. It's your extra-judicial penalty for being a lawbreaker, even though you haven't been convicted of a thing or shown to be intoxicated at the time of the test.

It's quite shameful that people are treated that way, even more so when we realize that there are all too many self righteous fools letting it happen, even cheering it on.

Righties never look in the right places for the man behind the curtain. He's already convinced them that the wicked moral inferiority of poor people is dragging them down rather than the financial elite pushing them down. They're loathe to look into their own hearts to find out why they let that happen to themselves.

 

[MagickMan]

So are you claiming that your State govt. is lying?

Don't they all?

 

[shira]

The purpose of this type of drug testing is not to catch people, but rather to act as a deterrent.

That testing shows a lower rate than normal makes me curious and/or doubtful.

Fern

Then every American should be tested on a random basis without cause, right? And there should be random drug searches of every American's domicile, without cause. And Americans should be randomly frisked for drugs in public.

Because it's so important for the government to deter Americans from using drugs.

 

[zanejohnson]

it's amazing how much farther to the left this forum has went, (a good thing)


a year or 2 ago it would have been 3 pages of "good, they should go apply at macdonalds anyway!"


(now at least people are starting to see how much the lower/welfare/working poor class is in the middle of a unfriendly gangrape)

 

[halik]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/



Ok, ok, ok,.. so, not ALL of them are on drugs. But, when will they start testing these people for iPhones, TVs, tattoos and abortions?

So it's working? yay!

 

[Smoblikat]

Or knowing that they will be tested; suspend use of the items until the test is completed.

vales

 

[Joepublic2]

Horseshit thread is horseshit.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/1...-is-a-sham-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/

Then every American should be tested on a random basis without cause, right? And there should be random drug searches of every American's domicile, without cause. And Americans should be randomly frisked for drugs in public.

Because it's so important for the government to deter Americans from using drugs.

They have an easy way to avoid being tested; don't ask the state for gimme dats. Which many did:

So I looked up exactly how this works. Apparently welfare recipients were asked to pay for their own drug tests, and would be reimbursed if the results came back negative. 7000 welfare users did this, but 1600 declined to do so – numbers that were not mentioned in most of the pieces above.

I DEMAND FREE MONEY WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED. MUH RIGHTS.