Export thread

http://news.yahoo.com/why-drug-testing-poor-could-unconstitutional-081205581.html

Normally I don't post anywhere near these threads/forums but this one was interesting. My ex's brother's family used to be on welfare in TX and I spent some time seeing the "system" first hand. I can say 150% that this needs to be established ASAP throughout the entire US. I don't see a downside AT ALL.

This just makes sense in every way. Thoughts?

You are for drug testing the poor before they can get on welfare or government assistance? Am I reading that right?

Dave said:

You are for drug testing the poor before they can get on welfare or government assistance? Am I reading that right?

Click to expand...

I read it as sarcasm. I think she's being facetious.

I am FOR it.

Why not? It comes at NO cost to them if they pass the test.
The only ones that this would affect are drug users attempting to use Welfare to support their habit and stay unemployed.

I don't see anything wrong with it.

Some of the complaints say it's unconstitutional. Applying for Welfare is not mandatory, it's a choice. Therefore you're also making the choice to submit to the test.

Seriously, the only argument against it is someone who's using illegal narcotics. If you can afford that kind of luxury, you don't have any business getting Food Stamps/Free Medical.

The last paragraph in the article says it best. Test everyone that receives a government check, or don't test anyone.

If Florida and other states are really concerned about drug use, they should adopt stricter laws and better enforcement policies aimed at the whole population, not just the most vulnerable. But these laws are not really about drug use. They are about, in these difficult economic times, making things a little harder for the poor.

Click to expand...

Still, the problem comes in when they expect people who are going to the government for assistance because they have no money, to pay for a test up front which they can't afford. It doesn't matter if they get reimbursed, they still have to come up with the money to apply.

Well well. We disagree. In fact, I think it's unconscionable. While I understand you have empirical knowledge of someone who gamed the system, I have empirical knowledge of many others - myself included - who used the system when they needed it. What you seem to be forgetting is that this is feel-good legislation that targets those who game the system on purpose as if they are in the majority and run rampant whereas I would assert that they are the vast minority. But what I think is really bad is the splash damage associated. So a person gets drug tested and has their welfare, food stamps, whatever taken away or denied; what did their kids do to deserve to live on the street or go hungry? And if a 2-parent household, what happens if only one parent fails the test? Seems to be to be a nuclear option when it is not called for.

I'm frankly shocked that this is your view.

They're not that expensive. It'd be a very small percentage that wouldn't be able to temporarily put up for the test. I'm VERY sure they'd have a secondary application to assist in paying for the test.

Think about the pre-test filtering. All the people who wouldn't even bother applying for Welfare at all since they know they'd fail the test anyway. If someone truly couldn't afford to pay for the test, but qualified for assistance, I'm VERY sure there'd be a plan in place to assist them with paying for the test. If they failed, well then they'd owe. More than fair.

Dave said:

Well well. We disagree. In fact, I think it's unconscionable. While I understand you have empirical knowledge of someone who gamed the system, I have empirical knowledge of many others - myself included - who used the system when they needed it. What you seem to be forgetting is that this is feel-good legislation that targets those who game the system on purpose as if they are in the majority and run rampant whereas I would assert that they are the vast minority. But what I think is really bad is the splash damage associated. So a person gets drug tested and has their welfare, food stamps, whatever taken away or denied; what did their kids do to deserve to live on the street or go hungry? And if a 2-parent household, what happens if only one parent fails the test? Seems to be to be a nuclear option when it is not called for.

I'm frankly shocked that this is your view.

Click to expand...

If you're failing the tests, you have no business on Welfare. Use the money/income you're spending on drugs to keep your family fed/housed. I don't see your point AT ALL.

So, the state is going to pay for all these drug tests, pay for a new program to help fund those that can't afford it, and pay for lawyer costs to defend the law and any appeals that people bring up? I seriously doubt the state will see any savings from this. All it's doing is making it harder for people to get the help they need.

Drug-testing laws are often touted as a way of saving tax dollars, but the facts are once again not quite as presented. Idaho recently commissioned a study of the likely financial impact of drug testing its welfare applicants. The study found that the costs were likely to exceed any money saved.

That happens to be Florida's experience so far. A Florida television station, WFTV, reported that of the first 40 applicants tested, only two came up positive, and one of those was appealing. The state stands to save less than $240 a month if it denies benefits to the two applicants, but it had to pay $1,140 to the applicants who tested negative. The state will also have to spend considerably more to defend the policy in court.

Click to expand...

So not only does it serve to further stigmatize welfare recipients, and not only is unconstitutional, but it costs more money than it would save. It would be even worse if your "pre-test filtering" plan works and only people who are drug free apply. Now we're not only paying them welfare, but we pay for useless drug tests they take as well.

This is not a good plan.

Drug testing is horrendously expensive to do on a massive scale. I'm kinda with Dave on this. This is kinda similar to all the voting laws which have recently been passed. From ACLU:

ACLU website said:

• 
  
  • The average cost of a drug test is about $42 per person tested,[8] not including the costs of hiring personnel to administer the tests, to ensure confidentiality of results and to run confirmatory tests to guard against false positives resulting from passive drug exposure, cross-identification with legal, prescription drugs such as codeine and legal substances such as poppy seeds.
  • Another way to measure the cost is by counting what it costs to “catch” each drug user. Drug testing is not used by many private employers because of the exorbitant cost of catching each person who tests positive. One electronics manufacturer, for example, estimated that the cost of finding each person who tested positive was $20,000, since after testing 10,000 employees, only 49 tested positive. A congressional committee also estimated that the cost of each positive drug test of government employees was $77,000, because the positive rate was only 0.5%.[9]

• Mandatory drug testing is an ineffective means to uncover drug abuse.
  
  
  • An Oklahoma study found that a questionnaire was able to accurately detect 94 out of 100 drug abusers. The questionnaire was also useful in detecting alcohol abusers, something drug tests fail to accomplish.[10]
  • Certain counties in Oregon experimented with drug testing on some welfare recipients, but the process was halted when it was found that drug testing was less effective in identifying drug abuse than less invasive, cheaper methods.[11]
  • Most types of drug tests fail to detect alcohol abuse – the most commonly abused substance among Americans – and are most likely to detect marijuana use since the active ingredient in marijuana stays in the body’s system longer than any other illicit substance. Therefore, drug tests often fail to identify people who are using more powerful, more addictive and more dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine, which exit the body’s system in a matter of hours or days.[12]
  • Many states have rejected the random drug testing of welfare recipients as impractical and fiscally unjustifiable.
    
    
    
    • For example, New York and Maryland each considered a program to randomly drug test those receiving welfare, but abandoned the plan as not cost-effective, given that urinalysis is almost exclusively a barometer of marijuana use and that welfare recipients are required to undergo regular supervision, allowing for effective monitoring absent the cost and intrusion of mandatory drug testing.[13]
    • Louisiana passed a law in 1997 requiring drug testing for welfare recipients. However, a task force set up to implement the law found more limited drug testing of individuals identified by a questionnaire to be more cost-effective than mandatory drug testing.[14]
    • Alabama decided against drug testing because it found that focusing on job training programs was a more effective method of moving individuals off of welfare.[15]

Click to expand...

• • This is just how it would be fiscally irresponsible.

It does not cost anywhere near as much as it would save. The numbers are obvious. The amount of benefit someone would collect over a year vs the cost of a drug test are huge differences. Unconstitutional how? It's an OPTIONAL program by the government you don't HAVE to take.

Pay for Lawyers for appeals? Are you serious? "I got denied welfare for failing a drug test, I'm gonna sue" that'd be hilarious to hear in court.

i have no counter point to 'because i said so".

I didn't see your post. My reply was to the ones above yours.

I'm more than sure the costs to a goverment run drug testing on a large scale would alot lower than the costs that are currently being assumed by comparison to large companies etc.

My point is that those who use drugs - whether they paid for them or not!! - would automatically be stricken from the roles of public assistance, but so would their kids or dependents. I truly see where wanting to get those who are gaming the system off the system, but this way of doing it is a huge overreaction to the actual problem, and is more a tool of the right to attempt to disenfranchise the poor rather than to show any level of fiscal responsibility. You are a very smart woman, Shego. Which is why I find it hard to believe that you are swallowing the koolaid the right is pushing as a diversionary tactic.
Added at: 13:43

Shegokigo said:

I didn't see your post. My reply was to the ones above yours.

I'm more than sure the costs to a goverment run drug testing on a large scale would alot lower than the costs that are currently being assumed by comparison to large companies etc.

Click to expand...

Eh? When does the government do anything cheaper than the private sector?

Dave said:

My point is that those who use drugs - whether they paid for them or not!! - would automatically be stricken from the roles of public assistance, but so would their kids or dependents. I truly see where wanting to get those who are gaming the system off the system, but this way of doing it is a huge overreaction to the actual problem, and is more a tool of the right to attempt to disenfranchise the poor rather than to show any level of fiscal responsibility. You are a very smart woman, Shego. Which is why I find it hard to believe that you are swallowing the koolaid the right is pushing as a diversionary tactic.
Added at: 13:43

Eh? When does the government do anything cheaper than the private sector?

Click to expand...

Hippie.

Shegokigo said:

I didn't see your post. My reply was to the ones above yours.

I'm more than sure the costs to a goverment run drug testing on a large scale would alot lower than the costs that are currently being assumed by comparison to large companies etc.

Click to expand...

So you were replying to my post? The one where I cite a study, with actual numbers and facts? It's the same as what Krisken said. Your entire counter is "But I don't like it, so there." Give me something concrete to discuss beyond anecdotal evidence and a blind rejection of constitutional law because it doesn't fit into your worldview.

Drug tests are notoriously less than 100% accurate. If something like this goes through, I certainly hope there would be some sort of appeals process for the 1-out-of-10 people who:
-Use marijuana medicinally
-Get a false positive for poppyseeds
-Just had eye surgery
-Take Sudafed/Wellbutrin/antidepressants
-Are considered disabled and/or homebound due to crippling agoraphobia, allergies, bulky medical equipment, or the like.

It seems like it would make more sense to allow your first welfare check to be an "advance" where a portion of it is used to pay for transportation and screening. Apply online or by phone. During the application process, transportation or in-home testing is arranged, and payment method is established (direct deposit, courier, PayPal, whatever). Also, any possible extenuating circumstances (see above) are discussed. If you are approved, your first payment will be reduced by an amount equal to the costs incurred for your transportation/testing. Periodic testing ensures that you stay clean. If you are not approved, then the State has essentially spent money out of its own pocket to determine that you are ineligible (which it would've done anyway) and you get nothing (which is as it should be). An appeal should not be necessary since the extenuating circumstances were already discussed and established before the first test was taken. You may apply again for aid in 6 months.

--Patrick
EDIT: Wow, a lot of posts came in while I was composing this.

Drug test all those damn hippie farmers too. They all smoke pot like Willie who runs that Farm Aid benefit. They get millions from the government in subsidies and disaster relief. We don't want that money going to help fund their drug habits either. Oh wait, they're not poor and welfare is fun to pick on.

Dave said:

My point is that those who use drugs - whether they paid for them or not!! - would automatically be stricken from the roles of public assistance, but so would their kids or dependents. I truly see where wanting to get those who are gaming the system off the system, but this way of doing it is a huge overreaction to the actual problem, and is more a tool of the right to attempt to disenfranchise the poor rather than to show any level of fiscal responsibility.

Click to expand...

You feel for the kids, but it's not the government's job to parent the nation's children. If those parents are somehow aquiring drugs to abuse/use while on Welfare they could have found other means of sustaining their family. I just don't see why the government should be in charge of a junkie's child's wellbeing. I don't see how that's me "drinking the Right's kool-aid"

I'm speaking from personal experiences. I know that there is a large portion of the welfare program to sustain people who truly do not want to work/support themselves or their family and some of them also have drug habits. This isn't from my isolated experience with a distant family member, this is from years of being in the banking world and seeing the differences in people on assistance. Yes of course there are people who need it, however, I don't see why it's ok for them to be drug abusers as well.

Tress said:

So you were replying to my post? The one where I cite a study, with actual numbers and facts? It's the same as what Krisken said. Your entire counter is "But I don't like it, so there." Give me something concrete to discuss beyond anecdotal evidence and a blind rejection of constitutional law because it doesn't fit into your worldview.

Click to expand...

You didn't cite any studies. You cited your personal opinion, much did I. Krisken however, did cite a study and I will address that in a minute.

Chibibar said:

I don't see anything wrong with it.

Click to expand...

I see a two problems right off the bat.

1. Drug testing isn't free. Even if the test costs pennies we will still have to test we will still be testing hundreds of thousands of people and those costs will add up. We will in effect be penny wise dollar stupid.

2. Drug testing isn't 100% effective. There are false positives and when you test the number of people that are going to be tested under this program you will end up kicking people out of the program who have done nothing wrong. Yes this is a government program that will deny people benefits they deserve.

So the program makes no sense as a cost saving measure and it will eliminate people who take no drugs from the welfare rolls. This program perfectly threads the needle of being both monstrously draconian and stupidly non cost effective.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-l...testing-policy-already-costing-taxpayers-more

This is a bad idea that costs more money than it saves but since it hurts the poor who cares, right?

@Dub: Where are you factoring in the thousands in savings of keeping the large number of abusers from receiving funds?

@Dave: It only stands to hurt poor drug abusers, so after the third time you've posted that I still fail to see your point.

The article said the drug test is on their own expense. So the person applying for it will pay for the test.

But I can see why it would be a catch 22 since if they can't afford food/housing how can these people afford the test.

Chibibar said:

The article said the drug test is on their own expense. So the person applying for it will pay for the test.

But I can see why it would be a catch 22 since if they can't afford food/housing how can these people afford the test.

Click to expand...

The state reimburses those who pass the test. So no the state will still be paying for the vast vast majority of the tests.
Added at: 21:29

Shegokigo said:

@Dub: Where are you factoring in the thousands in savings of keeping the large number of abusers from receiving funds.

Click to expand...

Out of the millions that will be spent on drug testing.

Shegokigo said:

@Dub: Where are you factoring in the thousands in savings of keeping the large number of abusers from receiving funds?

@Dave: It only stands to hurt poor drug abusers, so after the third time you've posted that I still fail to see your point.

Click to expand...

It doesn't hurt JUST drug abusers. It hurts those who have engaged in even casual drug use whether they paid for it or not. It hurts their kids. It hurts the community. When they can't get welfare what then? To live what do they do? Turn to crime? Then they get incarcerated and the prison systems - a cash cow for the states - make money.

But I guess again since it's the poor that doesn't matter, right?

Dubyamn said:

The state reimburses those who pass the test. So no the state will still be paying for the vast vast majority of the tests.
Added at: 21:29

Out of the millions that will be spent on drug testing.

Click to expand...

eww, reimbursement. that assumes they can pay for it in the first place. it's like a rebate. I don't know the last time i mailed in a rebate.

People that are addicted to drugs need help more than ever. On its face, this just looks hilariously tea-party-cruel.

Also, does it deny benefits to those using tobacco or alcohol?

Charlie Don't Surf said:

People that are addicted to drugs need help more than ever. On its face, this just looks hilariously tea-party-cruel.

Also, does it deny benefits to those using tobacco or alcohol?

Click to expand...

caffeine testing on a regular basis. (not serious)

so how about without any reimbursement on drug test?

I am not familiar with the drug test procedure. (as in what it cost) I have taken many drug test for work and government jobs.

Chibibar said:

so how about without any reimbursement on drug test?

I am not familiar with the drug test procedure. (as in what it cost) I have taken many drug test for work and government jobs.

Click to expand...

And in these tests your potential employer is the one who paid for it.

Average cost for a drug test is $42.

Dave said:

And in these tests your potential employer is the one who paid for it.

Average cost for a drug test is $42.

Click to expand...

I would normally say 42$ is not much, but when a family doesn't any money (which I have been in that situation) 42$ is a lot of money to get to do a drug test (x2 when it requires BOTH parents)

And consider how many people who are in this socialist system (which is funny cause people who are IN welfare doesn't think they are in socialist system) I can see it can get expensive really quick (if the government pay for it) or a lot of people who can't afford the test won't get welfare.

I can see Dave's view that some people who legitimately NEED welfare and CAN'T afford the test would be left out of the system too so the question would be.

Is such a system to weed out a smaller group (if it is the case which I don't know) that can hurt more legit people in the long run?

hold on. that's the cost, not what is charged. as it said, it doesn't include staff fees.

Krisken said:

hold on. that's the cost, not what is charged. as it said, it doesn't include staff fees.

Click to expand...

I understand. I am saying if the charge was 42$, it is STILL high for people who have little or no money.

I would like to point out that the sensitivity of ANY test is imperfect. Basically, if you want to catch all of the cheaters, you have to also accuse a lot of clean people of doing drugs. Or, if you want to be more conservative and not accuse clean folks of drug abuse, you'll miss a lot of drug users who can avoid getting caught very easily. Those are your only two choices with any test. It is like the judicial system. Do you throw someone in jail with weak evidence, possibly throwing lots of innocent people into jail too, or do you make absolutely sure that you catch them, in which case lots of criminals go free. You can reduce the risks of either of these occurring only by improving the sensitivity of the test, but until then the risk is very high.

In an ideal world where you have a good drug test that only catches drug users and nobody else AND also never misses a drug user, there might be a case for implementing some kind of screening system, assuming it is also cheap and easy to administer. The world of drug testing is far from ideal, though. The reality is that it is science fiction right now. The technology for that kind of accuracy does not exist.

Read up on false negatives and false positives here with regards to trying to catch athletes that dope.

MindDetective said:

I would like to point out that the sensitivity of ANY test is imperfect. Basically, if you want to catch all of the cheaters, you have to also accuse a lot of clean people of doing drugs. Or, if you want to be more conservative and not accuse clean folks of drug abuse, you'll miss a lot of drug users who can avoid getting caught very easily. Those are your only two choices with any test. It is like the judicial system. Do you throw someone in jail with weak evidence, possibly throwing lots of innocent people into jail too, or do you make absolutely sure that you catch them, in which case lots of criminals go free. You can reduce the risks of either of these occurring only by improving the sensitivity of the test, but until then the risk is very high.

In an ideal world where you have a good drug test that only catches drug users and nobody else AND also never misses a drug user, there might be a case for implementing some kind of screening system, assuming it is also cheap and easy to administer. The world of drug testing is far from ideal, though. The reality is that it is science fiction right now. The technology for that kind of accuracy does not exist.

Read up on false negatives and false positives here with regards to trying to catch athletes that dope.

Click to expand...

Also don't forget the most important thing.

People are not always honest.

I am not saying that people will be "dishonest" all the time. It is mainly that some people are embarrassed on filling out a form about their "weakness" or "ailment" and then their test become false positive because they forgot to mention they took 4 anti-allergy medicine.

Shegokigo said:

You didn't cite any studies. You cited your personal opinion, much did I. Krisken however, did cite a study and I will address that in a minute.

Click to expand...

Oh really? And the part where I posted this:

A Florida television station, WFTV, reported that of the first 40 applicants tested, only two came up positive, and one of those was appealing. The state stands to save less than $240 a month if it denies benefits to the two applicants, but it had to pay $1,140 to the applicants who tested negative. The state will also have to spend considerably more to defend the policy in court.

Click to expand...

That's just personal opinion, is it?

Yeah, isn't this the same testing that amusingly showed that 98% of welfare recipients were clean? I thought that was an awesome win for humanity, and a bold strike against stereotypes. That means that the testing move ended up backfiring, possibly costing more than it was supposed to save.

Link: http://colorlines.com/archives/2011...emented_drug_tests_discrediting_governor.html

fade said:

Yeah, isn't this the same testing that amusingly showed that 98% of welfare recipients were clean? I thought that was an awesome win for humanity, and a bold strike against stereotypes. That means that the testing move ended up backfiring, possibly costing more than it was supposed to save.

Link: http://colorlines.com/archives/2011...emented_drug_tests_discrediting_governor.html

Click to expand...

In truth, there were probably a lot of false negatives in there if they were getting 98% negatives. That's exactly part of the problem with trying to rely on insensitive tests for this kind of thing.

To reiterate what charlie already posted, being poor and a drug user doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get help. The act of using drugs, illegal or otherwise, does not make you a subhuman. Although that is often what is thought.

Can we drug test all the college students receiving government aid for education, too? Or, since they aren't poor, do they not count?

Could work out an estimation through conditional prob. if I knew the failure rate of the test. This is the posterior, so we could backtrack to the prior.

fade said:

Could work out an estimation through conditional prob. if I knew the failure rate of the test. This is the posterior, so we could backtrack to the prior.

Click to expand...

Also, knowing the prior would allow us to backtrack to determine the test sensitivity.

You stat nerds cut it out, we're debatin' here.

oof, too technical for my blood! Back to "ow, my balls" for me.

I'm gonna stop right here and say that perhaps my post was a bit too opinion fueled and not enough fact backed.

It's been my majority experience of people I've met on Welfare or Government assistance were not employed (usually took jobs that paid cash under the table), had larger than needed families (3+ kids) with no real income to sustain them, yet didn't have to worry about that because they got hundreds to thousands in assistance each month. They would normally be casual to heavy drug users and I watched their families and communities become drug/prostitution havens. I know, because I lived in those communities for years.

When I finally got out, I was so disgusted and disillusioned with the Government aid system as a whole that I could not see a single reason why a government backed aid system wouldn't test/screen for drugs and stop the rampant abuse of the system that I had personally viewed.

Again, all of that is from personal experience and opinion, and I can admit that looking at it from other points of view (Dave/Financially) that perhaps it isn't the best system, but damn, at this point I'd take ANY system in place to start rooting that out over the degraded and useless systems that are in place now.

This was NEVER about "attacking the poor". I LIVED in those communities, like I said, for YEARS. I was there, but I never turned to drugs to get myself out of my problems. I'm 100% FOR Welfare for those who need it. I'm 150% AGAINST people living off of it and still enjoying illegal luxuries.

I never took it that you were attacking the poor, Shego. I figured it was an emotional issue for you and you had some first hand experience with the issue.

Sadly, even the systems that can do the most good will be taken advantage of by the, shall we say, less than idealistic members of society. thankfully they are a minority.

Hard to think of them as the minority when all you've seen them as is the majority....

Shegokigo said:

Hard to think of them as the minority when all you've seen them as is the majority....

Click to expand...

And that is completely understandable. it's like someone who never left the town i am in thinking there are almost no black people in the world, though. Sometimes our first hand knowledge isn't broad enough to get the whole picture.

That's the thing, I'm faily well traveled. I've experienced it in alot of different avenues. More so being in the financial industry.

My anecdotal evidence is totally different from everyone else's.

Geez... I don't check the Politics Forum for a single day... and now the arguments are over!? *fumes*

Dave said:

...they get incarcerated and the prison systems - a cash cow for the states - make money. But I guess again since it's the poor that doesn't matter, right?

Click to expand...

Don't worry, Dave. After they get a felony record, they'll permanently lose the ability to vote, so their opinion will no longer matter.

I feel similarly when I see certain things in the news. People obviously taking advantage of things other than the way they were intended. There's the dollars for miles thing, the whole credit default swap business, even the cash for clunkers program. All were abused mightily by people who saw an opportunity and took it, even though they might not have technically qualified nor needed said program(s). Even people who do deserve it sometimes end up being victims. There's a popular story going around right now about how $6.6 billion in cash has gone missing between here and Iraq. That's enough cash to fill 2 x C-130 Hercules cargo planes and still have $1.8 billion left over. Put another way, it's like the government lost just over $20 for every man, woman and child in the US.

--Patrick

Hypothetically I'm for this for certain drugs. However, since the point is trying to save money and it generally costs more than it saves I don't really see the point. Every system in the history of mankind has had people who abuse it and there's nothing we can do about it.

Ravenpoe said:

To reiterate what charlie already posted, being poor and a drug user doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get help. The act of using drugs, illegal or otherwise, does not make you a subhuman. Although that is often what is thought.

Can we drug test all the college students receiving government aid for education, too? Or, since they aren't poor, do they not count?

Click to expand...

If you want to save money on education, hell yeas.

I don't quite get some peoples arguments against drug tests on here. Particularly ones you know are coming. If you get a false positive because you go into work one day and "surprise!" it's pee in a cup day, that's one thing. When you know it's coming, you know not to eat that entire loaf of poppy seed pound cake (for a simple example) the night before. Also if you really need to pass a drug test, but choose not to list the prescription medication you have to take beforehand, it's your own damn fault when you fail it.

you're assuming everyone knows these things. common knowledge isn't common.

No one's mentioned the drug testing company doing the tests is owned by the governor's wife . . .

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html

Tiger Tsang said:

No one's mentioned the drug testing company doing the tests is owned by the governor's wife . . .

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html

Click to expand...

THIS is why I've always against this kind of thing. It inevitably turns out to be some rich asshole trying to get richer by taking advantage of the ignorance of people.

AshburnerX said:

It inevitably turns out to be some rich asshole trying to get richer by taking advantage of the ignorance of people.

Click to expand...

That doesn't just apply in this case, that's basically capitalism.

Adammon said:

That doesn't just apply in this case, that's basically capitalism.

Click to expand...

In this case it's blatant fraud and utilizing public office for a conflict of interest.

While in a perfect world, I think it is good to have drug test for ANY government aid (student loan, welfare, etc etc)

but the cost would be WAY high and as many have already posted, the insensitivity would be pretty high, the legal fees would be really high and false positive (yes I am using high alot which is intended )

Maaaan, I always miss out on the fun debates.

While I applaud the sentiment of trying to force those who would be mendicants to stay clean, I'm not entirely convinced the numbers come out on the fiscal side. Really, I think's it's too narrow a solution for what is truly a systemic problem.

I think a less costly and more efficient way to do this would simply be to make it part of a drug conviction to have welfare access revoked until such time as a drug test is passed, with the cost of that test being reimbursed if it is clean. Rather than testing everyone prior to granting benefits.

Of course, the systemic answer is to end a foolish, costly, and ultimately fruitless "war on drugs."

Personally, I'd agree periodical testing for people to be eligible for welfare along with more support to compensate for it. A lot of people are unfortunate and look for suitable jobs sometimes for months at a time. Some others well... take advantage of the system. And that needs to stop.

Tiger Tsang said:

No one's mentioned the drug testing company doing the tests is owned by the governor's wife . . .

Click to expand...

Well, there goes any credibility the program might've had.

--Patrick

hahaha. Oh man well there you go.

Aside from that though I have little sympathy for this stuff. Pretty much every job you can get these days requires one, and some are way worse than others. At my last job you took a drug test that went into a database as a "red light/green light". If you failed then no-one who used that database would hire you. Which was about 90% of the companys I could work for.

But yeah it probably isn't worth it financially.

*shrug* There's no way for them to take into account how many people didn't apply at all for benefits because they were already sure they were going to fail the test. There's no accurate way to deduce the savings.

This has already been beaten to death though.

I wonder why reimburse, why not just deduct from the compensation (thus slightly reduce but you have to qualify) no extra cost, people pay out of their own pocket first. I know that mean people have a little less money, but that is better than no money.

Only 2% of welfare applicants in Florida test positive for drugs, 2% don't complete the application process. Still, the government might save a few thousand dollars on $170+ Million program by doing this. Or they might not. It depends what numbers you use and what assumptions you make. It might cost them money. Incidentally, even if you assume that the 2% incomplete would have failed the drug test (which we can't know, obviously), Welfare applicants would still be using drugs at a rate nearly 50% lower than both state and national percentages.

In other news, Florida Governor Rick Scott (who has instituted or championed drug testing policies for both welfare applicants and state employees) co-founded a private clinic chain that does a brisk business in drug testing. Don't worry though, he divested himself of his financial interest in the company to prevent a conflict of interest...by selling it to a trust in his wife's name. What could possibly be shady there?

Not to sound like an ass, but both points have been made with links earlier.