C
Chibibar
I understand. I am saying if the charge was 42$, it is STILL high for people who have little or no money.
Welfare Drug Testing: Shego Gets Political?
- Thread starter Shegokigo
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
C
Chibibar
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.
fade
Staff member
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
Link: http://colorlines.com/archives/2011...emented_drug_tests_discrediting_governor.html
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?
Can we drug test all the college students receiving government aid for education, too? Or, since they aren't poor, do they not count?
Also, knowing the prior would allow us to backtrack to determine the test sensitivity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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*
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
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.
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
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html
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.
That doesn't just apply in this case, that's basically capitalism.
Dave
Staff member
In this case it's blatant fraud and utilizing public office for a conflict of interest.
C
Chibibar
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
)
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
)
GasBandit
Staff member
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."
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."
Necronic
Staff member
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.
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.
C
Chibibar
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?
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?
- Status