| Author | Message | ||
     Buellitup |
Florida tried to do the drug test for welfare approach. This assumes that it would prevent welfare recipients from using the money to buy more drugs. This also assumes that this approach cleans up the streets. This assumes that clean up saves money over time through lowered crime. This also assumes it would catch enough people to be cost effective. This makes since and would work, assuming there are a large number of people on welfare who are also on drugs. Turns out all of those assumptions were wrong for the state of Florida: http://freakoutnation.com/2011/08/28/2-of-welfare- recipients-failed-rick-scotts-welfare-drug-tests-t ests-to-cost-state-millions/ *Yikes*. From a bang-for-the-buck perspective, let's not do that again. | ||
| Buellitup |
I thought of some potential flaws in the data. I would need to see if the number of welfare receivers went up or down during this time. In other words, the people who knew they would fail didn't show up. That would skew the numbers. Even if the number dropped, you'd need to know by how much (as a percent), and then you could get best case/worst case. Still, though, I don't think it makes....cents. Very costly. If the goal is to clean up the streets, the money could probably be used better in a different program. If the goal was to catch free loaders, it missed its mark. | ||
| Whatever |
The majority of people on welfare have a strong interest in eating food... I am not surprised at all... | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"The majority of people on welfare have a strong interest in eating food... I am not surprised at all..." Funny, it reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons where the news people created a new health scare, the Cat Flu Symptoms were Occasional hunger, mild thirst, and sleepiness at night. | ||
| Fahren |
Hmm - an expensive government program supported by the same people who are against big, expensive government programs? Oh, wait - unless it supports their agenda - then it's ok. My bad. I forgot. | ||
| Whatever |
Exactly, it is all about personal freedom and civil rights... oh, until it is someone else who is nameless and faceless that is getting the government anal probe... then it is just fine...  | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm all for drug testing Congress, before hiring. In other words, the people who knew they would fail didn't show up. That would skew the numbers. Be interesting to see what effect that would have on the Senate. NY has spent millions and millions on a program where each gun must have a fired cartridge case supplied as a future ID in future crime. So far? Zero crimes solved. Millions blown. True, a few people with no use hired, paid for by you..... | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
I remember when old dirty bastard from wu-tang clan went to his local welfare office to collect his check. Who knows how many millions he had made. | ||
| Aesquire |
Whatever, "Are there no prisons? And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation?"  The puritan concept that thou shall have no fun unless thou doest thou work seems to be the basis for drug testing before getting welfare. We'd be far better off testing "welfare people" for talent than drugs. ( congress on the other hand NEEDS to be tested for mind altering substances, IMHO.... and that's not partisan ) The existing system is a hodgepodge of good AND bad intentions. Carefully crafted over decades to keep people dependent, the results have been generations of people that never worked or had relatives & parent that worked. ( mostly single parent households ) The effect on legitimacy rates is well documented, yet that part of the law is never addressed as destructive. Why? I wonder what effect the Clinton era "end of welfare as we know it" has actually had on life with the rural and city poor? They are still there. I still see them. Can we hire the poor to watch Barney Frank pee in a cup? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Am I reading the numbers wrong in that the cost to administer the test vs. the savings from people rejected comes about about even? Would seem a net neutral at worst to me. Am I reading this wrong? | ||
| Fahren |
The Tampa Tribune has a lousy writer.
I've seldom read any "analysis" so poorly expressed! Too bad - in the hands of someone with some writing skills, it could be a damning piece of journalism. | ||
| Sifo |
Here's a very different take on the situation... http://www.newser.com/story/127011/only-2-failed-f lorida-welfare-drug-tests.html
So 4% got weeded out, not 2% and it sounds like it's about a break even on cost. I would still call it a good thing. | ||
| Fahren |
A good thing? A state-wide taxpayer-funded program that caught a max of sixty (60!!! That's 4% of 1,500)) people in all of Florida, and lined the pockets of the Governor via his investments in the medical firm involved with the tests, transferred to his wife's trust? You can't have "less government" if you advocate more government. It just doesn't work that way. | ||
| Sifo |
I happen to see reducing the welfare rolls as less government. If he broke the law with his investments then throw the book at him. I have no problem with that at all. The actions of a single person, if true at all, have no bearing on the question of is it good to drug test welfare recipients. | ||
| Billyo |
For many of us, who pay taxes and are subject to random drug/alcohol testing at work, drug testing before receiving tax payer money is a no brainer and only seems fair. If someone can't pass a drug test to receive aid how will that person pass a pre-employment screening? Before my company, or a client, gives me a paycheck they want to make sure I am clean. They also check periodically to make sure I am still clean. And I work some bad hours, long drives, sometimes staying away from home, etc to receive those checks. The problem I see is that there are so many products available to pass a urinalysis. I know people who keep them in their lunch boxes. I've seen completely wasted people pass them. I've seen people pass a drug test and then go into rehab shortly thereafter. Anyone who fails a drug test (except for hair follicle) is more guilty of stupidity than anything else! Don't assume that only 2% failed means that only 2% weren't clean. If the governor has a conflict of interest that is a separate issue. | ||
| Slaughter |
Company I used to work for was constantly besieged by applicants all day long. When we posted a sign in the front window that PRE-EMPLOYMENT Drug and Alcohol testing was required, the number of "applicants" dropped about 80% | ||
| Blake |
Police and prison cost money. We pay anyway. Justice matters. Free money taken from others warrants major intrusion into the recipients' lives. Bring back the poor house and debtors prison. | ||
| Aesquire |
drug testing before receiving tax payer money is a no brainer and only seems fair. Yet, Congress does not allow itself to be drug tested. I bet you if you asked one to, the reaction would be even more upset that Pelosi's response to the question of the Constitutionality of her Socialized medicine program. "Are you serious? Are you Serious?" With contempt. Such an elitist attitude is not good for people WE hire. I submit such people, in positions of authority, with responsibility, are much better candidates for drug testing than welfare people. Less of them, better bang for the whiz buck. We test pilots, & truck drivers. Why NOT Congress? | ||
| Nm5150 |
Hell,I get drug tested 4 or 5 times a year.Like the safety man said when I started my last job."This is just an IQ test.If you can't pass this one we don't want you working for us anyway.A random is differant."Pretty much says it all. | ||
| Geforce |
So...let me get this straight. Let's say that I'm a welfare recipient. I go into the office and grab an application. After completing an application I'm informed that I must submit to a urinalysis. It will cost me $30.00 and I will be refunded if I pass the test. Now, let's say that I am a drug user and I really like meth... I know that it takes roughly 72 hours for meth to clear my system so I delay for a few days then take the test. I've passed, got my welfare, and I was refunded for the test. Seems to me, that this process just added more time to my "benefits". Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of ensuring that welfare recipients are legit... but as with all things drug related... you can pass a test if you are given a warning. That's why we take "random" tests in the Army. You get locked down at the company area and you cannot leave until you provide a sample. You would think they would incorporate some way to test and capture a better snapshot of the participants. If the participants know they will be tested, the participants will avoid or find a way to get around it. Am I wrong? Is this not the way they went about this? I'm not adverse to helping people with welfare, I just hope they went about testing in a way that doesn't allow participants to sneak by. Certainly sounds like that is what happened. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I believe the tests are continual not just one time. With Meth, three days is an eternity. | ||
| Geforce |
"With Meth, three days is an eternity." I know, I used to watch my mother sneak by drug tests all the time. Her favorite child was always Meth... I mean drug. | ||
| Billyo |
Aesquire, I fully agree. Do the follicle test on politicians. Have constituent volunteers pull the hair so there is no cheating. | ||
| Buellitup |
I believe the tests are continual not just one time. If that's true, which it would have to be for this to work, then after a few months only the people who know they would pass would continue to show up. Especially if once you've tested negative you can't go back for a year. You'd eventually lose all of your break-even people, not to mention 2% just said they wouldn't do it at that time (they'll be back in a few days). And how do they expect someone on welfare to *pay* for the failed test? They are there because....they don't have money. I mean, come on. Business 101 here; your target demographic needs to have the money to afford your product in order for you to sell your product. It would seem the target demographic here is lacking in this department (I know I'm making an assumption here, but I think it's a safe one). | ||
| Blake |
I think it's WAY too early for anyone to be able to draw any conclusions. The drug test program surely had some significant startup costs. Give it a couple years and get back to us. Regardless, the idea that law enforcement and policing of those on the dole should only be done if it generates a positive revenue effect is bogus. If that logic were valid, we'd release everyone from prison. | ||
| Fahren |
OK, so let's agree that law enforcement and policing should occur to cut down on drug use. We have laws already on the books (for free) that address this issue, and allow for punishment of offenders. Isn't singling out of a specific segment of the population (dole recipients) just profiling, like the police stopping brown-skinned individuals on the highway? Where does one draw the line? Drug checks to be sure no one receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit is on drugs? Pee in the cup before you receive your social security benefits this month, Grandma? Soldier, you've been drinking - no VA hospital for you!? Take a ride on that slippery slope toward the dictatorship you all seem so worried about! No, I will say it again, if you think government is the problem, then don't go espousing more government. | ||
| Crackhead |
Why not ship them off to rehab instead? And develop programs to stop the cycle from repeating with their children. | ||
| 2734 |
The easiest way is to employ the unknown. By this I mean random drug test and not just on the yearly visit to re-up welfare benefits. How hard could it be to randomly generate X number of cards sent to the address the check arrives to that states: You have been randomly selected for mandatory Drug testing to retain your Welfare benefits. You have 48 hrs to make an appiontement with this office and report for Drug screening.Failure to take the test will result in a suspension/termination of benefits. Or better yet correlate drug citations/arrests by SSN #s to welfare benefit status. If you get busted for drugs you get your welfare suspended or terminated. | ||
| Mortarmanmike120 |
No, I will say it again, if you think government is the problem, then don't go espousing more government. Ok. I'll bite. I'm all for less government. But if that program results in less of the money stolen from me (thru taxation) going to a welfare recipient who would rather spend the money on drugs then to eat - so be it. I'm not a Florida resident but I would whole heartedly support that in TN.} Drugs aren't free. They were bought. Bought with money that could've been used for food, housing, supporting kids, whatever. Now the welfare recipient wants MY money to take care of his/her basic needs. Tough shit. I get drug tested almost bi-weekly. Even if the program only breaks even, I'm for it. Even if the program operates at a slight loss I'm for it. I would rather my tax dollars were spent keeping some lab tech in a job then buying some junkie another rock. Then again I like to imagine all my taxes are spent on ammo. | ||
| Mortarmanmike120 |
You have been randomly selected for mandatory Drug testing to retain your Welfare benefits. You have 48 hrs to make an appiontement with this office and report for Drug screening.Failure to take the test will result in a suspension/termination of benefits. Or better yet correlate drug citations/arrests by SSN #s to welfare benefit status. If you get busted for drugs you get your welfare suspended or terminated. Excellent idea and not particularly difficult to implement. The databases exist already. |
