mcm1610 Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 I work in the projects everyday too. Third year of it. I still think there's other ways than punishing the poor further because they test positive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share Posted August 24, 2011 9 Investigates: Welfare Drug Testing 9 Investigates: Welfare Drug Testing Costing Taxpayers Posted: 5:38 pm EDT August 18, 2011Updated: 6:15 pm EDT August 18, 2011 CENTRAL FLORIDA -- Just six weeks after Florida began drug testing welfare applicants, WFTV uncovered numbers, which show that the program is already costing Central Florida taxpayers more than it saves. 9 Investigates' reporter George Spencer found very few applicants are testing positive for drugs. On July 1, Florida began requiring a clean drug test before giving cash assistance to needy families. The Department of Central Florida's (DCF) region tested 40 applicants and only two tested positive for drugs, officials said. One of the tests is being appealed. Governor Rick Scott said the program would save money. Critics said it already looks like a boondoggle. "We have a diminishing amount of returns for our tax dollars. Do we want out governor throwing our precious tax dollars into a program that has already been proven not to work?" Derek Brett of the ACLU said. DCF said it has been referring applicants to clinics where drug screenings cost between $30 and $35. The applicant pays for the test out of his or her own pocket and then the state reimburses him if they test comes back negative. Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140. Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive. 9 Investigates first uncovered evidence in June that a similar program in Idaho also cost more than it saved. However, the state insisted that the program is as much about principles as it is about money. "We wanted to ensure that the individuals who are eligible for this benefit are using them for the true, intended purpose of this benefit," DCF spokeswoman Carrie Hoeppner said. The cost to state taxpayers could rise even further if a lawsuit challenging the test is filed, as expected. The ACLU said it believes the drug tests are a blatant violation of 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The governor's office did not respond to WFTV's requests for comment on the new numbers. Copyright 2011 by wftv.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ---- http://www.wftv.com/news/28908436/detail.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryq Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 40 applicants is a pretty small sample size, but assuming you "save" $120/drug-user, you'd have to be expecting 20% positive tests to break even (which is unlikely since ~9% of welfare recipients are drug users according to some source I saw), so I'm not sure what made them think they'd save money in the long run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankmurphy Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 $240 x 12 months = $2280 I read that report a few days ago, and it's a very poor argument. It doesn't say how often the tests will be administered or even acknowledge that the money saved each month compounds. I'm still against drug testing in almost every facet of society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steventangent Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 However, the state insisted that the program is as much about principles as it is about money. Almost every day, I read something in the news, usually someone being quoted, that I think is so fucking stupid that I'm actually in disbelief. This is one of those moments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryq Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 $240 x 12 months = $2280I read that report a few days ago, and it's a very poor argument. It doesn't say how often the tests will be administered or even acknowledge that the money saved each month compounds. I'm still against drug testing in almost every facet of society. dang, missed that... and I believe I read that the tests are every 6 months or so, so $120/person/month means you'd save $720 per positive test, divided by $30 is 24, so your savings would cover the cost of 24 negative tests and you'd break even if ~4% of welfare users test positive. okay, I see how this could save money, that is until people start suing, which is pretty stupid since suing the government of people "you" elected is essentially giving your tax money directly to lawyers, but oh well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted August 25, 2011 Author Share Posted August 25, 2011 Wasn't there a similar program in Iowa or some farm state that failed pretty miserably? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryq Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Wasn't there a similar program in Iowa or some farm state that failed pretty miserably? michigan had one, and I think it was deemed unconstitutional or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steventangent Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Michigan. It violates the 4th Amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motorbike Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 if you test 40 people and they know the test is coming then of course they are going to pass. most drugs are out of your system in 3 days. in fact pot is the only one that stays in your system for an extended period of time, other than a few trippers (and they dont show up in piss tests). it might cost a lot at first but in the turn around, if they become randomized then they will start getting people. an example would be jobs that prohibit drug use and randomize their tests. anyone can pass a drug test when they know its coming, its when they dont know that gets them. hell, i havent smoked in almost six months because i am do for a random any time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clydeftones Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Can we drug test the banking industry when the government hands them a massive check? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted August 25, 2011 Author Share Posted August 25, 2011 That's my biggest peeve... either we drug test everyone for every government handout/subsidy/benefit, or we test no one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 That's my biggest peeve... either we drug test everyone for every government handout/subsidy/benefit, or we test no one. I wasn't very clear originally. I'm not in favor of testing everyone, I'm in favor of random testing. Also I'd be totally okay with random testing for every government subsidy. Also for drug testing every ceo of every bank who got bail out money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankmurphy Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 That's my biggest peeve... either we drug test everyone for every government handout/subsidy/benefit, or we test no one. Also where do you draw the line? If we're testing people for mind-altering substances, then we also need tests to prove applicants haven't been drinking recently. If we're testing people for drugs because they're an unnecessary expense, then we should be testing applicants for tobacco, soda, chewing gum, socks, hair gel, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted August 26, 2011 Author Share Posted August 26, 2011 Socks? You need four pair, MINIMUM. "Feet, hands, neck, balls, extra socks warms them all!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankmurphy Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 The sock point was kind of a joke, but only kind of. I'm personally anti-sock and anti-shoe. I like to let my toes run wild! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted August 26, 2011 Author Share Posted August 26, 2011 My reply is just from Band of Brothers, I figured you weren't serious about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryq Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 That's my biggest peeve... either we drug test everyone for every government handout/subsidy/benefit, or we test no one. Also where do you draw the line? probably between legal and illegal drugs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted August 26, 2011 Author Share Posted August 26, 2011 Uh, not the line he was looking for. The line we're looking for is a government payout that is acceptable or unacceptable to drug test for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryq Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Uh, not the line he was looking for. The line we're looking for is a government payout that is acceptable or unacceptable to drug test for. I think that's what you were talking about, but he's (jokingly) mentioning testing for things like gum, so it seemed he was talking about "where do you draw the line to decide what behaviors should we not allow [of welfare recipients]?" it seems fair/acceptable to drug test for everything. if they did it for everything, non-drug-users would just get used to it and it (the inconvenience and the stigma) wouldn't be an issue anymore. they'd need to streamline the process a bit, like have the test be conducted in a government place so you aren't driving all over town, not to mention cutting costs by eliminating the middle man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankmurphy Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 This sets several precedents for the government prying into your personal history for any government benefits. Today they want welfare recipients to pass drug tests, soon they'll have to pass criminal background checks. Next they can extend it to other benefits like driver's licenses and library cards. Then when they institute a national ID system, everyone who's not already in jail can be blacklisted and denied services in the private sector. Most of this isn't likely, but it's the direction we're headed. While drug testing welfare recipients now seems innocent, it's a very slippery slope we're headed down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steventangent Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 I'm all for cutting corporate welfare before even discussing doing anything with social welfare programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryq Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 This sets several precedents for the government prying into your personal history for any government benefits. Today they want welfare recipients to pass drug tests, soon they'll have to pass criminal background checks. Next they can extend it to other benefits like driver's licenses and library cards. Then when they institute a national ID system, everyone who's not already in jail can be blacklisted and denied services in the private sector.Most of this isn't likely, but it's the direction we're headed. While drug testing welfare recipients now seems innocent, it's a very slippery slope we're headed down. just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted August 26, 2011 Author Share Posted August 26, 2011 It's just so unsettling. I can't really believe we're on such a slippery slope, but I really just don't like the precedent it does set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinylville Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I'm old and have been self employed the majority of my life. It isn't easy. No one hands you anything. You have to go get it but the saving grace no one dare ask me to piss in a cup. Put it this way... I'd piss on their shoes before I'd ever give in to having society take a big shit all over my rights. For what.... a job? Phffffft. Not a chance. I'll make money elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.