Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Aug 29, 2016.
if you can afford drugs, should you not be able to live w/o social assistance?
This is a ******** issue. Several states have tried drug testing assistance recipients and only a handful failed. Testing costs more than those who are denied benefits.
You want to tie government money to an outcome? Stop giving corporate welfare to companies that outsource jobs.
Welfare recipients show a lower rate for positive drug tests than the larger population.
Sure, call me when Jamie Dimon or the CEO of Walmart are forced to take a drug test for their companies to continue leeching off tax dollars.
The FACT of the matter is that in every location in the USA this has been tried it has been found drug use rates have been significantly lower than the population at large. I think it would be common sense but people who don't have money for food don't tend to spend money on drugs.
But hey, we've been conditioned for decades to equate poverty with moral failing rather than acknowledging that the US population is being ****ed out of wages by the companies that use their market size to set the bar for wages (I'm looking at you Walmart).
If true, your statement is still irrelevant. I don't care if it is just 10 to 20% that test positive. I don't want to support any stoners.
Oh so no CEOs of cereal companies or investment bankers pop one now and then? Or keep a little stash of vodka in the desk drawer or briefcase?
Some time when you are bored look up that stats on how many billions of dollars' worth of productivity are wasted in the USA by people showing up to work as untreated alcoholics and drug addicts.
Here's one from 2011, stats for 2006 on just alcoholism: $226 billion
Drug testing is a cost. If the overall cost of testing exceeds the cost of simply "supporting stoners", would you approve of that governmental spending?
I think most people understand a cost/benefit when it's easy to determine both the cost and the benefit, and will support an approach with the lower cost, especially if it's government spending. Other people, however, will insist on enforcing their ethical/moral position, regardless of cost.
If marijuana goes legal will it still be tested for?
No, it's absolutely relevant.
Drug tests cost hundreds of dollars a piece. So, if the rate of use among welfare recipients is low, then you're throwing away more money on tests than you'd save if you cut off the few recepients on drugs.
Perhaps we should sent out a bidding process for a company to get a several million dollar grant to develop a low cost drug test, that'll really get at the problem here wouldn't it?
What about those in a state were pot is legal? I would rather tie it to a commitment to find a job or get an education.
It's important to note that seven states have established programs, and applicants tested positive at a rate as low as .002 percent and as high as 8.3 percent. The national drug use rate is around 9.4 percent.
Missouri spent around $336,000 and tested nearly 39,000 people. Only 38 tested positive for drug use.
Arizona spent $442 by pushing the test cost onto the applicants, and tested around 142,000 people. Only 3 tested positive.
Now, Florida tried the extreme approach, testing everyone who applied for TANF and charging them for the test. However, a court struck this down, arguing that the requirement was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.
What about low single digit positive rates? Aren't you against "big government"? What's bigger than setting up an agency with the requirement to drug test people to catch the 3-7% that happen to smoke a joint from time to time?
Cost $20 here in CA
I'd like mandatory drug testing for all elected officials first. And I want it every 3 months at least.
I can tell you from a healthcare angle, drug testing is one of the shadiest businesses in the world, full of fraud, abuse, and waste. There are very few reputable companies and when processed through insurance do a wonderful job overcbarging them. Honestly, dealing with most of these drug testing labs are more trouble than it's worth.
It depends who's paying the bill. If processed through insurance it's about "$1200" for a fairly comprehensive test (that's probably more than the insurance actually pays but what will be charged to the persons insurance). Going through one of the nations biggest and most reputable labs I can am charged ~$40/substance cash (no insurance). There are some other sketchy labs which might do 5-6 substances for $60-80 but they're sketchy.
I am involved in a residential drug treatment programs that tests drug addicts regularly. When setting up the program many labs wouldn't even talk to us unless we processed then through insurance- which is a hugely fradulent issue and can end up costing patients tens of thousands. These sketchy labs often give "kickbacks" in the form of 100-200$ "Collection fees".
So what do we do, use 12 panel urine test cups that cost <$4 per cup. A breathalyzer. $5 80hr EtG (alcohol tests) and the lab to confirm + results.
These programs have failed before, it's fairly easy to cheat drug tests, and you risk invasion of privacy. I agree people should not be using state aid to buy drugs, but drug addicts are sick people. Many drug addicts utilize their state instance for detox and rehab only to help them get by until their next check clears and then they're back out again using or to find dealers. It's a huge burden.
It might still cost more than the benefits would be worth, but I think it might be a decent idea to placate the people who want drug testing to require it, but instead of denying benefits if someone tests positive require them to get help paid for by the state in order to receive the rest of their benefits.
Better idea. Legalize drugs, end social assistance programs.
Hunger is a great motivational tool.
I could support that idea, although the expense of extra bureaucracy for testing and then trying to get people with drug-positive results into treatment would definitey outweigh the expense of just paying benefits to untested recipients.
Right now it's challenging to round up treatment for people who voluntarily seek it. It can take hours of effort over days or weeks for a counselor with all kinds of connections to land someone in a 28-day rehab. One hopes the client survives the wait time. So given that, if the state just gets to say "no benefit for you" and no treatment as well, then I'm not in favor of singling out welfare recipients for drug testing.
My point was why limit expectations to recipients of government benefits.
Random drug testing is important, particularly in sectors like transportation where public safety is most directly affected. I don't know the welfare recipient in Chicago or rural Nevada who's theoretically stoned this afternoon, and I don't know the guy who's mixing vitamins or canning tomatoes either. The latter two probably have more chance of affecting public health than the guy snoozing in Nevada. Of course I don't know that for sure.
If I want to get all selfish about it, let's randomly test the tomato canners. Maybe you'd rather have investment bankers tested. I could go for that too.
Get rid of EBT cards and go back to old-fashioned food stamps. Print them in bright primary colors so everyone in the supermarket knows you're using them. Anyone on government assistance should feel a little sting of embarrassment. Back in the day people were ashamed to be on welfare and got off as quick as they could.
I'm sure some of you snowflakes feel that people on welfare should be coddled and be made to feel as good about themselves as possible. Screw that. Name 'em and shame 'em is my motto. Of course, shame seems to be nonexistent these days
Well, ok then...
Let's drug test every homeowner who takes a mortgage deduction.
Let's drug test every parent who claims a child exemption.
Let's drug test every business owner that takes investment credits or deductions.
If they can afford drugs, shouldn't they be able to live w/o tax code assistance? Why should I subsidize raising your kids or buying your home if you can afford drugs?
What does any of this have to do with people on public assistance?
IIRC in most places is less than 3% and in a majority it's a fraction of a percent...
Drug use doesn't seem to be rampant in folks that can't afford drugs
I believe drug testing would work as a deterrent. I am not against someone spending their own money on marijuana.
So you want to waste even more tax payer dollars in order to drug test them?