NC New Welfare Drug Test Law: 1/3rd Tested Positive from Sample.

[Dragonlady]

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

"State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto."

They SCREENED 7,600 people, between August and September. At the end of this process, 21 tested positive, that's not 1/3 of the people they tested, because they spent time, and resources, screening 7,600 people. It's 0.0027%. The premise of the original post is false.

How much money was spent on the screening these 7,600 people. If they cut the 21 drug users off welfare, will the savings recover the costs of this folly? If not, what's the point of the testing? It's your tax dollars that are being wasted on this bullshit.

Bullshit such as mandatory drug screening for welfare recipients may accomplish the conservative goal of shaming and humiliating welfare recipients, but from a cost recovery standpoint, it's adding to the administration costs for welfare, it's adding to the size of government as more government workers are required for the screening and the tests.

So much for smaller and less intrusive government, which is something conservatives say they want, but in the end, they want people checking your birth certificate to make sure you're using the right bathroom, they want to you to arrest and prosecute women who have abortions, and control who you marry, and set up a situation where people can exercise their personal biases and discriminate against those their religion tell them are lesser people.

Yes, the Conservative party, the party of freedom and responsibility.

So I'll put you in the category that we shouldn't drug test welfare recipients. And word for word the op is correct, unless you have comprehension problems that is.

I have no comprehension problems. The OP is blatantly false. They screened 7600 welfare recipients as potential drug users. It took Interviews, police reports - this is an expensive process. Of the 7600, the 89 people who had admitted to or been charged with drug offenses in the past, were subjected to testing, and 21 of them tested positive.

How many thousands of dollars did they spend on the interviews and police reports? How many additional government workers did they hire to completed this work? Did this program result in tax savings to the program, and if so, did the tax savings cover the costs of screening and testing 7579 people who did not use drugs.

Stop trying to pretend that drug testing of welfare recipients is a sound fiscal idea.

Out of curiosity, does it matter? Does it matter if it's "sound fiscal policy" if it violates the rights of citizens?

Yes it matters. What's the point of the testing? If it doesn't save the taxpayers why is it being done? If it takes a year, and 7600 interviews and police reports to find 21 drug users, is this the best use of resources? What if the money spent on drug screening went into re-training programs, or subsidized daycare for low income workers - perhaps more than 21 people would be able get off welfare with better use of the same resources.

Conservatives are constantly complaining of the massive costs of welfare programs, and yet they add to these costs with expensive and pointless drug testing, both increasing the costs, and increasing the number of government workers who are needed to administer them.

Drug testing welfare recipients is picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants.

 

[dblack]

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

"State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto."

They SCREENED 7,600 people, between August and September. At the end of this process, 21 tested positive, that's not 1/3 of the people they tested, because they spent time, and resources, screening 7,600 people. It's 0.0027%. The premise of the original post is false.

How much money was spent on the screening these 7,600 people. If they cut the 21 drug users off welfare, will the savings recover the costs of this folly? If not, what's the point of the testing? It's your tax dollars that are being wasted on this bullshit.

Bullshit such as mandatory drug screening for welfare recipients may accomplish the conservative goal of shaming and humiliating welfare recipients, but from a cost recovery standpoint, it's adding to the administration costs for welfare, it's adding to the size of government as more government workers are required for the screening and the tests.

So much for smaller and less intrusive government, which is something conservatives say they want, but in the end, they want people checking your birth certificate to make sure you're using the right bathroom, they want to you to arrest and prosecute women who have abortions, and control who you marry, and set up a situation where people can exercise their personal biases and discriminate against those their religion tell them are lesser people.

Yes, the Conservative party, the party of freedom and responsibility.

So I'll put you in the category that we shouldn't drug test welfare recipients. And word for word the op is correct, unless you have comprehension problems that is.

I have no comprehension problems. The OP is blatantly false. They screened 7600 welfare recipients as potential drug users. It took Interviews, police reports - this is an expensive process. Of the 7600, the people who had admitted to or been charged with drug offenses in the past, were subjected to the 89 most likely drug users to testing, and 21 of them tested positive.

How many thousands of dollars did they spend on the interviews and police reports? How many additional government workers did they hire to completed this work? Did this program result in tax savings to the program, and if so, did the tax savings cover the costs of screening and testing 7579 people who did not use drugs.

Stop trying to pretend that drug testing of welfare recipients is a sound fiscal idea.

Out of curiosity, does it matter? Does it matter if it's "sound fiscal policy" if it violates the rights of citizens?

Yes it matters. What's the point of the testing? If it doesn't save the taxpayers why is it being done?

Predictable. And disappointing. This is why Democrats suck every bit as much as Republicans.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Most of you talk as if you are going to use the tests to kick people off welfare!


Has it ever occurred to you that the test could be used to give the person MORE assistance?

If you find someone on drugs and taking care of a family, cutting them off from welfare is akin to refusing medical service to a person who can't pay.

Throwing Grandma off the cliff because she can't support herself!

You are not suppose to cut them off, you are suppose to put them in a program to help them quit their addictions!!

That did not occur to any of you right wingers?

That thought had crossed my mind. But in liberal sections of the United States "assistance" is often construed to mean giving them clean needles. or perhaps giving them lesser drugs to wean them off the stronger ones. Honestly, I don't care about drug addicts nor the cliff they happen to fall off on.

Anyone who has ever had to deal with a drug addict rarely has a good story to tell. It's always the same depressing story of lying and stealing.

Indeed, go to school and they tell you the horrors of drugs from K-12 as early as the 70's. Then they do drugs, knowing the consequences, and then say "don't punish me for my mistake." No dice, you knew the consequences, you did it anyway, and now you want me to fund your habit. You made your bed, now sleep in it. Let liberals set up a foundation to help your types out. But then again, they are never really good at spending their own money for such causes. they would much rather spend mine.

I feel terrible about how much you are being victimized....

 

[Publius1787]

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

"State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto."

They SCREENED 7,600 people, between August and September. At the end of this process, 21 tested positive, that's not 1/3 of the people they tested, because they spent time, and resources, screening 7,600 people. It's 0.0027%. The premise of the original post is false.

How much money was spent on the screening these 7,600 people. If they cut the 21 drug users off welfare, will the savings recover the costs of this folly? If not, what's the point of the testing? It's your tax dollars that are being wasted on this bullshit.

Bullshit such as mandatory drug screening for welfare recipients may accomplish the conservative goal of shaming and humiliating welfare recipients, but from a cost recovery standpoint, it's adding to the administration costs for welfare, it's adding to the size of government as more government workers are required for the screening and the tests.

So much for smaller and less intrusive government, which is something conservatives say they want, but in the end, they want people checking your birth certificate to make sure you're using the right bathroom, they want to you to arrest and prosecute women who have abortions, and control who you marry, and set up a situation where people can exercise their personal biases and discriminate against those their religion tell them are lesser people.

Yes, the Conservative party, the party of freedom and responsibility.

So I'll put you in the category that we shouldn't drug test welfare recipients. And word for word the op is correct, unless you have comprehension problems that is.

I have no comprehension problems. The OP is blatantly false. They screened 7600 welfare recipients as potential drug users. It took Interviews, police reports - this is an expensive process. Of the 7600, the people who had admitted to or been charged with drug offenses in the past, were subjected to the 89 most likely drug users to testing, and 21 of them tested positive.

How many thousands of dollars did they spend on the interviews and police reports? How many additional government workers did they hire to completed this work? Did this program result in tax savings to the program, and if so, did the tax savings cover the costs of screening and testing 7579 people who did not use drugs.

Stop trying to pretend that drug testing of welfare recipients is a sound fiscal idea.

Comprehension problems aside there is a difference between "screened" & "tested." And, of course, your observations have already been addressed earlier in this thread.

 

[Publius1787]

Most of you talk as if you are going to use the tests to kick people off welfare!


Has it ever occurred to you that the test could be used to give the person MORE assistance?

If you find someone on drugs and taking care of a family, cutting them off from welfare is akin to refusing medical service to a person who can't pay.

Throwing Grandma off the cliff because she can't support herself!

You are not suppose to cut them off, you are suppose to put them in a program to help them quit their addictions!!

That did not occur to any of you right wingers?

That thought had crossed my mind. But in liberal sections of the United States "assistance" is often construed to mean giving them clean needles. or perhaps giving them lesser drugs to wean them off the stronger ones. Honestly, I don't care about drug addicts nor the cliff they happen to fall off on.

You poor, poor thing. Enjoy your rage knowing that you'll never, ever get your way. lol

Yes, indeed. We both know who gets the felon/druggie vote.

 

[Publius1787]

Most of you talk as if you are going to use the tests to kick people off welfare!


Has it ever occurred to you that the test could be used to give the person MORE assistance?

If you find someone on drugs and taking care of a family, cutting them off from welfare is akin to refusing medical service to a person who can't pay.

Throwing Grandma off the cliff because she can't support herself!

You are not suppose to cut them off, you are suppose to put them in a program to help them quit their addictions!!

That did not occur to any of you right wingers?

That thought had crossed my mind. But in liberal sections of the United States "assistance" is often construed to mean giving them clean needles. or perhaps giving them lesser drugs to wean them off the stronger ones. Honestly, I don't care about drug addicts nor the cliff they happen to fall off on.

Anyone who has ever had to deal with a drug addict rarely has a good story to tell. It's always the same depressing story of lying and stealing.

*Joke*

I was talking to a friend's little girl, and she said she wanted to be
President some day.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked
her,

'If you were to be the President, what's the first thing you would do?'
She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

'Wow - what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'You don't have to wait until
you're President to do that.

You can come over to my house and mow the grass, pull weeds, and sweep my
yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store
where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use
toward food or a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds, 'cause she's only 6.

And while her Mom glared at me, the little girl looked me straight in the
eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work,
and you can just pay him the $50?'

And I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'

As the child's mother, I would have replied that "Perhaps because no one has told the homeless man they would pay him for doing the work."

Indeed, have you ever offered work to a man holding a sign that says "will work for food?" Hows your success rate?

 

[Publius1787]

Most of you talk as if you are going to use the tests to kick people off welfare!


Has it ever occurred to you that the test could be used to give the person MORE assistance?

If you find someone on drugs and taking care of a family, cutting them off from welfare is akin to refusing medical service to a person who can't pay.

Throwing Grandma off the cliff because she can't support herself!

You are not suppose to cut them off, you are suppose to put them in a program to help them quit their addictions!!

That did not occur to any of you right wingers?

That thought had crossed my mind. But in liberal sections of the United States "assistance" is often construed to mean giving them clean needles. or perhaps giving them lesser drugs to wean them off the stronger ones. Honestly, I don't care about drug addicts nor the cliff they happen to fall off on.

Anyone who has ever had to deal with a drug addict rarely has a good story to tell. It's always the same depressing story of lying and stealing.

Indeed, go to school and they tell you the horrors of drugs from K-12 as early as the 70's. Then they do drugs, knowing the consequences, and then say "don't punish me for my mistake." No dice, you knew the consequences, you did it anyway, and now you want me to fund your habit. You made your bed, now sleep in it. Let liberals set up a foundation to help your types out. But then again, they are never really good at spending their own money for such causes. they would much rather spend mine.

I feel terrible about how much you are being victimized....

That's more like it. I knew you'd come around.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Most of you talk as if you are going to use the tests to kick people off welfare!


Has it ever occurred to you that the test could be used to give the person MORE assistance?

If you find someone on drugs and taking care of a family, cutting them off from welfare is akin to refusing medical service to a person who can't pay.

Throwing Grandma off the cliff because she can't support herself!

You are not suppose to cut them off, you are suppose to put them in a program to help them quit their addictions!!

That did not occur to any of you right wingers?

That thought had crossed my mind. But in liberal sections of the United States "assistance" is often construed to mean giving them clean needles. or perhaps giving them lesser drugs to wean them off the stronger ones. Honestly, I don't care about drug addicts nor the cliff they happen to fall off on.

Anyone who has ever had to deal with a drug addict rarely has a good story to tell. It's always the same depressing story of lying and stealing.

Indeed, go to school and they tell you the horrors of drugs from K-12 as early as the 70's. Then they do drugs, knowing the consequences, and then say "don't punish me for my mistake." No dice, you knew the consequences, you did it anyway, and now you want me to fund your habit. You made your bed, now sleep in it. Let liberals set up a foundation to help your types out. But then again, they are never really good at spending their own money for such causes. they would much rather spend mine.

I feel terrible about how much you are being victimized....

That's more like it. I knew you'd come around.

I feel your pain, Pub. I woke up one morning during the Bush presidency and discovered that 45% of my retirement polio had been stolen by investment and banking houses due to republican easing of their regulations. Fortunately it has all been restored over the last 7 years.

 

[Publius1787]

That thought had crossed my mind. But in liberal sections of the United States "assistance" is often construed to mean giving them clean needles. or perhaps giving them lesser drugs to wean them off the stronger ones. Honestly, I don't care about drug addicts nor the cliff they happen to fall off on.

Anyone who has ever had to deal with a drug addict rarely has a good story to tell. It's always the same depressing story of lying and stealing.

Indeed, go to school and they tell you the horrors of drugs from K-12 as early as the 70's. Then they do drugs, knowing the consequences, and then say "don't punish me for my mistake." No dice, you knew the consequences, you did it anyway, and now you want me to fund your habit. You made your bed, now sleep in it. Let liberals set up a foundation to help your types out. But then again, they are never really good at spending their own money for such causes. they would much rather spend mine.

I feel terrible about how much you are being victimized....

That's more like it. I knew you'd come around.

I feel your pain, Pub. I woke up one morning during the Bush presidency and discovered that 45% of my retirement polio had been stolen by investment and banking houses due to republican easing of their regulations. Fortunately it has all been restored over the last 7 years.

Got to hate that Bush. By the way, who was responsible for bundling about 80% of those lousy worthless Mortgage Backed Securities?

 

[dblack]

Just for you, Publius1787 :

 

[Publius1787]

Just for you, Publius1787 :

Thanks. But I feel obliged to respond in kind. Please accept this as a token of my gratification.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In liberal lalaland, if you break into my house and steal only three of my four TV's, you gave me a TV.

If you and I each make 50,000 a year, and my tax bill is $5000, and yours is $1000,

because you got a bunch of special interest deductions,

who stole from whom???

You mean like deductions for kids?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No it's to punish them for using tax payer money for illegal activities

Why do you want to fund crime?

Then shouldn't we drug test those who get a $4000 tax exemption for every child?

Apples and Martians.... one group pays taxes, the other group does not. Reducing ones taxable income is not "getting" something. Receiving welfare checks is getting something.. for nothing I might add.

Everyone pays taxes

If you are getting a cash payout for your rug rats we should make sure you are not spending the money on drugs

For the sake of the children

Hilarious, but in reality just a dodge b/c you simply don't have a rational argument against drug testing welfare recipients.

Why shouldn't everyone who receives government aid be tested for drugs?

How about farmers? They receive more money than welfare families. Don't want them wasting our tax dollars on drugs

FIne with me

Lets have drug testing foe ALL government subsidies then maybe we can get rid of them all

 

[rightwinger]

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

"State officials presented early results Tuesday of a new law that requires drug tests for welfare applicants. Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.The law requiring testing of any Work First recipient suspected of being a drug user was enacted in 2013 over Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto."

They SCREENED 7,600 people, between August and September. At the end of this process, 21 tested positive, that's not 1/3 of the people they tested, because they spent time, and resources, screening 7,600 people. It's 0.0027%. The premise of the original post is false.

How much money was spent on the screening these 7,600 people. If they cut the 21 drug users off welfare, will the savings recover the costs of this folly? If not, what's the point of the testing? It's your tax dollars that are being wasted on this bullshit.

Bullshit such as mandatory drug screening for welfare recipients may accomplish the conservative goal of shaming and humiliating welfare recipients, but from a cost recovery standpoint, it's adding to the administration costs for welfare, it's adding to the size of government as more government workers are required for the screening and the tests.

So much for smaller and less intrusive government, which is something conservatives say they want, but in the end, they want people checking your birth certificate to make sure you're using the right bathroom, they want to you to arrest and prosecute women who have abortions, and control who you marry, and set up a situation where people can exercise their personal biases and discriminate against those their religion tell them are lesser people.

Yes, the Conservative party, the party of freedom and responsibility.

So I'll put you in the category that we shouldn't drug test welfare recipients. And word for word the op is correct, unless you have comprehension problems that is.

I have no comprehension problems. The OP is blatantly false. They screened 7600 welfare recipients as potential drug users. It took Interviews, police reports - this is an expensive process. Of the 7600, the people who had admitted to or been charged with drug offenses in the past, were subjected to the 89 most likely drug users to testing, and 21 of them tested positive.

How many thousands of dollars did they spend on the interviews and police reports? How many additional government workers did they hire to completed this work? Did this program result in tax savings to the program, and if so, did the tax savings cover the costs of screening and testing 7579 people who did not use drugs.

Stop trying to pretend that drug testing of welfare recipients is a sound fiscal idea.

Comprehension problems aside there is a difference between "screened" & "tested." And, of course, your observations have already been addressed earlier in this thread.

Why don't you just admit you lied in your OP

 

[NYcarbineer]

In liberal lalaland, if you break into my house and steal only three of my four TV's, you gave me a TV.

If you and I each make 50,000 a year, and my tax bill is $5000, and yours is $1000,

because you got a bunch of special interest deductions,

who stole from whom???

You mean like deductions for kids?

I mean all deductions that cannot be justified.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then shouldn't we drug test those who get a $4000 tax exemption for every child?

Apples and Martians.... one group pays taxes, the other group does not. Reducing ones taxable income is not "getting" something. Receiving welfare checks is getting something.. for nothing I might add.

Everyone pays taxes

If you are getting a cash payout for your rug rats we should make sure you are not spending the money on drugs

For the sake of the children

Hilarious, but in reality just a dodge b/c you simply don't have a rational argument against drug testing welfare recipients.

Why shouldn't everyone who receives government aid be tested for drugs?

How about farmers? They receive more money than welfare families. Don't want them wasting our tax dollars on drugs

FIne with me

Lets have drug testing foe ALL government subsidies then maybe we can get rid of them all

Which legislators will vote for that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'd like to see them randomly select 7600 individuals NOT on welfare, screen out a small sample based on the same criteria they used to screen likely drug users out of the welfare group,

test them, and see what percentage test positive.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Apples and Martians.... one group pays taxes, the other group does not. Reducing ones taxable income is not "getting" something. Receiving welfare checks is getting something.. for nothing I might add.

Everyone pays taxes

If you are getting a cash payout for your rug rats we should make sure you are not spending the money on drugs

For the sake of the children

Hilarious, but in reality just a dodge b/c you simply don't have a rational argument against drug testing welfare recipients.

Why shouldn't everyone who receives government aid be tested for drugs?

How about farmers? They receive more money than welfare families. Don't want them wasting our tax dollars on drugs

FIne with me

Lets have drug testing foe ALL government subsidies then maybe we can get rid of them all

Which legislators will vote for that?

The one I would vote for

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I'd like to see them randomly select 7600 individuals NOT on welfare, screen out a small sample based on the same criteria they used to screen likely drug users out of the welfare group,

test them, and see what percentage test positive.

LOLWUT? So then your complaint really isn't about civil rights after all then.

 

[Pogo]

You know, I can see people in high stress jobs being drug tested, because they have to remain sharp while they are on the job.

People who are receiving welfare? No. I don't think they need to be tested. Why? If they aren't working in a job that could be hazardous to the public, there is no need for it.

Besides............of all the people I've ever known who received financial assistance, they were more intereslted in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.

If you can afford drugs, you're making bad choices in not buying food first, and don't deserve the help and to hell with anyone too stupid to agree with that.

Again, and this has been pointed out before, the presence of some substance in your bloodstream does not automatically mean that money changed hands to put it there, let alone whose money it was. That's a conclusion without a bridge.

..

LOL so you're supposing their are a lot of drug dealers out there giving handouts to users? LOL Come on

"Drug dealers" doesn't even enter into it. You're basically trying to conclude that because Chemical X shows up in somebody's system, therefore they must have made a transaction. Nor, once again, has anyone defined what "drugs" even means. That's extremely vague, especially considering that some substances that are not drugs at all, e.g. cannabis, are commonly lumped under that term, while others that very much are "drugs" including prescription drugs, including alcohol, are not.

You do your due diligence looking for jobs on Monday. Monday night, a friend shares a joint. Friday you get popped with a test. Busted. Yet you met no "drug dealer" and you spent no money. Or you do somebody a favor, like give them a ride home, they lay a line of coke on you in thanks. Busted.

That's bullshit. No money changed hands. You don't bust somebody for bank robbery on the basis that, well the bank got robbed and this guy over here just spent a lot of money, therefore he must have robbed the bank.

Another guy cashes his SNAP and buys liquor and/or cigarettes. Eventually blows it all on that. No test.

That's bullshit.

And if you think actual drug dealers don't give handouts, you're very naïve. How do you think they create a customer base?