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

[Papageorgio]

Yet the US Government does it all the time.

You can have cause to test for drugs based on someone's occupation.

Yes you can I just said that, nutjob.

Being poor is not a job.

And testing positive in job interviews are not going to get you a job.

I can always find better things to worry about than the miniscule number of welfare cash assistance recipients who are doing drugs.

You should try that.

I have found better things to do. Having an opinion doesn't mean I worry about it. On a scale of 0-100000000000000000000000, with 0 being the least I worry about it, it would be a .00000000000000001.

But thanks for your trying to tell me what I should do. That is why you are a nutjob.

 

[Papageorgio]

Just a question I'll throw out there, should getting a vaccine be required to attend a public school?

Should a vaccine be required in order to get welfare?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just a question I'll throw out there, should getting a vaccine be required to attend a public school?

Should a vaccine be required in order to get welfare?

You can have cause to test for drugs based on someone's occupation.

Yes you can I just said that, nutjob.

Being poor is not a job.

And testing positive in job interviews are not going to get you a job.

I can always find better things to worry about than the miniscule number of welfare cash assistance recipients who are doing drugs.

You should try that.

I have found better things to do. Having an opinion doesn't mean I worry about it. On a scale of 0-100000000000000000000000, with 0 being the least I worry about it, it would be a .00000000000000001.

But thanks for your trying to tell me what I should do. That is why you are a nutjob.

The Rich don't steal from the Poor. That's not where the money is. They steal from people like you, and get you to blame it on the Poor.

 

[Papageorgio]

Just a question I'll throw out there, should getting a vaccine be required to attend a public school?

Should a vaccine be required in order to get welfare?

Yes you can I just said that, nutjob.

Being poor is not a job.

And testing positive in job interviews are not going to get you a job.

I can always find better things to worry about than the miniscule number of welfare cash assistance recipients who are doing drugs.

You should try that.

I have found better things to do. Having an opinion doesn't mean I worry about it. On a scale of 0-100000000000000000000000, with 0 being the least I worry about it, it would be a .00000000000000001.

But thanks for your trying to tell me what I should do. That is why you are a nutjob.

The Rich don't steal from the Poor. That's not where the money is. They steal from people like you, and get you to blame it on the Poor.

Where do I blame the poor from stealing from me? You are talking crazy nut job.

 

[FA_Q2]

21/89 = 24%

From the source article:

7,600 people screened from August through December21 of 89 people who were ordered to take tests came back positive

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

That's a failure rate of 0.25% or so.

Not everyone is a moron. If you don't take a test you can't pass or fail it.

The 89 is not a random sampling. They screen people to determine who is likely on drugs.

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.

North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants | Myinforms

Then they order testing to confirm if they are actually on drugs.

Of the 7600 people screened.....21 people were found to have been on drugs.

That's about 1/4 of 1 percent.

Why are you deliberately trying to mislead about the figures?

21 of 89 people tested failed the drug test True or false?

I'm afraid it's you that's misrepresenting these.
What is so hard to understand here? It's 21 out of 7600, not "21 out of 89". It is NOT A RANDOM SAMPLE. It's a second-tier test of subjects who were already screened to be likely. It doesn't show anything about how much of the total population met the criteria of the test --- it shows how much of the initial screening was accurate.

21 out of 7600 represents 27 hundredths of one percent. Twenty-seven people out of every ten thousand.

That's slightly less than the percentage of the US population who is of Burmese ancestry. Think of everybody you know who is Burmese -- almost that much.

If it is such a small figure then what is the issue with the tests?

 

[francoHFW]

Everyone on welfare is screened for drug use. If they're suspected, from their criminal history or their interview, they get tested. Intelligent system.

 

[Skylar]

Everyone on welfare is screened for drug use. If they're suspected, from their criminal history or their interview, they get tested. Intelligent system.

A system involving tests for those who are suspected of drug use seems reasonable. A test for everyone is beyond retarded.

 

[Papageorgio]

Everyone on welfare is screened for drug use. If they're suspected, from their criminal history or their interview, they get tested. Intelligent system.

I agree, now how do you define "suspected"?

 

[Skylar]

Everyone on welfare is screened for drug use. If they're suspected, from their criminal history or their interview, they get tested. Intelligent system.

I agree, now how do you define "suspected"?

I think that's something that a state can decide reasonably.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Everyone on welfare is screened for drug use. If they're suspected, from their criminal history or their interview, they get tested. Intelligent system.

This has already been established as un-Constitutional by the courts; that one has applied for or is receiving public assistance is not a compelling governmental interest to compel drug tests as a condition of initial or ongoing eligibility, in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Indeed, there is no ‘evidence’ that drug testing as a condition of eligibility for public assistance serves a compelling governmental interest at all; quite the opposite, in fact:

There is no evidence that those who apply for public assistance manifest illegal drug use greater than the population in general.

There is no evidence that drug testing acts as a ‘deterrent’ to drug abuse.

And the evidence clearly shows that there are no cost-savings to drug testing, that the costs often outweigh any ‘savings’ by denying assistance to applicants.

Consequently, the North Carolina measure was enacted in bad faith, seeking only to disadvantage those applying for public assistance, its intent is purely punitive, acting only to punish those in need.

This is solely about politics, not sound, responsible public policy.

 

[Meathead]

Compelling government interest is to discourage abuse of drugs and minimize state dependency. It is therefore incumbent on the state to not subsidize drug abuse as it does when it supports the abuser.

When 61% of those ordered to take a drug test either failed to show or simply failed the test, then there is obvious and compelling problem and government must act responsibly.

Clearly, this needs to go nationally.

 

[Papageorgio]

Everyone on welfare is screened for drug use. If they're suspected, from their criminal history or their interview, they get tested. Intelligent system.

I agree, now how do you define "suspected"?

I think that's something that a state can decide reasonably.

I think they can but under "reasonable suspicion" the person that is trained is the only one that can access. You can't come in and say you think someone is doing drugs and then the welfare dept. asks them to test. That isn't reasonable cause, legally. It is only ones who are trained and certified.

That is my point, if the state's thresholds are too low, it would throw out the law as being unconstitutional.

If you are abusing drugs, get tested, test positive, then should not get welfare.

 

[Papageorgio]

Everyone on welfare is screened for drug use. If they're suspected, from their criminal history or their interview, they get tested. Intelligent system.

This has already been established as un-Constitutional by the courts; that one has applied for or is receiving public assistance is not a compelling governmental interest to compel drug tests as a condition of initial or ongoing eligibility, in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Indeed, there is no ‘evidence’ that drug testing as a condition of eligibility for public assistance serves a compelling governmental interest at all; quite the opposite, in fact:

There is no evidence that those who apply for public assistance manifest illegal drug use greater than the population in general.

There is no evidence that drug testing acts as a ‘deterrent’ to drug abuse.

And the evidence clearly shows that there are no cost-savings to drug testing, that the costs often outweigh any ‘savings’ by denying assistance to applicants.

Consequently, the North Carolina measure was enacted in bad faith, seeking only to disadvantage those applying for public assistance, its intent is purely punitive, acting only to punish those in need.

This is solely about politics, not sound, responsible public policy.

Only in Florida was this law unconstitutional and it was the way the law was written. In eleven other states it is constitutional because it uses reasonable suspicion as its guideline. It doesn't test everyone applying, therefore no violation has occurred.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Everyone on welfare is screened for drug use. If they're suspected, from their criminal history or their interview, they get tested. Intelligent system.

This has already been established as un-Constitutional by the courts; that one has applied for or is receiving public assistance is not a compelling governmental interest to compel drug tests as a condition of initial or ongoing eligibility, in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Indeed, there is no ‘evidence’ that drug testing as a condition of eligibility for public assistance serves a compelling governmental interest at all; quite the opposite, in fact:

There is no evidence that those who apply for public assistance manifest illegal drug use greater than the population in general.

There is no evidence that drug testing acts as a ‘deterrent’ to drug abuse.

And the evidence clearly shows that there are no cost-savings to drug testing, that the costs often outweigh any ‘savings’ by denying assistance to applicants.

Consequently, the North Carolina measure was enacted in bad faith, seeking only to disadvantage those applying for public assistance, its intent is purely punitive, acting only to punish those in need.

This is solely about politics, not sound, responsible public policy.

Absurd, and an outright lie of course. drug testing suspected drug users who receive welfare was not deemed unconstitutional.

You are correct however that your stance is purely political. If HIllary Clinton had suggested drug testing welfare recipients you stupid liberals would be rejoicing at her brilliance.

 

[1stRambo]

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 interested in feeding themselves and keeping a roof over their head rather than taking drugs.

Yo, if they have money for Drugs? They have money for food!!! Need to reduce the waste in Government, this is a good start!!!

"GTP"
Follow The Money!
View attachment 71262

Cuts both ways. If we've got money to drug-test millions of people, we obviously have the money to feed them.

Yo, we test, find out they are taking drugs, boot them to the curb, don`t need to support them anymore! Save money in long run!!!

"GTP"

 

[Dragonlady]

Everyone on welfare is screened for drug use. If they're suspected, from their criminal history or their interview, they get tested. Intelligent system.

I agree, now how do you define "suspected"?

I think that's something that a state can decide reasonably.

The State of Tennessee spent $23,000 screening and testing for every person they found to be using drugs. This cost is added to the administration costs for the welfare program. Conservatives assured everyone that drug testing would save the taxpayers money by striking drug users off the welfare rolls. Instead, they are literally spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, to save thousands. The percentage of welfare recipients testing positive for drugs is substantially lower than that of the rest of the population. The conservative stereotype of lazy welfare recipients sitting around getting high is as false as the whole Welfare Queen lie that Reagan spouted in the 1980's.

Republicans have demonized the poor from the moment Reagan took office. And yet their economic policies continue to create more and more of them every day. It's a deflection people.

The big corporations and Wall Street are responsible for the current state of things for the working poor and middle class. They tell Republicans what they want and they get it every single time, at the expense of the middle class. They're not giving the Christian Right what they want - abortion is still legal, as in gay marriage, and Christians are not being allowed to discriminate against gays. They don't deport illegals, and Reagan actually gave them amnesty, because big farming and other industries want the cheap labour. They run bigger deficits than the Democrats, and add to an already bloated government. Clinton and Obama have actually shrunk government.

But Republicans SAY they stand for all these things, and then do the opposite. And they blame all of the problems in the economy on the poor who they claim are leeching off tax payers, so you don't notice that $9 billion dollars worth of government benefits went to the second most profitable company in America.

 

[Pogo]

What are the two wrongs? Stopping government waste is a wrong?

Making people get help from their destructive lives?

Stripping people of their Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. That's been spelled out repeatedly in this thread but it doesn't seem to register with you.

You give up the right of privacy when you take public assistance. You are not required to take public assistance, it is voluntary. They are not arrested, not denied due process. They are just ineligible.

No freedom lost, no privacy lost. Choices and free will are exercised.

According to who? What law?

The only action I've heard of where you lose your rights is if you commit a crime.

You can choose or choose not to take public assistance. You have no right to public assistance. Rules are in place to see if you are eligible for public assistance or not.

I have to turn over my checking account, show them my personal assets, show them documentation of income and sign a legal document so they can go and verify my wealth to see if I am eligible or not. Is that an invasion of privacy? How does that differ than them testing for drugs?

None of those involve constitutional rights.

It's not an invasion of privacy in that it directly involves the circumstances that qualify or disqualify you for the program. The level of your financial need must be determined in order to establish who's in need and who isn't, so in applying for it you enter into an agreement that your financial status will not be "private", at least between yourself and the agency.

On the other hand whether some substance shows up in your body has no direct relevance to that program, because no substance in one's body can be defined as "wealth". It's unrelated, and you never agreed that your private personal life was no longer going to be private, therefore that IS an invasion of privacy.

Now there could conceivably be a higher level of scrutiny on that financial activity. Perhaps the agency could be looking in to your bank account and poring over every transaction, calling you in to explain how it is you stopped at a restaurant last week when you're getting food stamps.

Have any idea what it would cost to do that? Although -- it would at least create a lot of government bureaucrat jobs.
So there's that.


Ultimately there's no difference between such a law and another law that dictated what kind of movies you could watch or what books you could check out from the library.

 

[Pogo]

And then there's this:

--- Is there any such program taking body fluids to determine the level of tobacco or alcohol there? If not then it's blatant hypocrisy. After all nobody needs tobacco or alcohol to survive, and they generally cost money.

Same damn thing.

 

[Skylar]

Everyone on welfare is screened for drug use. If they're suspected, from their criminal history or their interview, they get tested. Intelligent system.

I agree, now how do you define "suspected"?

I think that's something that a state can decide reasonably.

The State of Tennessee spent $23,000 screening and testing for every person they found to be using drugs. This cost is added to the administration costs for the welfare program. Conservatives assured everyone that drug testing would save the taxpayers money by striking drug users off the welfare rolls. Instead, they are literally spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, to save thousands. The percentage of welfare recipients testing positive for drugs is substantially lower than that of the rest of the population. The conservative stereotype of lazy welfare recipients sitting around getting high is as false as the whole Welfare Queen lie that Reagan spouted in the 1980's.

Republicans have demonized the poor from the moment Reagan took office. And yet their economic policies continue to create more and more of them every day. It's a deflection people.

The big corporations and Wall Street are responsible for the current state of things for the working poor and middle class. They tell Republicans what they want and they get it every single time, at the expense of the middle class. They're not giving the Christian Right what they want - abortion is still legal, as in gay marriage, and Christians are not being allowed to discriminate against gays. They don't deport illegals, and Reagan actually gave them amnesty, because big farming and other industries want the cheap labour. They run bigger deficits than the Democrats, and add to an already bloated government. Clinton and Obama have actually shrunk government.

But Republicans SAY they stand for all these things, and then do the opposite. And they blame all of the problems in the economy on the poor who they claim are leeching off tax payers, so you don't notice that $9 billion dollars worth of government benefits went to the second most profitable company in America.

Out of 7600 folks screened a grand total of 150 or so were ordered to be tested. That's a reasonable proportion.

 

[GaryDog]

Everyone on welfare is screened for drug use. If they're suspected, from their criminal history or their interview, they get tested. Intelligent system.

I agree, now how do you define "suspected"?

I think that's something that a state can decide reasonably.

The State of Tennessee spent $23,000 screening and testing for every person they found to be using drugs. This cost is added to the administration costs for the welfare program. Conservatives assured everyone that drug testing would save the taxpayers money by striking drug users off the welfare rolls. Instead, they are literally spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, to save thousands. The percentage of welfare recipients testing positive for drugs is substantially lower than that of the rest of the population. The conservative stereotype of lazy welfare recipients sitting around getting high is as false as the whole Welfare Queen lie that Reagan spouted in the 1980's.

Republicans have demonized the poor from the moment Reagan took office. And yet their economic policies continue to create more and more of them every day. It's a deflection people.

The big corporations and Wall Street are responsible for the current state of things for the working poor and middle class. They tell Republicans what they want and they get it every single time, at the expense of the middle class. They're not giving the Christian Right what they want - abortion is still legal, as in gay marriage, and Christians are not being allowed to discriminate against gays. They don't deport illegals, and Reagan actually gave them amnesty, because big farming and other industries want the cheap labour. They run bigger deficits than the Democrats, and add to an already bloated government. Clinton and Obama have actually shrunk government.

But Republicans SAY they stand for all these things, and then do the opposite. And they blame all of the problems in the economy on the poor who they claim are leeching off tax payers, so you don't notice that $9 billion dollars worth of government benefits went to the second most profitable company in America.

Out of 7600 folks screened a grand total of 150 or so were ordered to be tested. That's a reasonable proportion.

And a GIANT fucking waste of resources for a miniscule problem. We think nothing of wasting money to deny benefits or build an iron man suit for $300 million, but turn our nose up at the "socialist" idea of paying for college. America is embarrassing.