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

[Pogo]

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.

Not only is that a naked speculation fallacy, it's flat wrong. The practice is blatant government overreach that tries to control private behavior and as such is blatantly illiberal.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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

I actually worked this out yesterday -- the percentage of those found to test positive, relative to the entire base was 0.027% or 27 people out of every ten thousand.

The percentage of Americans of Burmese descent is about 0.03%.

So you're slightly more likely to know a Burmese American than a public assistance drug user.

Just goes to show the power of selling snake oil with emotion versus rational thought.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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

I actually worked this out yesterday -- the percentage of those found to test positive, relative to the entire base was 0.027% or 27 people out of every ten thousand.

The percentage of Americans of Burmese descent is about 0.03%.

So you're slightly more likely to know a Burmese American than a public assistance drug user.

Just goes to show the power of selling snake oil with emotion versus rational thought.

Oh by the way if you know a Burmese American who is also on public assistance and using drugs, it might be a good idea to play the Lotto.

 

[francoHFW]

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"
View attachment 71957

They don't get thrown off, they have to go to rehab classes, costing even more.

 

[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.

Not only is that a naked speculation fallacy, it's flat wrong. The practice is blatant government overreach that tries to control private behavior and as such is blatantly illiberal.

My God, does it really not compute with you that when you take money from the government, what you spend your money on ceases to be private behavior?

At what point do you personally say "enough, this spending is getting out of control?"

Too bad , you have to stop using drugs if you want welfare, deal with it.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Not only is that a naked speculation fallacy, it's flat wrong. The practice is blatant government overreach that tries to control private behavior and as such is blatantly illiberal.

My God, does it really not compute with you that when you take money from the government, what you spend your money on ceases to be private behavior?

At what point do you personally say "enough, this spending is getting out of control?"

Too bad , you have to stop using drugs if you want welfare, deal with it.

And yet you are unable to show any connection.

That's OK, nobody else can either.
____

"you have to stop using drugs if you want welfare, deal with it."
​

... is no different from saying:

"you have to stop using tobacco if you want welfare, deal with it."​

or

"you have to stop reading those banned books if you want welfare, deal with it."​

or

"you can't support that political position we don't like if you want welfare, deal with it".​

or

"you have to sport this haircut if you want welfare, deal with it"​

Nice plan ya got there Dim Dung.

 

[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.

Not only is that a naked speculation fallacy, it's flat wrong. The practice is blatant government overreach that tries to control private behavior and as such is blatantly illiberal.

My God, does it really not compute with you that when you take money from the government, what you spend your money on ceases to be private behavior?

At what point do you personally say "enough, this spending is getting out of control?"

Too bad , you have to stop using drugs if you want welfare, deal with it.

And yet you are unable to show any connection.

That's OK, nobody else can either.

LOL yes, you keep riding that "just because people use recreational drugs doesn't mean they are paying for them " canard. As long as you show up for your piss test when your welfare needs to be renewed.


Seriously, do you not see that issues like this are EXACTLY why there is so much fraud in government and no one will do shit to clean it up? No matter who the person is, or what they are doing, there is someone out there who defends it. Inside your own self, you have to know that it isn't right that someone is using drugs and asking the taxpayer to buy them food. You have to know that. Yet, welfare is an issue of the left, and so you are completely incapable of admitting that yes in this case, the left is wrong.

I really have nothing further to say to you, you're obviously stupid and incapable of composing a thought that strays from the borg that controls your mind. Have a good day.

 

[Pogo]

LOL yes, you keep riding that "just because people use recreational drugs doesn't mean they are paying for them " canard. As long as you show up for your piss test when your welfare needs to be renewed.

-- Which it doesn't. I've invited anyone anywhere to demonstrate how it does. No one can. I'm not a biologist but even I know a piss test does not come with a transaction receipt showing where/when the substances in the analysis were "purchased" -- or if they were purchased at all.

As the comparison already drawn notes, where is the piss test for tobacco? We all know tobacco costs money, and we all know no human being has ever offered another human being a cigarette without demanding some kind of Ferengi-planet payment for it, and we all know tobacco isn't necessary to survival, therefore they're spending my tax money on tobacco --- are they not? And they're doing it at a far higher rate than 0.027%, are they not?

Hypocricize much?

I really have nothing further to say to you, you're obviously stupid and incapable of composing a thought that strays from the borg that controls your mind. Have a good day.

Yup, this is the same diaper rash meltdown I get every time I spell this out to the infantiles who can't deal with the fact that they've been outlogic-ed. It's like clockwork. Tick tock.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

LOL yes, you keep riding that "just because people use recreational drugs doesn't mean they are paying for them " canard. As long as you show up for your piss test when your welfare needs to be renewed.

-- Which it doesn't. I've invited anyone anywhere to demonstrate how it does. No one can. I'm not a biologist but even I know a piss test does not come with a transaction receipt showing where/when the substances in the analysis were "purchased" -- or if they were purchased at all.

As the comparison already drawn notes, where is the piss test for tobacco? We all know tobacco costs money, and we all know no human being has ever offered another human being a cigarette without demanding some kind of Ferengi-planet payment for it, and we all know tobacco isn't necessary to survival, therefore they're spending my tax money on tobacco --- are they not? And they're doing it at a far higher rate than 0.027%, are they not?

Hypocricize much?

I really have nothing further to say to you, you're obviously stupid and incapable of composing a thought that strays from the borg that controls your mind. Have a good day.

Yup, this is the same diaper rash meltdown I get every time I spell this out to the infantiles who can't deal with the fact that they've been outlogic-ed. It's like clockwork. Tick tock.

You've demonstrated zero logic in this thread. You are beyond contempt.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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

I actually worked this out yesterday -- the percentage of those found to test positive, relative to the entire base was 0.027% or 27 people out of every ten thousand.

You did figure it out yesterday.....but you're off by an order of magnitude today. Its 0.27%. Not 0.027%.

A quarter of a percent. Though in fairness, many of those ordered to test weren't tested. Many of them likely would have failed as well. Most of the drug testing averages to about 2.5%. A tiny though not insignificant number.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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

I actually worked this out yesterday -- the percentage of those found to test positive, relative to the entire base was 0.027% or 27 people out of every ten thousand.

You did figure it out yesterday.....but you're off by an order of magnitude today. Its 0.27%. Not 0.027%.

A quarter of a percent. Though in fairness, many of those ordered to test weren't tested. Many of them likely would have failed as well. Most of the drug testing averages to about 2.5%. A tiny though not insignificant number.

o0ops- typo. Thanks.

The point was, according to the results as stated and contrary to the implication of the OP, any one of us is more likely to know a Burmese person than a drug-using welfare recipient.

 

[Clementine]

Drug tests doesnt show what money was used for drugs goofball

If they have money for drugs, we shouldn't be funding them. You can't trust any addict with money. You can give them money for food but they will likely spend on their bad habits.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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

I actually worked this out yesterday -- the percentage of those found to test positive, relative to the entire base was 0.027% or 27 people out of every ten thousand.

You did figure it out yesterday.....but you're off by an order of magnitude today. Its 0.27%. Not 0.027%.

A quarter of a percent. Though in fairness, many of those ordered to test weren't tested. Many of them likely would have failed as well. Most of the drug testing averages to about 2.5%. A tiny though not insignificant number.

o0ops- typo. Thanks.

The point was, according to the results as stated and contrary to the implication of the OP, any one of us is more likely to know a Burmese person than a drug-using welfare recipient.

If we go with the actual results, the worst possible results, or even averages from other drug checks we get the same results: drug use is a fraction what it is for the general population.

And the reason is obvious: Drugs are expensive. People on welfare generally don't have money.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Drug tests doesnt show what money was used for drugs goofball

If they have money for drugs, we shouldn't be funding them. You can't trust any addict with money. You can give them money for food but they will likely spend on their bad habits.

Thats why the govt doesnt give them money.

 

[Skylar]

Drug tests doesnt show what money was used for drugs goofball

If they have money for drugs, we shouldn't be funding them. You can't trust any addict with money. You can give them money for food but they will likely spend on their bad habits.

If they're the one's buying the drugs, sure. But most of the drug fails tend to be for weed. And its not uncommon at all to toke up at a friend's house with the same casual tending of company that having your host get you a beer might evoke.

 

[Pogo]

Drug tests doesnt show what money was used for drugs goofball

If they have money for drugs, we shouldn't be funding them. You can't trust any addict with money. You can give them money for food but they will likely spend on their bad habits.

Unfortunately there's no test to determine "they have money for drugs". There's also not a test to determine they have money for cigarettes, money for booze, money for renting a movie or money for a new pair of pants, except for direct evidence.

Nor is there a test for "addicts". That's not even mentioned, nor is there a way to work it in.

This thing has more flying leaps than Barnum and Bailey. And Barnum has a famous quote that applies to its proponents who follow the pied piper emotional basis.

 

[francoHFW]

It ends up being abuse of people who are given pot by their friends because of how long it stays in the system, so it's another brainwashed Pub imaginary issue. Fugetaboutit! How bout an infrastructure jobs bill and training for 3 million tech jobs going begging, hater dupes? Ay caramba!

 

[francoHFW]

Drug tests doesnt show what money was used for drugs goofball

If they have money for drugs, we shouldn't be funding them. You can't trust any addict with money. You can give them money for food but they will likely spend on their bad habits.

If they have money, they have money to beat the test, so it's poor shmucks who get caught, dupe. Give it up, and try funding something constructive.

 

[Clementine]

Drug tests doesnt show what money was used for drugs goofball

If they have money for drugs, we shouldn't be funding them. You can't trust any addict with money. You can give them money for food but they will likely spend on their bad habits.

If they're the one's buying the drugs, sure. But most of the drug fails tend to be for weed. And its not uncommon at all to toke up at a friend's house with the same casual tending of company that having your host get you a beer might evoke.

It's irresponsible. They willingly engage in illegal activity. If they have children, that makes them even more stupid.

Doing any kind of drugs mean they are not worried about applying for a job, doesn't it? So many will test you for drugs and they clearly are not concerned about that.

It's funny how so many here assume they get the drugs for free.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Drug tests doesnt show what money was used for drugs goofball

If they have money for drugs, we shouldn't be funding them. You can't trust any addict with money. You can give them money for food but they will likely spend on their bad habits.

If they're the one's buying the drugs, sure. But most of the drug fails tend to be for weed. And its not uncommon at all to toke up at a friend's house with the same casual tending of company that having your host get you a beer might evoke.

It's irresponsible. They willingly engage in illegal activity. If they have children, that makes them even more stupid.

Doing any kind of drugs mean they are not worried about applying for a job, doesn't it? So many will test you for drugs and they clearly are not concerned about that.

It's funny how so many here assume they get the drugs for free.

I understand Drugs isnt your thing but other than going "OMG OMG" the entire argument you're making is emotional.

If the majority of people are testing positive for weed are you saying that every weed head must be irresponsible because.....weed?