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

[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.

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

Depends on the consequences. In the case of weed, its far less dangerous than alcohol. And I doubt we'd demand that anyone who had a beer be kicked off of welfare.

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.

Depends on the job.

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

We don't make the assumption that they get the drugs for free. Quite the opposite, we assume that they'd usually have to buy them. Which is why drug use among those on welfare is so much less common than in the general public.

What is being disputed is that any positive drug test means that they MUST have purchased drugs. That's not necessarily the case. Its probably true. But there's a decent chance that its not.

 

[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.

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.

That is why there are more poor under Obana than any other President?

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I agree, if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is intoxicated with alcohol or tobacco, they should be tested and then the benefits taken away.

 

[Meathead]

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.

I agree, if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is intoxicated with alcohol or tobacco, they should be tested and then the benefits taken away.

In my mind, recent use of alcohol, tobacco and weed should be disregarded in testing. I don't consider them hard or expensive enough to warrant enough to preclude benefits.

 

[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.

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.

That is why there are more poor under Obana than any other President?

No, just voodoo tax rates and policies continuing, defended to the death by greedy PUBS AND BRAINWASHED DUPES...

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

I agree, if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is intoxicated with alcohol or tobacco, they should be tested and then the benefits taken away.

In my mind, recent use of alcohol, tobacco and weed should be disregarded in testing. I don't consider them hard or expensive enough to warrant enough to preclude benefits.

Tobacco in Canada is far more expensive than weed. I use $50 in weed a month for persistent insomnia, which has plagued me since I was a teenager. That's my cost for the weed today. I have a prescription.

My ex was spending $300+ per month on his cigarettes. I don't know how much a pack of cigarettes costs in the US, but here they are heavily taxed and sell for over $13.00 a pack.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

I agree, if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is intoxicated with alcohol or tobacco, they should be tested and then the benefits taken away.

That would be illegal. The poor fools are thrown into rehab classes, costing even more.

 

[Pogo]

It's irresponsible. They willingly engage in illegal activity.

Irrelevant. Law enforcement is the job of the police, not social welfare agencies. And besides that, you don't now that they "willingly engaged in illegal activity". All you know is that there's a certain substance in the body; you don't know the circumstances under which it got there. Not even legitimate law enforcement could find a crime simply on the presence of some chemical, as the simple presence of that chemical is not illegal. And even then it would have to be the result of a legal search, which this test certainly would not be.

And even that is ass-uming the test result itself isn't a false positive.

Did you know the flea can leap a hundred times its own height? I suspect you do, since your own leaps are comparable.

oing 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.

Anyone can, and should, flatly refuse to take such a test. Period. And for exactly the same reasons.

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

Actually what's funny is y'all that ass-ume they didn't. Planet Ferengi where nothing happens without money changing hands. It belies a fundamental ignorance of how the world works.

 

[Dragonlady]

That is why there are more poor under Obana than any other President?

There are more poor under Obama because the numbers, have continued to rise since Reagan revised the tax code in the early 80's. Food stamp usage under Reagan doubled within 2 years of his tax cuts, in spite of the tightening of the application and income requirements to obtain them.

In every jurisdiction where the Chicago School of Economics principles were applied, the result was the same: lower wages, higher prices, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Milton Friedman said that it was Reagan's fault because he didn't cut the social safety net sufficiently, and social programs were dragging the economy down. Sound familiar? Friedman was adamantly opposed to the social safety net.

After the bloodbaths that resulted after the South American experiment with Milton Friedman's free market in the 1970's, the system was scrapped as an abject failure by all of the governments that tried it. In each case, prices rose, wages stagnated or dropped, and life got very miserable for the working poor.

Since Reagan changed the tax code, the USA has seen the most massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the top 10%, that the world has ever seen.

 

[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.

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.

That is why there are more poor under Obana than any other President?

No, just voodoo tax rates and policies continuing, defended to the death by greedy PUBS AND BRAINWASHED DUPES...

Lol! The Dems aren't smart enough to get things done.

 

[Papageorgio]

That is why there are more poor under Obana than any other President?

There are more poor under Obama because the numbers, have continued to rise since Reagan revised the tax code in the early 80's. Food stamp usage under Reagan doubled within 2 years of his tax cuts, in spite of the tightening of the application and income requirements to obtain them.

In every jurisdiction where the Chicago School of Economics principles were applied, the result was the same: lower wages, higher prices, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Milton Friedman said that it was Reagan's fault because he didn't cut the social safety net sufficiently, and social programs were dragging the economy down. Sound familiar? Friedman was adamantly opposed to the social safety net.

After the bloodbaths that resulted after the South American experiment with Milton Friedman's free market in the 1970's, the system was scrapped as an abject failure by all of the governments that tried it. In each case, prices rose, wages stagnated or dropped, and life got very miserable for the working poor.

Since Reagan changed the tax code, the USA has seen the most massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the top 10%, that the world has ever seen.

And democrats are so incompetent that 28 years after the Reagan disaster, the democrats are paralyzed to fix anything. Lol!