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

[Publius1787]

sample

False. the 21 positives came out of only a population of people who have been doing drugs in the past:


"Social workers ask those being screened about drug use in the previous 12 months to determine whether to refer them for testing. People convicted of felony drug offenses in the three years before applying for benefits are also referred."

This means that 30 percent of druggies still can't pass a test. There were 21 positives out of 7,600 tested, which comes to .002 of those tested were found to test positive. The whole article was written in such a way as to lead one to false statistical conclusions. Put another way, assuming that each test cost $100, the state spent $760,000 to find 21 drug users, or $36,190 each!

Wrong, there were 21 positives out of 7600 screened. Only 89 were tested. Thus there were 21 out of 89 tested.

Read my above quoted (in blue) from YOUR source. The entire 89 sample includes ONLY people who admitted doing drugs in the last 12 months and those convicted of doing drugs in the last 3 years.

That's right. The 89 were the only ones tested for drugs. One 4th of them failed. I think they should have tested everyone who applied.

Can you read? They tested 7600 people, and 21 were found to have positive tests!

"Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive" I think this sums it up.

 

[Vandalshandle]

...and you, on the other hand, have no problem with innocent kids going without food, because their dad does drugs...

Again, why do you seek to respond with these emotional pleas rather than address the real problems?

You, it sounds like, would not want to kick a guy on welfare off of welfare for using illegal drugs if he has a child / children but have no problem leaving those kids in a home where the parent is on welfare and using illegal drugs.

If you are truly worried about the kids you wouldn't be as concerned with taking away the welfare as you would be with taking the children out of the home where the parents are struggling financially yet still using illegal drugs.

And at what point did this conversation become diverted to whether or not a child should be removed from someone's home?

 

[Publius1787]

...just because rightwingnuts like humiliating people for being poor ...

WHY do liberals hate enforcing the law, refuse to hold anyone accountable, and like portraying those who break the law as 'victims'?

A person is caught illegally doing drugs and is receiving tax payer-funded benefits while doing so, and a 'liberal nutbag' tries to pain the guy as a 'victim' while attacking those who want to enforce the law / hold the law-breakers somehow accountable....

That's just funny as hell....and pathetic....right there. It demonstrates one of the reasons why this country has gotten so F*ed up.

you're a moron.

liberals don't like starving children.

and we'd rather feed those children than unnecessarily spend money humiliating their parents if they get high occasionally. given that your posts sound like you're constantly high, you really shouldn't worry about anyone else.

now run along, troll boy

Indeed, liberals need a strong base of support so they need plenty of parents on welfare giving birth to their future impoverished party members who will no doubt mimic the welfare queen who spawned them. For without victims there is no Democrat party.

what a bunch of nonsense.

Strikes to the core of the matter doesn't it?

 

[Vandalshandle]

...just because rightwingnuts like humiliating people for being poor ...

WHY do liberals hate enforcing the law, refuse to hold anyone accountable, and like portraying those who break the law as 'victims'?

A person is caught illegally doing drugs and is receiving tax payer-funded benefits while doing so, and a 'liberal nutbag' tries to pain the guy as a 'victim' while attacking those who want to enforce the law / hold the law-breakers somehow accountable....

That's just funny as hell....and pathetic....right there. It demonstrates one of the reasons why this country has gotten so F*ed up.

...and you, on the other hand, have no problem with innocent kids going without food, because their dad does drugs...

I would venture to say that the majority of children on welfare are fatherless anyway, sooooooo . But I called your argument in another thread when I supported revoking benefits for failure to keep your legs shut while single and on welfare.

And once again, you are in favor of punishing the children for their parents sins.

A single mother goes out to murder another person. She gets caught on video camera and gets convicted. What is Vandalshandle argument to the prosecuting attorney? "you are in favor of punishing the children for their parents sins."

Say, what?

 

[easyt65]

you're a moron.

liberals don't like starving children.

and we'd rather feed those children than unnecessarily spend money humiliating their parents if they get high occasionally. given that your posts sound like you're constantly high, you really shouldn't worry about anyone else.

No, Liberals claim they are worried about the kids and that we need to leave children in the homes of poor, drug-using parents, and keep the money flowing, so they can buy more drugs. If you gave a damn about those kids you would not want to continue to support the parents' habit, you would want to identify which parents have kids yet are using illegals drugs in the home so you could address the problem and work to provide a safer environment in which the child could grow up.

No, again, you seek to make the drug-using parent with children out to be a victim and claim letting them continue their tax-payer funded drug use is 'in the best interest of the child'.

 

[Publius1787]

...and you, on the other hand, have no problem with innocent kids going without food, because their dad does drugs...

Again, why do you seek to respond with these emotional pleas rather than address the real problems?

You, it sounds like, would not want to kick a guy on welfare off of welfare for using illegal drugs if he has a child / children but have no problem leaving those kids in a home where the parent is on welfare and using illegal drugs.

If you are truly worried about the kids you wouldn't be as concerned with taking away the welfare as you would be with taking the children out of the home where the parents are struggling financially yet still using illegal drugs.

And at what point did this conversation become diverted to whether or not a child should be removed from someone's home?

It was only a matter of time.

 

[Vandalshandle]

False. the 21 positives came out of only a population of people who have been doing drugs in the past:


"Social workers ask those being screened about drug use in the previous 12 months to determine whether to refer them for testing. People convicted of felony drug offenses in the three years before applying for benefits are also referred."

This means that 30 percent of druggies still can't pass a test. There were 21 positives out of 7,600 tested, which comes to .002 of those tested were found to test positive. The whole article was written in such a way as to lead one to false statistical conclusions. Put another way, assuming that each test cost $100, the state spent $760,000 to find 21 drug users, or $36,190 each!

Wrong, there were 21 positives out of 7600 screened. Only 89 were tested. Thus there were 21 out of 89 tested.

Read my above quoted (in blue) from YOUR source. The entire 89 sample includes ONLY people who admitted doing drugs in the last 12 months and those convicted of doing drugs in the last 3 years.

That's right. The 89 were the only ones tested for drugs. One 4th of them failed. I think they should have tested everyone who applied.

Can you read? They tested 7600 people, and 21 were found to have positive tests!

"Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive" I think this sums it up.

The article is clearly misleading people to think that 30% of welfare recipients are on drugs. The correct number is .2% of welfare recipients are on drugs.

 

[Publius1787]

you're a moron.

liberals don't like starving children.

and we'd rather feed those children than unnecessarily spend money humiliating their parents if they get high occasionally. given that your posts sound like you're constantly high, you really shouldn't worry about anyone else.

No, Liberals claim they are worried about the kids and that we need to leave children in the homes of poor, drug-using parents, and keep the money flowing, so they can buy more drugs. If you gave a damn about those kids you would not want to continue to support the parents' habit, you would want to identify which parents have kids yet are using illegals drugs in the home so you could address the problem and work to provide a safer environment in which the child could grow up.

No, again, you seek to make the drug-using parent with children out to be a victim and claim letting them continue their tax-payer funded drug use is 'in the best interest of the child'.

"But ... but.... but.... It's for the children," said every liberal trying to throw sympathy in the face of logic.

 

[Billy000]

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."

Tested for what? Weed? Who cares? The sheer cost to implement such a program would be more expensive than the welfare programs themselves.

 

[Publius1787]

Wrong, there were 21 positives out of 7600 screened. Only 89 were tested. Thus there were 21 out of 89 tested.

Read my above quoted (in blue) from YOUR source. The entire 89 sample includes ONLY people who admitted doing drugs in the last 12 months and those convicted of doing drugs in the last 3 years.

That's right. The 89 were the only ones tested for drugs. One 4th of them failed. I think they should have tested everyone who applied.

Can you read? They tested 7600 people, and 21 were found to have positive tests!

"Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive" I think this sums it up.

The article is clearly misleading people to think that 30% of welfare recipients are on drugs. The correct number is .2% of welfare recipients are on drugs.

.2% of the total is misleading. We don't know how many did drugs because most of them weren't tested.

 

[easyt65]

And at what point did this conversation become diverted to whether or not a child should be removed from someone's home?

It was when I stated my opinion that drug users should not be allowed to receive benefits and at that point an emotional liberal asked, 'What about the poor wittle starving children living in homes where their parents do illegal drugs?'

 

[Publius1787]

And at what point did this conversation become diverted to whether or not a child should be removed from someone's home?

It was when I stated my opinion that drug users should not be allowed to receive benefits and at that point an emotional liberal asked, 'What about the poor wittle starving children living in homes where their parents do illegal drugs?'

Unfortunately I don't think we can make a law that will successfully prevent welfare queens from utilizing their neither regions as a public utility. Furthermore, incentivizing them with a monetary reward making them comfortable in their poverty will not reverse the trend of welfare babies.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Read my above quoted (in blue) from YOUR source. The entire 89 sample includes ONLY people who admitted doing drugs in the last 12 months and those convicted of doing drugs in the last 3 years.

That's right. The 89 were the only ones tested for drugs. One 4th of them failed. I think they should have tested everyone who applied.

Can you read? They tested 7600 people, and 21 were found to have positive tests!

"Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive" I think this sums it up.

The article is clearly misleading people to think that 30% of welfare recipients are on drugs. The correct number is .2% of welfare recipients are on drugs.

.2% of the total is misleading. We don't know how many did drugs because most of them weren't tested.

You aren't fooling anyone, Pub. The title to this thread is misleading. It is the same as if you were to count blacks doing drugs in Harlem, and then claim that 100% of drug abusers are black, based on your "sample".

 

[Publius1787]

That's right. The 89 were the only ones tested for drugs. One 4th of them failed. I think they should have tested everyone who applied.

Can you read? They tested 7600 people, and 21 were found to have positive tests!

"Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive" I think this sums it up.

The article is clearly misleading people to think that 30% of welfare recipients are on drugs. The correct number is .2% of welfare recipients are on drugs.

.2% of the total is misleading. We don't know how many did drugs because most of them weren't tested.

You aren't fooling anyone, Pub. The title to this thread is misleading. It is the same as if you were to count blacks doing drugs in Harlem, and then claim that 100% of drug abusers are black, based on your "sample".

Not quite. So we both agree they should test all welfare applicants if for nothing more than to get the correct data?

 

[Pogo]

you're a moron.

liberals don't like starving children.

and we'd rather feed those children than unnecessarily spend money humiliating their parents if they get high occasionally. given that your posts sound like you're constantly high, you really shouldn't worry about anyone else.

No, Liberals claim they are worried about the kids and that we need to leave children in the homes of poor, drug-using parents, and keep the money flowing, so they can buy more drugs. If you gave a damn about those kids you would not want to continue to support the parents' habit, you would want to identify which parents have kids yet are using illegals drugs in the home so you could address the problem and work to provide a safer environment in which the child could grow up.

No, again, you seek to make the drug-using parent with children out to be a victim and claim letting them continue their tax-payer funded drug use is 'in the best interest of the child'.

"But ... but.... but.... It's for the children," said every liberal trying to throw sympathy in the face of logic.

Actually --- it's for everybody. It's part of the Constitution being spat on. Amendment Four to be specific.

 

[Publius1787]

you're a moron.

liberals don't like starving children.

and we'd rather feed those children than unnecessarily spend money humiliating their parents if they get high occasionally. given that your posts sound like you're constantly high, you really shouldn't worry about anyone else.

No, Liberals claim they are worried about the kids and that we need to leave children in the homes of poor, drug-using parents, and keep the money flowing, so they can buy more drugs. If you gave a damn about those kids you would not want to continue to support the parents' habit, you would want to identify which parents have kids yet are using illegals drugs in the home so you could address the problem and work to provide a safer environment in which the child could grow up.

No, again, you seek to make the drug-using parent with children out to be a victim and claim letting them continue their tax-payer funded drug use is 'in the best interest of the child'.

"But ... but.... but.... It's for the children," said every liberal trying to throw sympathy in the face of logic.

Actually --- it's for everybody. It's part of the Constitution being spat on. Amendment Four to be specific.

Yeah, tell that to every administrator of every drug test I took in the Marines. Drugs are certainly probable cause for a house visit from social services.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Can you read? They tested 7600 people, and 21 were found to have positive tests!

"Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive" I think this sums it up.

The article is clearly misleading people to think that 30% of welfare recipients are on drugs. The correct number is .2% of welfare recipients are on drugs.

.2% of the total is misleading. We don't know how many did drugs because most of them weren't tested.

You aren't fooling anyone, Pub. The title to this thread is misleading. It is the same as if you were to count blacks doing drugs in Harlem, and then claim that 100% of drug abusers are black, based on your "sample".

Not quite. So we both agree they should test all welfare applicants if for nothing more than to get the correct data?

Just how much money per welfare recipient do you think that North Carolina should spend weeding out drug users? I suspect that the actual cost of a drug test is around $200. It would have to be repeated on at least a random basis periodically, in order to catch those that fall off the wagon, just like businesses do. And exactly what is the state's responsibility toward the children whose food you just took off the table, and how much is THAT going to cost the state. And, what about the needed personnel to administer all of this? I thought that big intrusive government was bad. What I see here is government ballooning even more to know everything there is about us. Whether mom smokes pot, or not, those kids have to eat. That has always been the parents responsibility, but if you are going to take their food away, you had better start building orphans homes. Then the state can balloon some more by taking over the job of raising our kids.

 

[Publius1787]

"Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive" I think this sums it up.

The article is clearly misleading people to think that 30% of welfare recipients are on drugs. The correct number is .2% of welfare recipients are on drugs.

.2% of the total is misleading. We don't know how many did drugs because most of them weren't tested.

You aren't fooling anyone, Pub. The title to this thread is misleading. It is the same as if you were to count blacks doing drugs in Harlem, and then claim that 100% of drug abusers are black, based on your "sample".

Not quite. So we both agree they should test all welfare applicants if for nothing more than to get the correct data?

Just how much money per welfare recipient do you think that North Carolina should spend weeding out drug users? I suspect that the actual cost of a drug test is around $200. It would have to be repeated on at least a random basis periodically, in order to catch those that fall off the wagon, just like businesses do. And exactly what is the state's responsibility toward the children whose food you just took off the table, and how much is THAT going to cost the state. And, what about the needed personnel to administer all of this? I thought that big intrusive government was bad. What I see here is government ballooning even more to know everything there is about us. Whether mom smokes pot, or not, those kids have to eat. That has always been the parents responsibility, but if you are going to take their food away, you had better start building orphans homes.

Or breeding licenses. I wouldn't mind a law forbidding those on public assistance from having children. As for those who had children before they got on public assistance, well, that'll be another story. Nevertheless, drug use is probable cause for a social services visit into the household. We certainly don't need crack heads raising children now do we?

But but... but.. but. ITS FOR THE KIDS!!!!!!



Of course, welfare is incentivizing child rearing. Seems like a cyclical problem to me.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The article is clearly misleading people to think that 30% of welfare recipients are on drugs. The correct number is .2% of welfare recipients are on drugs.

.2% of the total is misleading. We don't know how many did drugs because most of them weren't tested.

You aren't fooling anyone, Pub. The title to this thread is misleading. It is the same as if you were to count blacks doing drugs in Harlem, and then claim that 100% of drug abusers are black, based on your "sample".

Not quite. So we both agree they should test all welfare applicants if for nothing more than to get the correct data?

Just how much money per welfare recipient do you think that North Carolina should spend weeding out drug users? I suspect that the actual cost of a drug test is around $200. It would have to be repeated on at least a random basis periodically, in order to catch those that fall off the wagon, just like businesses do. And exactly what is the state's responsibility toward the children whose food you just took off the table, and how much is THAT going to cost the state. And, what about the needed personnel to administer all of this? I thought that big intrusive government was bad. What I see here is government ballooning even more to know everything there is about us. Whether mom smokes pot, or not, those kids have to eat. That has always been the parents responsibility, but if you are going to take their food away, you had better start building orphans homes.

Or breeding licenses. I wouldn't mind a law forbidding those on public assistance from having children. As for those who had children before they got on public assistance, well, that'll be another story. Nevertheless, drug use is probable cause for a social services visit into the household. We certainly don't need crack heads raising children now do we?

But but... but.. but. ITS FOR THE KIDS!!!!!!

Then you would be perfectly happy living in China, because they do exactly what you are suggesting. You been reading a lot of Mao's little red book lately?

 

[Care4all]

this is what the originating article states:


North Carolina begins drug tests for welfare applicants
[email protected]

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. After a year’s delay in implementing the law, the state began requiring the testing in August.

Of 7,600 applicants and recipients, about 2 percent were referred for drug testing. The 21 positive tests represent less than 0.3 percent of the people screened.

Work First is the state welfare program that offers short-term cash benefits, training and support services to families. In about 62 percent of Work First cases, only children get benefits — and no adults fall under the test requirement.

The program starts with screening of applicants and benefit recipients. About 7,600 people were screened in the last five months of 2015, said Wayne Black, director of the Social Services Division at the state Department of Health and Human Services.

Social workers ask those being screened about drug use in the previous 12 months to determine whether to refer them for testing. People convicted of felony drug offenses in the three years before applying for benefits are also referred.

Benefits for adults are cut off if a test is positive, or a test appointment is missed. Seventy people failed to show up for appointments in the last five months of last year, Black told the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Health and Human Services. The totals for 2015 may be off, he said, because some applications filed in December would not have been processed until January.

Of the 21 positive cases, 12 were approved for a reduced payment because children were involved. In the others, the applications were withdrawn or were disqualified for other reasons, Black said.