Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
CaféAuLait;8827201 said:CaféAuLait;8827122 said:As pointed out in this article the reason the program fails in Arizona is the way they determine probable cause to test, a potential recipient can lie without penalty.
Drug testing welfare applicants nets little ? USATODAY.com
Arizona only tests those applicants who admit to drug use within the last 30 days.
Seems to me if any program were to work it can't rely on self incrimination or allowing one to lie, such a program would have to do pop drug testing if a state wishes it to work.
The reason why only one person tested positive is only a few dozen said they did drugs in the past 30 days and less than that were tested.
Drug testing welfare applicants nets little ? USATODAY.com
Lol even if the Arizona study was flawed, it's still clear that drug abuse among welfare recipients in that state is still quite low with those variables in mind. It also does nothing to negate the other studies showing no significance. The other studies are based on actual drug test results. The bottom line is that it really isn't much of a problem. Why? Because welfare recipients get peanuts anyways
Take food stamps for example. The average recipient lives in a household with a total monthly income of $744 a MONTH. The average recipient only receives $133 a month.
SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
LOL what? Sorry I don't understand. Given Arizona tested about dozen people only (Not 84,000 that applied) and only one came up positive, while another 1,600 plus refused to return the drug testing materials making them ineligible, does nothing to show the testing costs more or there are less drug users.
Haven't the slightest clue how you can say Arizona's study was flawed given the potential recipient can lie without consequence, only about a dozen people were tested and another 1600 refused to return paperwork to be tested.
The only way anything like this would work is if surprise testing were enforced. That would be the only way to prove or disprove anything, yes?
When the people that write and pass the laws are drug tested equality will triumph...
Democrats and Republicans? The people you vote for?
Every post you guys get dumber.
CaféAuLait;8827208 said:I have no issue with people doing drugs, it's their life... But you sound so utterly ignorant and blissfully stupid it's almost hard to believe.
Your OP has 0% credibility when it was shown that in order to be tested you has to say "yes" to drug use in the last 30 days. If a study were done where they just showed up and tested people randomly without giving people a heads up or a choice, you would claim it was against peoples will and that's why the study does not count... Of course in that study it wouldn't be shocking if people tested at over 50% using drugs.
It's about paying for other peoples way while they spend their own money on drugs. That's the issue you hyper bias moron.
No you tool. Even if the Arizona study was flawed, it does nothing to negate the other three studies discussed with results based on actual drug test results.
How many people were tested in Arizona? Only a few dozen, and the test is predicated on the potential recipient telling the truth. They are permitted to lie, and or refuse to return the paperwork to be tested.
How can this be anything to prove any study?
Your premise is FLAWED if the potential recipient can lie and or just refuse to return the test. Sheesh!
CaféAuLait;8827201 said:Lol even if the Arizona study was flawed, it's still clear that drug abuse among welfare recipients in that state is still quite low with those variables in mind. It also does nothing to negate the other studies showing no significance. The other studies are based on actual drug test results. The bottom line is that it really isn't much of a problem. Why? Because welfare recipients get peanuts anyways
Take food stamps for example. The average recipient lives in a household with a total monthly income of $744 a MONTH. The average recipient only receives $133 a month.
SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
LOL what? Sorry I don't understand. Given Arizona tested about dozen people only (Not 84,000 that applied) and only one came up positive, while another 1,600 plus refused to return the drug testing materials making them ineligible, does nothing to show the testing costs more or there are less drug users.
Haven't the slightest clue how you can say Arizona's study was flawed given the potential recipient can lie without consequence, only about a dozen people were tested and another 1600 refused to return paperwork to be tested.
The only way anything like this would work is if surprise testing were enforced. That would be the only way to prove or disprove anything, yes?
Lol good god you people cling to the most feeble of arguments. Why are you just ignoring the results from the other studies?
Many people use drugs. It really shouldn't surprise anyone a small percentage of welfare recipients use them too. It doesn't even mean these people are necessarily buying drugs to use them. Poor people have friends.
CaféAuLait;8827208 said:No you tool. Even if the Arizona study was flawed, it does nothing to negate the other three studies discussed with results based on actual drug test results.
How many people were tested in Arizona? Only a few dozen, and the test is predicated on the potential recipient telling the truth. They are permitted to lie, and or refuse to return the paperwork to be tested.
How can this be anything to prove any study?
Your premise is FLAWED if the potential recipient can lie and or just refuse to return the test. Sheesh!
I still don't get why you are ignoring the other 3 studies I posted
If you used a different methodology for the AZ study, the results would still be similar. How are you not getting this?
CaféAuLait;8827245 said:CaféAuLait;8827208 said:How many people were tested in Arizona? Only a few dozen, and the test is predicated on the potential recipient telling the truth. They are permitted to lie, and or refuse to return the paperwork to be tested.
How can this be anything to prove any study?
Your premise is FLAWED if the potential recipient can lie and or just refuse to return the test. Sheesh!
I still don't get why you are ignoring the other 3 studies I posted
If you used a different methodology for the AZ study, the results would still be similar. How are you not getting this?
A. I saw ONE study.
B. As I said, unless each of those states do 'pop' or 'surprise' testing at any given time the results will be flawed if the potential recipient can lie without consequence.
Studies show that people on welfare who use drugs is quite low.
Studies show that people on welfare who use drugs is quite low.
Most people on welfare can't afford drugs. The cheapest drug is alcohol, which leaves your system within 12 hours. So, I would expect illegal drug use to be well below average.
However, I think these tests are a good thing. Taxpayers have the right to feel that they are making their own sacrifice for the truly needy. Investing in some reassurance is comforting.
I've had the misfortune to meet quite a few "disabled" people during my 2 years of living right next to Golden Gate Park. Their disability was mostly that they liked to sit around and smoke dope rather than taking a bath and working. What they might represent as a percentage, I do not know. But it is pretty clear that some people are blatantly getting free rides and it makes the real people look bad. So to me, it's worth the effort and expense of rational policies and rigid verification. If not for the sake of the taxpayer, then let it be for the dignity of the truly disabled or needy.
CaféAuLait;8827245 said:I still don't get why you are ignoring the other 3 studies I posted
If you used a different methodology for the AZ study, the results would still be similar. How are you not getting this?
A. I saw ONE study.
B. As I said, unless each of those states do 'pop' or 'surprise' testing at any given time the results will be flawed if the potential recipient can lie without consequence.
There were three studies cited in the article of my OP and I posted another in the second post.
Also, I proved how much assets food stamps recipients have. Buying drugs is not realistic.
Give it up. You people got nothing.
The figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. An additional 2 percent declined to take the test. The Justice Department estimates that 6 percent of Americans 12 and older use illegal drugs.
Studies show that people on welfare who use drugs is quite low.
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use - The Daily Beast
As you can see, another issue exposes just how full of shit republicans actually are.
Again. I'm not bias on the topic but the studies are slanted. HARD DRUGS stay in your system only for days and WEED stays in your system for months.
And as the study said, you have to say "yes" to being tested... Shocking how well over 50% of the population smokes weed yet when they are on welfare it suddenly becomes a 3% number...
It's so fucking stupid it's hard to believe this was posted on these boards.
CaféAuLait;8827285 said:CaféAuLait;8827245 said:A. I saw ONE study.
B. As I said, unless each of those states do 'pop' or 'surprise' testing at any given time the results will be flawed if the potential recipient can lie without consequence.
There were three studies cited in the article of my OP and I posted another in the second post.
Also, I proved how much assets food stamps recipients have. Buying drugs is not realistic.
Give it up. You people got nothing.
You have yet to even address the numbers I posted above, which disprove your theory.
From your second post it says:
The figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. An additional 2 percent declined to take the test. The Justice Department estimates that 6 percent of Americans 12 and older use illegal drugs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/us/florida-few-drug-users-among-welfare-applicants.html
Leaving the fact that 2 percent refused to be tested, which may potentially bump that figure up to "4.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants" if they tested positive.
Additionally, I'm quite sure that the state of Florida is not testing the children of those applying for welfare, unless you are suggesting they are testing 12, 13, 14 and 15 year olds and up.
Florida is testing the adults applying for the program not their children. So for the stats to work above, it should only include those heads of family's or adults in their percent of Americans using illegal drugs.
Your 'study' is flawed.
CaféAuLait;8827122 said:As pointed out in this article the reason the program fails in Arizona is the way they determine probable cause to test, a potential recipient can lie without penalty.
Drug testing welfare applicants nets little ? USATODAY.com
Arizona only tests those applicants who admit to drug use within the last 30 days.
Seems to me if any program were to work it can't rely on self incrimination or allowing one to lie, such a program would have to do pop drug testing if a state wishes it to work.
The reason why only one person tested positive is only a few dozen said they did drugs in the past 30 days and less than that were tested.
Drug testing welfare applicants nets little ? USATODAY.com
Lol even if the Arizona study was flawed, it's still clear that drug abuse among welfare recipients in that state is still quite low with those variables in mind. It also does nothing to negate the other studies showing no significance. The bottom line is that it really isn't much of a problem. Why? Because welfare recipients get peanuts anyways
Take food stamps for example. The average recipient lives in a household with a total monthly income of $744 a MONTH. The average recipient only receives $133 a month.
SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
I have no issue with people doing drugs, it's their life... But you sound so utterly ignorant and blissfully stupid it's almost hard to believe.
Your OP has 0% credibility when it was shown that in order to be tested you has to say "yes" to drug use in the last 30 days. If a study were done where they just showed up and tested people randomly without giving people a heads up or a choice, you would claim it was against peoples will and that's why the study does not count... Of course in that study it wouldn't be shocking if people tested at over 50% using drugs.
It's about paying for other peoples way while they spend their own money on drugs. That's the issue you hyper bias moron.
Studies show that people on welfare who use drugs is quite low.
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use - The Daily Beast
The most colossal failure of this policy was in Arizona, which passed a drug-testing law in 2009. In 2012, an evaluation of the program had startling results: After three years and 87,000 screenings, only one person had failed the drug test, with huge costs for the state, which saved a few hundred dollars by denying benefits, compared to the hundreds of thousands spent to conduct the tests.
The myth of welfare recipients spending their benefits on drugs is just thata myth. And indeed, in Utah, only 12 people out of 466or 2.5 percentshowed evidence of drug use after a mandatory screening. The total cost to the state was $25,000, or far more than the cost of providing benefits to a dozen people. The only thing gained from mandatory drug testing is the humiliation of desperate people.
Which, judging from the GOPs continued enthusiasm for the idea, is enough. In Ohio, for instance, state senator Tim Schaffer has introduced legislation that would establish a drug-testing program for the states welfare program. It is time that we recognize that many families are trying to survive in drug-induced poverty, and we have an obligation to make sure taxpayer money is not being used to support drug dealers, Schaffer said. We can no longer turn a blind eye to this problem.
If Ohio is anything like Florida, which also has a drug-testing program, Schaffer will find that the large majority of welfare recipients are neither drug users nor drug dealers. From 2011 to 2012, just 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test faileda rate of 2.6 percent, compared to a national drug use rate of over 8 percent. The total cost to Florida taxpayers? $45,780.
As you can see, another issue exposes just how full of shit republicans actually are.
CaféAuLait;8827285 said:There were three studies cited in the article of my OP and I posted another in the second post.
Also, I proved how much assets food stamps recipients have. Buying drugs is not realistic.
Give it up. You people got nothing.
You have yet to even address the numbers I posted above, which disprove your theory.
From your second post it says:
The figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. An additional 2 percent declined to take the test. The Justice Department estimates that 6 percent of Americans 12 and older use illegal drugs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/us/florida-few-drug-users-among-welfare-applicants.html
Leaving the fact that 2 percent refused to be tested, which may potentially bump that figure up to "4.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants" if they tested positive.
Additionally, I'm quite sure that the state of Florida is not testing the children of those applying for welfare, unless you are suggesting they are testing 12, 13, 14 and 15 year olds and up.
Florida is testing the adults applying for the program not their children. So for the stats to work above, it should only include those heads of family's or adults in their percent of Americans using illegal drugs.
Your 'study' is flawed.
Lol dude you are pathetic. Their children? Really? You are such a dweeb. The issue is welfare recipients buying drugs. The studies show very few of them do. Obviously if their kids even are, it isn't through gov funds or their parents.
You people are jokes.
The figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. An additional 2 percent declined to take the test. The Justice Department estimates that 6 percent of Americans 12 and older use illegal drugs
CaféAuLait;8827335 said:CaféAuLait;8827285 said:You have yet to even address the numbers I posted above, which disprove your theory.
From your second post it says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/us/florida-few-drug-users-among-welfare-applicants.html
Leaving the fact that 2 percent refused to be tested, which may potentially bump that figure up to "4.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants" if they tested positive.
Additionally, I'm quite sure that the state of Florida is not testing the children of those applying for welfare, unless you are suggesting they are testing 12, 13, 14 and 15 year olds and up.
Florida is testing the adults applying for the program not their children. So for the stats to work above, it should only include those heads of family's or adults in their percent of Americans using illegal drugs.
Your 'study' is flawed.
Lol dude you are pathetic. Their children? Really? You are such a dweeb. The issue is welfare recipients buying drugs. The studies show very few of them do. Obviously if their kids even are, it isn't through gov funds or their parents.
You people are jokes.
Wow, you just are not getting it.
Your "study" said this to back up the supposed fact welfare recipients were were testing less than the national average:
The figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. An additional 2 percent declined to take the test. The Justice Department estimates that 6 percent of Americans 12 and older use illegal drugs
Your "study" included statistics of illegal drugs users across America being "children 12 and up"! For "your study" to work that stat to include welfare recipients should have ONLY included adults or head of household if 18 or younger. Unless of course you are saying Florida is drug testing children in the recipients family.
Again, your supposed study if far past flawed.
CaféAuLait;8827335 said:Lol dude you are pathetic. Their children? Really? You are such a dweeb. The issue is welfare recipients buying drugs. The studies show very few of them do. Obviously if their kids even are, it isn't through gov funds or their parents.
You people are jokes.
Wow, you just are not getting it.
Your "study" said this to back up the supposed fact welfare recipients were were testing less than the national average:
The figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. An additional 2 percent declined to take the test. The Justice Department estimates that 6 percent of Americans 12 and older use illegal drugs
Your "study" included statistics of illegal drugs users across America being "children 12 and up"! For "your study" to work that stat to include welfare recipients should have ONLY included adults or head of household if 18 or younger. Unless of course you are saying Florida is drug testing children in the recipients family.
Again, your supposed study if far past flawed.
Does your stupidity know no bounds? That is 6% of Americans in general you ass clown. Not 6% of kids on welfare. You people crack me up. And even if it was as high as 4% as you claim in that study which is still feeble, there is no evidence that all of those people used money to buy them. For chrissakes, these people have friends. You can use drugs without buying them.
And once again you ignore the facts about the assets food stamp recipients have. They can't even afford drugs.
Give it a rest dude. You lost the argument and you know it.
CaféAuLait;8827370 said:CaféAuLait;8827335 said:Wow, you just are not getting it.
Your "study" said this to back up the supposed fact welfare recipients were were testing less than the national average:
Your "study" included statistics of illegal drugs users across America being "children 12 and up"! For "your study" to work that stat to include welfare recipients should have ONLY included adults or head of household if 18 or younger. Unless of course you are saying Florida is drug testing children in the recipients family.
Again, your supposed study if far past flawed.
Does your stupidity know no bounds? That is 6% of Americans in general you ass clown. Not 6% of kids on welfare. You people crack me up. And even if it was as high as 4% as you claim in that study which is still feeble, there is no evidence that all of those people used money to buy them. For chrissakes, these people have friends. You can use drugs without buying them.
And once again you ignore the facts about the assets food stamp recipients have. They can't even afford drugs.
Give it a rest dude. You lost the argument and you know it.
I think you are being obtuse now. I never said anything you imply and you know it.
Your "study" to back up its claim is saying the national average of illegals drug users is 6 percent and that number counts people aged 12 and up- CHILDREN.
For your study to have merit, the number should have only included ADULTS and not children from the ages of 12 to 17, it skews the flippin numbers since it would be adults applying for welfare or heads of households, presumably 18 and older!
By only including adults illegal drug users it would LOWER the national average of illegal drug users. Your "study" used flawed numbers ( which you know and won't admit) for its "national drug users" it should not have included children. Instead it should have used adults only to compare to those applying for welfare.
CaféAuLait;8827370 said:Does your stupidity know no bounds? That is 6% of Americans in general you ass clown. Not 6% of kids on welfare. You people crack me up. And even if it was as high as 4% as you claim in that study which is still feeble, there is no evidence that all of those people used money to buy them. For chrissakes, these people have friends. You can use drugs without buying them.
And once again you ignore the facts about the assets food stamp recipients have. They can't even afford drugs.
Give it a rest dude. You lost the argument and you know it.
I think you are being obtuse now. I never said anything you imply and you know it.
Your "study" to back up its claim is saying the national average of illegals drug users is 6 percent and that number counts people aged 12 and up- CHILDREN.
For your study to have merit, the number should have only included ADULTS and not children from the ages of 12 to 17, it skews the flippin numbers since it would be adults applying for welfare or heads of households, presumably 18 and older!
By only including adults illegal drug users it would LOWER the national average of illegal drug users. Your "study" used flawed numbers ( which you know and won't admit) for its "national drug users" it should not have included children. Instead it should have used adults only to compare to those applying for welfare.
Are you even listening to yourself? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are making false connections between kid and adult users. KIDS DO NOT RECEIVE WELFARE BENEFITS. Only adults do. They control the assets. You automatically assume all the kids of these adults are doing drugs which is stupid. You really think any kids who do drugs get them from their parents?
The figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. An additional 2 percent declined to take the test. The Justice Department estimates that 6 percent of Americans 12 and older use illegal drugs
CaféAuLait;8827481 said:CaféAuLait;8827370 said:I think you are being obtuse now. I never said anything you imply and you know it.
Your "study" to back up its claim is saying the national average of illegals drug users is 6 percent and that number counts people aged 12 and up- CHILDREN.
For your study to have merit, the number should have only included ADULTS and not children from the ages of 12 to 17, it skews the flippin numbers since it would be adults applying for welfare or heads of households, presumably 18 and older!
By only including adults illegal drug users it would LOWER the national average of illegal drug users. Your "study" used flawed numbers ( which you know and won't admit) for its "national drug users" it should not have included children. Instead it should have used adults only to compare to those applying for welfare.
Are you even listening to yourself? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are making false connections between kid and adult users. KIDS DO NOT RECEIVE WELFARE BENEFITS. Only adults do. They control the assets. You automatically assume all the kids of these adults are doing drugs which is stupid. You really think any kids who do drugs get them from their parents?
I never said kids needed to get tested or that kids were doing drugs or that kids applied for welfare. How you managed to twist my showing the numbers were flawed to what you did must have taken some staggering contortionist moves!
You seem to be having a issue with comprehension this morning. You kept citing your "study" there was no study but stats which were used to try to
prove those getting welfare in FL had a lower rate of drug use nationwide. To back the claim your " study" used this for FL welfare rates of drug users verses the national average.
The figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families have tested positive since the law went into effect in July. An additional 2 percent declined to take the test. The Justice Department estimates that 6 percent of Americans 12 and older use illegal drugs
Given 2.5 percent tested positive and 2 percent refused to be tested this could potentially lead to a rate of 4.5 percent of recipients using. Given the national average uses children to get the 6 percent rate ( when your study should NOT have included children) since adults are the ones who apply the numbers are skewed. MeAning the national rate of drug users would be lower to about 4.5
percent, matching the national average.
The numbers are skewed in stats to make a flawed point.
I purposely took 30 minutes to write this post very slow so you might get the point.
