ManO'War;385396 wrote:Basic drug tests are dirt cheap now a days, we get boxes of them for new hires at work. It's just a swab of the mouth test with a little plastic handle...mix it in the bottle of solution, and it will tell you if there is drugs present or not.


And for those talking about "using the system as it was intended"....the system was intended to be temporary, but it has become a generational way of life.

Also, SSI is the biggest scam out there. Everyone on public assistance claims their kid has some kind of learning disability so that they receive an extra check from the good old government.

TANF; temporary assistance for needy families.....created in 1996....less people have been on it every year since then! You can be on it a maximum of two years! It is not a generational way of life...that's a myth!

Now, SSI, that's a whole different story. Kids will get it their whole life and then just keep getting it when they're adults because their parents said they were disabled when they were younger....they will come into the courthouse and say they've never been employed cus they've just always gotten SSI. THIS, is something totally different than TANF/Welfare and will agree that something is wrong here. It's sad because a kid's parents took advantage of them to get SSI and I imagine weren't the greatest parents and then the kid grows up and lacks life skills and self-reliance.

QuakerOats;385421 wrote:I suggest simply limiting the amount of time a person can be on the public dole ---- say a total of 12 months in your life up to the age of 70. Thus, during your productive years, 18 - 70, you can tap the public roles for a maximum of 12 months. The rest of the time you need a job, or a family, or a caretaker, or a charity.

We must end the dependency cycle, and now is a good time to start.

There's already a maximum time frame of two years that you can be on TANF. Maybe it should be shorter. I don't know.

So what do these people do then after two years?? Are you saying we have people with no income now, because I certainly don't see that anywhere. Or do they simply just go and reapply?

ManO'War;385452 wrote:So what do these people do then after two years?? Are you saying we have people with no income now, because I certainly don't see that anywhere. Or do they simply just go and reapply?

I think they migrate to Cleveland and ask me for change or try to sell me roses for a dollar.

If you want to take a simple drug test thst costs 12.00 and have them administer them, i guarantee you the would cost 240.00 by the time the program started. If you have a good idea and want to fuck it up, Get the government involved.

BoatShoes;384334 wrote:Maybe you shouldn't have to be drug tested to get a job? My family business sold out and became part of a franchise and now we're required to drug test and it's just increased business costs. Personally my dad never minded if his guys smoked some weed as long as they did a good job.

That's an easy one, if someone at a place of business is high on drugs and whatever they did injures someone else, the company can be liable/sued by the injured party.

For those who have said it will cost too much, you haven't done the "math".

On average it costs a company about $42 per drug test to test employees (including all the administration and the tests themselves). There are slightly less than 4 million people on welfare right now. If they were randomly tested twice a year the cost for the drug testing would be $336 million/year.

That's a huge a amount, however, lets look at what would be saved. The average welfare check is roughly $500/month. The average population shows about 10% have used illegal drugs within the last year. Lets say conservatively only half of those would "fail" and 5% of the tests would come back as a failure.

At 5% getting kicked off welfare for drug use that's $1.2 BILLION/year saved while only spending $336 million for the testing.

The failure percentage would have to be below 1.5% before the government would "lose money".

No offense taken Center. My post was made using my own observations regarding folks who generally support other people being required to do things that our constitution says are not to be forced against a portion of our population. I wasn't trying to score debate points and I didn't write it to "win" an argument, I wrote it because it is my honest opinion that such an action is unconstitutional and is not s step forward in society but a step backward, to a time that I believe the vast majority of the American people would not choose to revisit for any reason. By the way, Belly, for the record, if you advertised for workers and I needed a job and read that your position prohibited tattoos, I would not hesitate to apply. I hate tatoos and wouldn't put one on any part of my body for any reason whatsoever! I think it is a reflection on my conservative Republican roots that I have discussed on blogs before several times. Plus, if I needed a job to support my family and your offer was something I could be productive doing, I'm your man. You and I aren't all that different. I believe in working. I just don't believe in automatically assuming that because someone isn't working, it's because he/she really enjoys living off of us with those welfare checks. I also do not assume that unemployed people are more likely to be drug dependent or criminal or whatever else some believe them to be. Finally Center, my reference to conservatives was not intended to refer to all conservatives. Some of my very best friends would be categorized as politically conservative, but not to the extent of denying basic constitutional rights to everyone of our citizens. I believe you to be a reasonable man who would not restrict his fellow citizens from enjoying the same rights we all should be guaranteed. I also respect your political opinions as I grew up with the very same ones. I simply have changed over time and circumstances.

jmog;385668 wrote:For those who have said it will cost too much, you haven't done the "math".

On average it costs a company about $42 per drug test to test employees (including all the administration and the tests themselves). There are slightly less than 4 million people on welfare right now. If they were randomly tested twice a year the cost for the drug testing would be $336 million/year.

That's a huge a amount, however, lets look at what would be saved. The average welfare check is roughly $500/month. The average population shows about 10% have used illegal drugs within the last year. Lets say conservatively only half of those would "fail" and 5% of the tests would come back as a failure.

At 5% getting kicked off welfare for drug use that's $1.2 BILLION/year saved while only spending $336 million for the testing.

The failure percentage would have to be below 1.5% before the government would "lose money".

I love it when simple math demostrates big saving...great job
Note: A 10 Panel On-site Drug Test Kit cost little over $10.00 but Hey if it work out with a price cost of $42.00 Case close let start DRUG TESTING ...........

Funny how all the anti-big government people all of a sudden want to let the government do drug testing and they think it'll save money. These same people have said that the government can't do anything well and that anything it does do will be spectacularly over budget. I guess that only applies to things that they don't agree with.

I Wear Pants;385768 wrote:Funny how all the anti-big government people all of a sudden want to let the government do drug testing and they think it'll save money. These same people have said that the government can't do anything well and that anything it does do will be spectacularly over budget. I guess that only applies to things that they don't agree with.

There is no reading skills required... Piss in a cup ..... many of the Liberals, Left and Socialist are good at pissing up a rope so a cup should be eazy....

I Wear Pants;385768 wrote:Funny how all the anti-big government people all of a sudden want to let the government do drug testing and they think it'll save money. These same people have said that the government can't do anything well and that anything it does do will be spectacularly over budget. I guess that only applies to things that they don't agree with.

Oh I'm absolutely certain the government would foul-up mandatory drug testing and it would be insanely over budget, but if Hector Crack Head wants my money to support his drug habit, he should jump through a hoop or two - or at least piss in a cup - to get it.

Belly35;385905 wrote:There is no reading skills required... Piss in a cup ..... many of the Liberals, Left and Socialist are good at pissing up a rope so a cup should be eazy....

Right, because only lazy socialist scum use TANF.

I'd like to see some actual statistics as to how many people are abusing these systems vs how many are using them as intended. I'll put $10 on an overwhelming majority using them as intended.

I Wear Pants;385768 wrote:Funny how all the anti-big government people all of a sudden want to let the government do drug testing and they think it'll save money. These same people have said that the government can't do anything well and that anything it does do will be spectacularly over budget. I guess that only applies to things that they don't agree with.

It would be done by a private company just like companies do it, outsource it and then the government can't screw it up.

Oh, and notice my $42 is WELL above what a drug test actually costs. A 5 panel test costs about $6, a 10 panel one cost about $10, I said $42 to account for "administration" costs, and still the "savings" by kicking the drug users off welfare is huge.

Belly35;385905 wrote:There is no reading skills required... Piss in a cup ..... many of the Liberals, Left and Socialist are good at pissing up a rope so a cup should be eazy....

I really LOL'd at that! Startled my cat haha

Swamp,

Then we probably see more eye to eye than at first glance. As much as it would make me feel better to rinse through the bums and get them off the system, I also know that it certainly can't "be as easy as that", like our imaginations would like to think. I made that statement on pg.1.
However, I don't agree with the opinion that the people abusing the system(s) are a small or minor amount.
10% is ridiculously high when you think about it. If that's even close to the right number. I'd be willing to bet it might be more. How are we supposed to know when there's not testing done?

jmog;385668 wrote:For those who have said it will cost too much, you haven't done the "math".

On average it costs a company about $42 per drug test to test employees (including all the administration and the tests themselves). There are slightly less than 4 million people on welfare right now. If they were randomly tested twice a year the cost for the drug testing would be $336 million/year.

That's a huge a amount, however, lets look at what would be saved. The average welfare check is roughly $500/month. The average population shows about 10% have used illegal drugs within the last year. Lets say conservatively only half of those would "fail" and 5% of the tests would come back as a failure.

At 5% getting kicked off welfare for drug use that's $1.2 BILLION/year saved while only spending $336 million for the testing.

The failure percentage would have to be below 1.5% before the government would "lose money".

Why not drug test people who receive medicare and/or social security? There's a lot of former hippies who are about to be 65.

What about the children of the people on TANF who no longer have money (even though their dead beat parents waste some of it)?

jmog;385596 wrote:That's an easy one, if someone at a place of business is high on drugs and whatever they did injures someone else, the company can be liable/sued by the injured party.

FWIW I have no problem with employers drug testing their employees. Nonetheless, is that really a realistic scenario for most employees? I mean, are some girls high on weed folding sheets and towels for a hotel really at risk of injuring a person? Also, isn't alcohol pretty bad too? Should I give my cashier a breathalyzer when he comes into work?

I mean...most people on weed are a harmless lot....drug testing isn't done likely to prevent any injuries...but simply because drug use is looked down upon. IMHO.

believer;385994 wrote:Oh I'm absolutely certain the government would foul-up mandatory drug testing and it would be insanely over budget, but if Hector Crack Head wants my money to support his drug habit, he should jump through a hoop or two - or at least piss in a cup - to get it.

What about Ole Ethel who likes the Herb who smokes marijuana for her glaucoma but also uses your money via medicare and social security? What about Otter Oxycontin who was maybe a vietnam vet and a hard working laborer his whole life but now abuses this drug that he gets paid for with medicare?

jmog;385668 wrote:For those who have said it will cost too much, you haven't done the "math".

On average it costs a company about $42 per drug test to test employees (including all the administration and the tests themselves). There are slightly less than 4 million people on welfare right now. If they were randomly tested twice a year the cost for the drug testing would be $336 million/year.

That's a huge a amount, however, lets look at what would be saved. The average welfare check is roughly $500/month. The average population shows about 10% have used illegal drugs within the last year. Lets say conservatively only half of those would "fail" and 5% of the tests would come back as a failure.

At 5% getting kicked off welfare for drug use that's $1.2 BILLION/year saved while only spending $336 million for the testing.

The failure percentage would have to be below 1.5% before the government would "lose money".

The failure percentage in work place drug testing doesn't exceed 0.5% and welfare recipients have not shown any statistically significant rates of higher drug use than the rest of the population. The cost per positive test has been estimated anywhere between $20,000 per test and $77,000 per test

R. Brinkley Smithers Inst., Cornell Univ., Workplace Substance Abuse Testing, Drug Testing: Cost and Effect (Jan. 1992).

National Institutes of Health Press Release, NIAAA Researchers Estimate Alcohol and Drug Use, Abuse, and Dependence Among Welfare Recipients, (1996). Internet. Available: http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/oct96/niaaa-23.htm

BoatShoes;386789 wrote:Why not drug test people who receive medicare and/or social security? There's a lot of former hippies who are about to be 65.

What about the children of the people on TANF who no longer have money (even though their dead beat parents waste some of it)?

Medicare or SS can be delt with in another topic, right now we are talking about those who receive a check each month from the government (aka welfare).

I have to pass a drug test to be employed to get a check, so why is it so "off the wall" to expect those getting a check for zero work to pass the same requirements?

Now, about those kids, if the parents are that dead beat that they can't even pass a drug test to get a welfare check, then take the kids into the foster/adoption system, they can't do any worse than their current parent situation.

BoatShoes;386802 wrote:FWIW I have no problem with employers drug testing their employees. Nonetheless, is that really a realistic scenario for most employees? I mean, are some girls high on weed folding sheets and towels for a hotel really at risk of injuring a person? Also, isn't alcohol pretty bad too? Should I give my cashier a breathalyzer when he comes into work?

I mean...most people on weed are a harmless lot....drug testing isn't done likely to prevent any injuries...but simply because drug use is looked down upon. IMHO.

The random drug screening at factory facilities does include alcohol, but its obviously only "current" levels (aka are you drunk now).


Any kind of manufacturing facility almost HAS to have a random drug screening policy for their insurance/liability reasons due to injuries.

BoatShoes;386823 wrote:The failure percentage in work place drug testing doesn't exceed 0.5% and welfare recipients have not shown any statistically significant rates of higher drug use than the rest of the population. The cost per positive test has been estimated anywhere between $20,000 per test and $77,000 per test

R. Brinkley Smithers Inst., Cornell Univ., Workplace Substance Abuse Testing, Drug Testing: Cost and Effect (Jan. 1992).

National Institutes of Health Press Release, NIAAA Researchers Estimate Alcohol and Drug Use, Abuse, and Dependence Among Welfare Recipients, (1996). Internet. Available: http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/oct96/niaaa-23.htm

Your post semi-contradicts itself. You first say that only 0.5% fail work drug tests, then say that welfare recipients aren't statistically different drug users than the rest of the population, which are both true.

However, the logical leap you are "making" is that 0.5% would be the ones caught in a random welfare testing situation. Trust me, as I've seen from experience, people who use drugs do not put in applications at places that test for drugs, so while the population might be 5-8%, at places that test for drugs its only 0.5% because the drug users KNOW the workplaces test for drugs and either clean up or don't apply there.

So, if we started testing all welfare recipients, I highly doubt it would be "only" 0.5%. If it is only 0.5%, since 5-8% of welfare recipients do use drugs by your own link, then either they got cleaned up (good thing) or the drug users stopped applying for welfare (good thing).

So, if its only 0.5% the desired results are achieved one way or another, either less people are on welfare because the drug users drop out, or the drug users get cleaned up.

However, if the drug users continue using welfare and they will eventually get caught, then you will see the 5%+ number of failed tests that I mentioned above, and the desired result is still met, drug users off welfare.


See, when you actually use logic instead of rhetoric, its amazing how it works out .

jmog;386837 wrote:Your post semi-contradicts itself. You first say that only 0.5% fail work drug tests, then say that welfare recipients aren't statistically different drug users than the rest of the population, which are both true.

However, the logical leap you are "making" is that 0.5% would be the ones caught in a random welfare testing situation. Trust me, as I've seen from experience, people who use drugs do not put in applications at places that test for drugs, so while the population might be 5-8%, at places that test for drugs its only 0.5% because the drug users KNOW the workplaces test for drugs and either clean up or don't apply there.

So, if we started testing all welfare recipients, I highly doubt it would be "only" 0.5%. If it is only 0.5%, since 5-8% of welfare recipients do use drugs by your own link, then either they got cleaned up (good thing) or the drug users stopped applying for welfare (good thing).

So, if its only 0.5% the desired results are achieved one way or another, either less people are on welfare because the drug users drop out, or the drug users get cleaned up.

However, if the drug users continue using welfare and they will eventually get caught, then you will see the 5%+ number of failed tests that I mentioned above, and the desired result is still met, drug users off welfare.


See, when you actually use logic instead of rhetoric, its amazing how it works out .

I don't see how you're post is so much more logically cogent when you just insert premises from your own random experience asserting that the positive tests must by induction be greater than .5%...I mean it seems to me that you're just assuming that > .5% would be caught.

Louisiana passed a law in 1997 requiring drug testing for welfare recipients. However, a task force set up to implement the law found more limited drug testing of individuals identified by a questionnaire to be more cost-effective than mandatory drug testing.

drug tests often fail to identify people who are using more powerful, more addictive and more dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine, which exit the body’s system in a matter of hours or days but they do detect weed because it stays in your system longer. Therefore, if we take your experience that people who use drugs don't apply at jobs where drug testing happens...a guy who does crack only has to avoid using it for a short while....so it seems like they would have no problem applying for work where there is drug testing.

"Drugs of Abuse Reference Guide," LabCorp Inc, Internet. Available: http://www.labcorpsolutions.com/images/Drugs_of_Abuse_Reference_Guide_Flyer_3166.pdf

As an aside...the following professional organizations are against drug testing people who receive money from government programs like TANF:

American Public Health Association, National Association of Social Workers, Inc., National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, National Health Law Project, National Association on Alcohol, Drugs and Disability, Inc., National Advocates for Pregnant Women, National Black Women’s Health Project, Legal Action Center, National Welfare Rights Union, Youth Law Center, Juvenile Law Center, and National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.

But I'm sure that's just a bunch of knee jerk liberals who want to keep people dependent on the gubment.

Also, I think it's appropriate to discuss whether we think medicare or social security recipients should be drug tested because....the basic premise offered by say, Believer, is that people who receive MY money through confiscatory taxes ought to at least not be high on crack....it at least flows from this premise that if TANF recipients ought to therefore be tested, then folks who receive checks from the treasury in the form of, say, social security, ought to be tested.

"Also, I think it's appropriate to discuss whether we think medicare or social security recipients should be drug tested because....the basic premise offered by say, Believer, is that people who receive MY money through confiscatory taxes ought to at least not be high on crack....it at least flows from this premise that if TANF recipients ought to therefore be tested, then folks who receive checks from the treasury in the form of, say, social security, ought to be tested. "

No it isn't appropriate, as SS is just an insurance program that recipients paid into and are entitled to their benefits. Right? Right? RIGHT? What is it? Is SS a tax or an insurance program?

3 words: Grasping at straws.