Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are aware that marijuana is LEGAL in Colorado now. So, by all means, squander a bunch of money on testing people for using legal products. I'm sure it'll make conservatives warm and tingly.
You are aware that marijuana is LEGAL in Colorado now. So, by all means, squander a bunch of money on testing people for using legal products. I'm sure it'll make conservatives warm and tingly.
Consumtion is legal, but it doesn't mean they can't test for it. Alcohol is legal, and people are tested for that all the time. You cannot force tax-payers to finance the addictions of people on welfare.
Thanks for that! I didn't know that. I was under the impression that the DOJ was avoiding enforcement, but some guy on city-data informed me that it's still illegal "federally." So I guess that means something.
Consumtion is legal, but it doesn't mean they can't test for it. Alcohol is legal, and people are tested for that all the time. You cannot force tax-payers to finance the addictions of people on welfare.
What people are tested for alcohol "all the time?"
What is the process or method that some states are using for welfare testing? Is it setup to minimize the possibility of cheating which is easy to do? Does anyone have any accurate info on how it is done and how the applicant or recipient is tested?
Hearing hype on how much it is a waste of money which it very well may be but the percentages of those testing positive seem like they are misleadingly low and the way they are doing it is set up for failure or something. It may never work because it can never be done without people cheating or tests getting mixed up etc.
Too prone to human error or cheating?
Mostly ignored, votes are too important to the left.
Thats what got obozo in twice, remember.
Better WE ALL TAKE DRUG TESTS SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK AND PAY FOR THESE HUMAN SLOTHES.
BECAUSE THATS THE NEW AMERICAN BOTTOM FEEDER FUQIN WAY, ANYBODY CARE TO ARGUE THAT?
NOPE, DIDNT THINK SO.
IF YOU DO, YOURE A SLOTH ANYWAY, I AINT LISTENING
Noboby is being forced to pee in a cup here either, it's completely voluntary. I don't agree with drug testing with the exception of jobs like airline pilot but if Joe Six Pack who is paying the taxes to support these people can be tested so should those benefiting from his taxes.
I'd rather see the people who pay taxes and oppose this garbage get their way than see you get yours. Besides, I should hope their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure trumps your belief that policy should be geared around giving you your way.
Drug testing new welfare applicants is nothing more than pandering to a political base.
If a state were really serious about this, they would not rely one time pee tests. Instead, they would perform a hair follicle tests with a 90 day look back and repeat every 90 days.
Noted the above as important, MANY people chose not to get tested and went without welfare.
Only 108 out of 4,086 people tested — 2.6 percent, however another 800 people didn't want to get tested, (They probably knew they would fail), which means over 900 people out of 4000, almost 25%...
Quote:
"In the last line they (newspapers) do admit that there are about 800 and some people who refuse to take the drug test," he said, "which tells me if you add 'em all together there's 1,000 people out there on drugs. Nine out of ten of them are smart enough not to take the drug test."
From POLITIFACT
Quote:
Who failed the test: Kreegel’s figure of about 80 failed tests is not far from the tally over four months of practice, according to the Department of Children and Families, which administers the TANF program. He actually underestimated it.
Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests, 108 people failed their tests, a fail rate of 2.6 percent, according to DCF. About 1 percent of applicants, or 42, scheduled tests but canceled them.
About 96.3 percent of applicants passed the screenings. The high pass rate means the state paid out more than $100,000 in reimbursements to applicants who passed over the four-month period.
Who started their application but didn’t take the test: Kreegel said 800 or so people walked away before taking the drug test. The department reported a number nearly three times as high -- 2,306.
That means, 108 failed, over 2300 refused testing, 4086 scheduled and went through with 108 failing.
Noted the above as important, MANY people chose not to get tested and went without welfare.
Only 108 out of 4,086 people tested — 2.6 percent, however another 800 people didn't want to get tested, (They probably knew they would fail), which means over 900 people out of 4000, almost 25%...
First, it would be 908 out of 4886 if they had been tested and failed. 22%. They count towards the total too.
Second, you're assuming every one of those those who declined to be tested would fail. You don't get to do that if you're arguing with statistics. You have no idea why each of those 800 refused.
Third, it doesn't matter. Whether or not this drug testing constitutes unreasonable search and seizure is what is at hand. It would appear so at first blush, and the various courts this concerns seem to think that's the case.
What is the process or method that some states are using for welfare testing? Is it setup to minimize the possibility of cheating which is easy to do? Does anyone have any accurate info on how it is done and how the applicant or recipient is tested?
Hearing hype on how much it is a waste of money which it very well may be but the percentages of those testing positive seem like they are misleadingly low and the way they are doing it is set up for failure or something. It may never work because it can never be done without people cheating or tests getting mixed up etc.
Too prone to human error or cheating?
The whole idea of drug testing citizens for participation in a government program is sick and a waste of money, but more importantly it gets to the core of conservatism in this nation.
For conservatives, the idea that some people should be punished or have to jump through hoops if they get government help because conservatives hate those citizens and don't feel like they deserve the help is one of the more disgusting elements of conservative political ideology.
To me either we are all equal as Americans or we aren't equal.
Either a person believes that they don't want government money going to help anyone on drugs or that person doesn't.
If you are of the opinion that you don't want public funds going to drug abusers, then why stop at only drug testing people receiving TANF?
Of course they stop at poor people receiving TANF because they hate their guts and think they are immoral, lazy, criminal and are therefore undeserving of government help.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
