Conservatives in Michigan gave drug tests to welfare recipients. None of them failed.

[Mainecat]

1 hour ago, SnowRider said:

 Looks,like the R's are getting a great return on their small government policies..  

 

Six months after the rollout of a controversial law to drug-test people applying for public benefits, only a small fraction of low-income Tennesseans seeking financial assistance have tested positive for illegal drugs.

Thirty-seven of 16,017 applicants for the Families First cash assistance program between July and December tested positive for illegal substances, according to the Department of Human Services.

Another 81 lost their chance to receive benefits because they discontinued the application process at some point between the time they were required to fill out a three-item drug screening questionnaire and completing their application.

Opponents of the new rules say that they single out poor people for drug testing over other recipients of federal benefits — such as veterans, college students getting low interest loans or farmers with crop subsidies.

“You are requiring more than 16,000 people to be screened for drug use based on the assumption that people who receive public assistance are more likely to use illegal drugs,” said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee. “There’s no evidence to indicate that’s true.

Ya but......yeah but I would like to see how many had one eye and one leg?

[SnowRider]

Doe Dumber - let me know when you want me stop beating you over the head with the facts  http://madamenoire.com/514555/states-spend-1m-on-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-less-than-1-fail/

 

STATES SPEND $1M ON DRUG TESTING WELFARE RECIPIENTS, LESS THAN 1% FAIL

Source: Shutterstock

Seven states made the painfully expensive mistake of stigmatizing welfare recipients as drug users. Spending $1 million on drug testing so far, statistics found that less than one percent of participants in all states except for one tested positive for drug use, ThinkProgress reports.

Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah all utilize drug testing to weed out users from acquiring government assistance. But there’s only one problem — the number of welfare candidates who failed the tests is not significant, which renders the program a big ol’ useless money drain.

Let’s take a look at some of the states.

Utah

Back in 2012, Utah implemented a law that mandated testings of eligible welfare residents who had a “reasonable likelihood” of having a “substance use disorder,” ThinkProgress said. If one tested positive, they received zilch. This procedure, in the state’s eyes, will help reduce spending on benefits… so they think.

Analyzing the 2012-2014 period, statistics show that 9,552 applicants applied for public assistance in Utah and 838 were tested for drug use — just 29 tested positive. The program cost Utah nearly $65,000.

Kansas

Kansas passed its drug testing law in 2013 and statistics captured the program’s progress — or lack there of — during the first six months. About 2,700 applied for TANF assistance. According to ThinkProgress, 65 applicants were referred for “suspicion-based drug testing” — 11 were tested positive while 12 didn’t show up. Kansas spent $40,000 for the drug screening costs.

Mississippi 

Mississippi, passing its drug screening law in 2014, saw 3,700 TANF applicants — 38 were tested for illegal substances, but only two tested failed. The state spent more than $5,290 since the program’s inception.

Missouri

Missouri adopted its drug testing program in 2011 and began screening in 2013. In 2014, there were 38,970 applicants — 446 were deemed suspicious, but only 48 tested positive. “The first three years of the program will likely cost the state more than $1.35 million, including start-up costs,” ThinkProgress adds. Yikes.

Oklahoma

Between 2012 and 2013, 3,342 applied for TANF — 2,992 were selected for testing and 297 tested positive for drug use. The state spent an estimated $385,872.

ThinkProgress points out that the national drug use rate is 9.4 percent.  “In these [seven] states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent.”

Some legislators claim that these bills help trim costs by weeding out drug abusers, but as ThinkProgress notes, “in reality, they come with few, if any, benefits.”

[SnowRider]

. I have more for you Doe Dumber.....lets roll bitch  

 

When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker announced his presidential candidacy, he made one of his priorities very clear: he wanted welfare recipients to pass a drug test prior to collecting public assistance benefits, which could inadvertently hinder and complicate the process of delivering aid to some low-income residents. Now, a day after Walker announced his resignation from the presidential race, we're taking a look at this issue.

Similar initiatives can be traced back to as far as 2009. In November 2009, GOP Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona made an announcement that the state would test adults if they felt like there was a "reasonable cause" to believe they were getting high.

But while the laws were designed to help save money by keeping people who might use their benefits on illegal drugs instead of bare necessities, they largely proved to be a complete waste of the state's money. Mic reports that the implementation of the process cost the Arizona taxpayers millions of dollars.

Three years after the program was initiated in Arizona, over 87,000 welfare recipients have been tested: One test came up as positive which ended up saving the state only $560, according to USA Today.

The Arizona Department of Economic Security told the Arizona Sonora News Service earlier this year that over the course of more than five years, "42 people have been asked to take a follow-up drug test and 19 actually took the test, 16 of whom passed. The other 23 were stripped of their benefits for failing to take the drug test."

In total, three welfare recipients failed their tests in five years. When the program was initially implemented, state officials promised $1.7 million in savings.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/24/welfare-recipient-drug-testing-brings-shocking-results/21212782/

[Capt.Storm]

39 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

No. I really dont care what they buy. If they want to spend it all on lobster thats fine with me.

cool.

 

But look guys I'm sure the ones on drugs are not showing up for the test.

But hell let them spend their money on drugs.

[SnowRider]

15 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

cool.

 

But look guys I'm sure the ones on drugs are not showing up for the test.

But hell let them spend their money on drugs.

Look Einstein - if they aren't showing up - then what's the point of spending the money on the tests?  This is typical right wing bullshit - spend a million to save a hundred demonizing the powerless while sucking off billion dollar corporations and the wealthy elite because the R's don't have the balls to speak truth to power.   

Edited June 24, 2016 by SnowRider

[Capt.Storm]

3 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Look Eimstien - if they aren't showing up - then what's the point of spending the money on the tests?  This is typical right wing bullshit - spend a million to save a hundred demonizing the powerless while sucking off billion dollar corporations and the wealthy elite because the R's don't have the balls to speak truth to power.   

STFU.

I don't care anyhow if they spend their money on drugs.

Some people do care and we all know some of them are...no doubt..mostly baby's daddy who is sending mommy for the test.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Capt.Storm

[Rigid1]

If you have to pass a drug test to work for the state why not to get free hand outs from the state??

[Capt.Storm]

6 minutes ago, Rigid1 said:

If you have to pass a drug test to work for the state why not to get free hand outs from the state??

I guess for safety first at the workplace..I dunno.

[pjameven]

So, according to the articles, welfare recipients are using drugs at less than the rate of the rest of the population?  something doesn't add up....

[SnowRider]

2 minutes ago, pjameven said:

So, according to the articles, welfare recipients are using drugs at less than the rate of the rest of the population?  something doesn't add up....

Yep.  What doesn't add up is your opinion - which is not supported by the facts  

But hey - let the R's kick people when they are down, increase government, waste money - and then tell you all how they are for smaller and less intrusive government.  What a fucking joke. 

[Capt.Storm]

1 minute ago, SnowRider said:

Yep.  What doesn't add up is your opinion - which is not supported by the facts  

But hey - let the R's kick people when they are down, increase government, waste money - and then tell you all how they are for smaller and less intrusive government.  What a fucking joke. 

Oh stop it.

You know hes right..ask him why he cares.

[pjameven]

1 minute ago, SnowRider said:

Yep.  What doesn't add up is your opinion - which is not supported by the facts  

But hey - let the R's kick people when they are down, increase government, waste money - and then tell you all how they are for smaller and less intrusive government.  What a fucking joke. 

You go with that...here's to the cunt you support!! lol!   

[Rigid1]

4 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

I guess for safety first at the workplace..I dunno.

I agree, but with about 850,000 public sector employees in the state of Michigan, I'd bet they all are not operating equipment. By going with SR's find (i do this reluctantly)at $30/test its ONLY costing 25.5 million to test the Michigan employees.

[Roosting]

Fact of the matter is you need to look at total #'s of recipients before and after the law was implemented to see if it has had an impact on the total # of people collecting.

The ones taking the test will be drug free or else they are total morons.

[Cold War]

6 minutes ago, pjameven said:

So, according to the articles, welfare recipients are using drugs at less than the rate of the rest of the population?  something doesn't add up....

YES!!!!!!

Other tests show they are eating healthier, their kids are better adjusted, and they far more intelligent.  

[pjameven]

Just now, Cold War said:

YES!!!!!!

Other tests show they are eating healthier, their kids are better adjusted, and they far more intelligent.  

That is great news on all fronts!

[Capt.Storm]

18 minutes ago, Rigid1 said:

I agree, but with about 850,000 public sector employees in the state of Michigan, I'd bet they all are not operating equipment. By going with SR's find (i do this reluctantly)at $30/test its ONLY costing 25.5 million to test the Michigan employees.

Yep..the state doesn't want to get sued for having people on dugs in the workplace if something were to happen..prolly insurance companies are behind it also

Why do we care that they are on drugs..lots of people working are on them where they don't get tested.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Capt.Storm

[Capt.Storm]

2 minutes ago, Roosting said:

Fact of the matter is you need to look at total #'s of recipients before and after the law was implemented to see if it has had an impact on the total # of people collecting.

The ones taking the test will be drug free or else they are total morons.

Yeah I sorta said that at the start of this thread.

But again..who cares and why?

There is one reason I do care some.

[Rigid1]

Just now, Capt.Storm said:

Yep..the state doesn't want to get sued for having people on dugs in the workplace if something were to happen..prolly insurance companies are behind it also

Why do we care that they are on drugs..lots of people working are on them.

You know where we both live, I have often wondered why these welfare recipients are not out shoveling our cities and towns sidewalks in the winter. Make them a state or town employee, part time, when needed, get a bus, pick their lazy asses up and drop them off down town..Ya know!!

[Capt.Storm]

Just now, Rigid1 said:

You know where we both live, I have often wondered why these welfare recipients are not out shoveling our cities and towns sidewalks in the winter. Make them a state or town employee, part time, when needed, get a bus, pick their lazy asses up and drop them off down town..Ya know!!

They have to sign them up for workers comp and everything.

It was tried in the 70's but was found to cost way too much money...can you believe it..fawked up.

[Capt.Storm]

Sad thing is ...is that the  kids prolly pay the price for their parents using drugs.

now if you bust the parents and take away the welfare what happens to those said kids I ask?

[racer254]

7 minutes ago, Rigid1 said:

You know where we both live, I have often wondered why these welfare recipients are not out shoveling our cities and towns sidewalks in the winter. Make them a state or town employee, part time, when needed, get a bus, pick their lazy asses up and drop them off down town..Ya know!!

Because that takes away a job from a union worker.  That's the bottom line. 

BTW, snowbeavis, looks like you got your ass beat again on the subject.

[SnowRider]

1 hour ago, SnowRider said:

 Then why are we wasting money and resources on drug testing them?  

Another example of the R's demonizing those who have very little while being big pussies and afraid to speak truth to power.  R's are pussies  

 

1 hour ago, SnowRider said:

 Why do conservatives insist on bigger government and investing in programs that do not yield a return?  

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results

CATHERINE WHITTENBURG  The Tampa Tribune

TALLAHASSEE - Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows. Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests. The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs. At Scott's urging, the Legislature implemented the new requirement earlier this year that applicants for temporary cash assistance pass a drug test before collecting any benefits. The law, which took effect July 1, requires applicants to pay for their own drug tests. Those who test drug-free are reimbursed by the state, and those who fail cannot receive benefits for a year.Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly. So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified. Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free. That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants. The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month. But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month. Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year. Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months. The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge. The ACLU has been threatening for months that it may challenge the constitutionality of the program; Tuesday, Newton said his group is still weighing a lawsuit. DCF spokesman Joe Follick said that families and accountability are the main focuses of the program. "The taxpayers deserve to know that the money they are spending is being used for its intended purpose," he said. "In this case, with [temporary cash assistance], the purpose is to help families become independent and self-sufficient. If a family receiving [cash assistance] includes someone who has a substance abuse problem, the odds of that money being used for purposes other than helping that family increases." More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out. According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up. A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs. Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts. "This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment.

 

59 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

 Looks,like the R's are getting a great return on their small government policies..  

 

Six months after the rollout of a controversial law to drug-test people applying for public benefits, only a small fraction of low-income Tennesseans seeking financial assistance have tested positive for illegal drugs.

Thirty-seven of 16,017 applicants for the Families First cash assistance program between July and December tested positive for illegal substances, according to the Department of Human Services.

Another 81 lost their chance to receive benefits because they discontinued the application process at some point between the time they were required to fill out a three-item drug screening questionnaire and completing their application.

Opponents of the new rules say that they single out poor people for drug testing over other recipients of federal benefits — such as veterans, college students getting low interest loans or farmers with crop subsidies.

“You are requiring more than 16,000 people to be screened for drug use based on the assumption that people who receive public assistance are more likely to use illegal drugs,” said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee. “There’s no evidence to indicate that’s true.

 

56 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Doe Dumber - let me know when you want me stop beating you over the head with the facts  http://madamenoire.com/514555/states-spend-1m-on-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-less-than-1-fail/

 

STATES SPEND $1M ON DRUG TESTING WELFARE RECIPIENTS, LESS THAN 1% FAIL

Source: Shutterstock

Seven states made the painfully expensive mistake of stigmatizing welfare recipients as drug users. Spending $1 million on drug testing so far, statistics found that less than one percent of participants in all states except for one tested positive for drug use, ThinkProgress reports.

Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah all utilize drug testing to weed out users from acquiring government assistance. But there’s only one problem — the number of welfare candidates who failed the tests is not significant, which renders the program a big ol’ useless money drain.

Let’s take a look at some of the states.

Utah

Back in 2012, Utah implemented a law that mandated testings of eligible welfare residents who had a “reasonable likelihood” of having a “substance use disorder,” ThinkProgress said. If one tested positive, they received zilch. This procedure, in the state’s eyes, will help reduce spending on benefits… so they think.

Analyzing the 2012-2014 period, statistics show that 9,552 applicants applied for public assistance in Utah and 838 were tested for drug use — just 29 tested positive. The program cost Utah nearly $65,000.

Kansas

Kansas passed its drug testing law in 2013 and statistics captured the program’s progress — or lack there of — during the first six months. About 2,700 applied for TANF assistance. According to ThinkProgress, 65 applicants were referred for “suspicion-based drug testing” — 11 were tested positive while 12 didn’t show up. Kansas spent $40,000 for the drug screening costs.

Mississippi 

Mississippi, passing its drug screening law in 2014, saw 3,700 TANF applicants — 38 were tested for illegal substances, but only two tested failed. The state spent more than $5,290 since the program’s inception.

Missouri

Missouri adopted its drug testing program in 2011 and began screening in 2013. In 2014, there were 38,970 applicants — 446 were deemed suspicious, but only 48 tested positive. “The first three years of the program will likely cost the state more than $1.35 million, including start-up costs,” ThinkProgress adds. Yikes.

Oklahoma

Between 2012 and 2013, 3,342 applied for TANF — 2,992 were selected for testing and 297 tested positive for drug use. The state spent an estimated $385,872.

ThinkProgress points out that the national drug use rate is 9.4 percent.  “In these [seven] states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent.”

Some legislators claim that these bills help trim costs by weeding out drug abusers, but as ThinkProgress notes, “in reality, they come with few, if any, benefits.”

 

51 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

. I have more for you Doe Dumber.....lets roll bitch  

 

When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker announced his presidential candidacy, he made one of his priorities very clear: he wanted welfare recipients to pass a drug test prior to collecting public assistance benefits, which could inadvertently hinder and complicate the process of delivering aid to some low-income residents. Now, a day after Walker announced his resignation from the presidential race, we're taking a look at this issue.

Similar initiatives can be traced back to as far as 2009. In November 2009, GOP Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona made an announcement that the state would test adults if they felt like there was a "reasonable cause" to believe they were getting high.

But while the laws were designed to help save money by keeping people who might use their benefits on illegal drugs instead of bare necessities, they largely proved to be a complete waste of the state's money. Mic reports that the implementation of the process cost the Arizona taxpayers millions of dollars.

Three years after the program was initiated in Arizona, over 87,000 welfare recipients have been tested: One test came up as positive which ended up saving the state only $560, according to USA Today.

The Arizona Department of Economic Security told the Arizona Sonora News Service earlier this year that over the course of more than five years, "42 people have been asked to take a follow-up drug test and 19 actually took the test, 16 of whom passed. The other 23 were stripped of their benefits for failing to take the drug test."

In total, three welfare recipients failed their tests in five years. When the program was initially implemented, state officials promised $1.7 million in savings.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/24/welfare-recipient-drug-testing-brings-shocking-results/21212782/

 

2 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Because that takes away a job from a union worker.  That's the bottom line. 

BTW, snowbeavis, looks like you got your ass beat again on the subject.

 The Dumb keeps getting stronger in you Doe Dumber..   I beat you like a rented mule everyday and everytime you post  

[Rod]

Strange how rump rider can't refute the facts

[Cold War]

15 minutes ago, pjameven said:

That is great news on all fronts!

I used to be an alcoholic, until I went on the welfare...............BOOM!

Cured, just like that.

There is something naturally euphoric about sitting on your ass while someone else picks up the bill.