Drug test for welfare recipients

[zazouse]

Government power does not work that way... They have the power to do something or they do not. We give them the power to require drug tests or we do not. It won't be this group gets tested an this group does not. It may be sold to you that way though.

I believe the government already has that power, my family member got CPS called on them and had to submit to a drug test right off the bat when the investigation was going on.

 

[zazouse]

I don't have a big problem with state check recipients having to submit to urinalysis but IMO people who have a job (i.e. expendable income) are much more likely to use drugs. The majority of welfare recipients can't afford it.
To that end I would like to see ALL people getting a check from the government(taxpayers) submit to urinalysis. That includes the governors and legislators. I would bet my bottom dollar there would be a higher percentage of positives in that group than in the welfare group.

I also find it startling that so many assume someone on welfare is also likely to be on drugs.

Ain't that the truth

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
Had to or though they had to?
CPS can't to require drug tests... they can ask for them...

 

[chickened]

I think you are mistaken. In order to get a concealed weapon permit I have to surrender to a background check and finger prints. If I choose to exercise my 2nd amendment but not get a CWP I have preserved my right to not give fingerprints and background check.

Owning a home requires that you pay taxes on it directly, a renter is not subject to that directly. The power becomes effective when you choose to participate by as with this example when you buy a house.

I dont have to own a home... Can they test me to get to do that..

Same with owning a gun or having a kid or walking down 4th street at noon. Being optional does not change government power.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

I think you are mistaken. In order to get a concealed weapon permit I have to surrender to a background check and finger prints. If I choose to exercise my 2nd amendment but not get a CWP I have preserved my right to not give fingerprints and background check.

Owning a home requires that you pay taxes on it directly, a renter is not subject to that directly. The power becomes effective when you choose to participate by as with this example when you buy a house.

As I said in my first post....

The testing is unconstitutional.... But then welfare is also unconstitutional. An in my opinion so is gun permits.

As for taxes.... Its no where near the same thing.

 

[dainerra]

I've checked the numbers on this. FL is one of the first states to require this. So far, it has cost them far more money than it has saved. What they have found is that welfare receipents aren't any more likely to test positive than any other portion of the population. Yes, there are some that do illegal drugs. Of course, they have other criminal activities and signs that they are drug users than just the fact that they receive assistance.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/floridas-welfare-drug-testing-costs-more-than-it-saves/
-------
Under the rules of the program, the state must reimburse recipients who receive negative test results. The state paid about $1,140 for the 38 negative tests, while saving less than $240 a month by denying benefits over the two positive tests.
----
that is the most current numbers. The same results are found in every month of testing - lots of money paid out to reimburse testing costs, little or no savings because there aren't any people to kick out of the program.


http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2...ting-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/
- lots of good info in this article.

so far, the numbers are showing that less than 2% of the people tested are drug users, a rate actually lower than the general population which is between 6% and 8%.

 

[chickened]

Give it time they will catch the bad apples. The long term savings have not been calculated yet. The hair test would be better. If they really wanted to reduce welfare dependance they would require the ones that can work to work not sit at home and play video games or other dead end activities.

I've checked the numbers on this. FL is one of the first states to require this. So far, it has cost them far more money than it has saved. What they have found is that welfare receipents aren't any more likely to test positive than any other portion of the population. Yes, there are some that do illegal drugs. Of course, they have other criminal activities and signs that they are drug users than just the fact that they receive assistance.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/floridas-welfare-drug-testing-costs-more-than-it-saves/
-------
Under the rules of the program, the state must reimburse recipients who receive negative test results. The state paid about $1,140 for the 38 negative tests, while saving less than $240 a month by denying benefits over the two positive tests.
----
that is the most current numbers. The same results are found in every month of testing - lots of money paid out to reimburse testing costs, little or no savings because there aren't any people to kick out of the program.


http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2...ting-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/
- lots of good info in this article.

so far, the numbers are showing that less than 2% of the people tested are drug users, a rate actually lower than the general population which is between 6% and 8%.

 

[EweSheep]

Hair tests would cost more than pee or blood tests. And it requires more time.

 

[redhen]

Yes, they do NEED drug test welfare recipients. I cant believe they haven't started it yet...:/

 

[dainerra]

all of the numbers given don't even include overhead for the testing program. The extra caseworkers that have been hired. The cost of the appeals process in case of false positives. The numbers released so far are ONLY for the cost of the tests vs benefits of those kicked out of the program.
Even if the welfare crowd has a rate equal to the national population, the program is going to cost a lot more than it saves.

In the meantime, I know about 20 "hard working" Americans that not only couldn't pass a drug test but are probably high at this very moment. I have no problem with a program that tests welfare receipents. I DO have a problem with the promotion of the stereotype that they are all drug users. I also have a problem with the"save money" sell on a program that is going to cost much more than it saves. Promote the program HONESTLY and let people decide to support it or not based on the facts.