Was drug testing welfare recipients worth it?

What 7 States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these 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. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.

Does Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Work?

“The main impact of it is first…to spend TANF money that could go into other things,”

What part of the conservative's less government intrusions on your personal life don't you understand?

Already posted
The stats in the picture are misleading, check that thread you'll see why.

originally posted by: xuenchen

In 2011, Missouri adopted a law to require screening and testing for all TANF applicants, and the testing began in March 2013. In 2014, 446 of the state’s 38,970 applicants were tested. Just 48 tested positive.

Hyperbole Deluxe !!

Yes, but they caught 48 people!

I'm feeling grumpy today. Its becoming increasingly obvious to me that facts don't really matter when it comes to something someone believes in. You could point to the sky and say "that's blue" and the other person would argue that it doesn't reallly matter what color it is anyway.

When you are emotionally invested in a certain stance on something, facts are ignored because your GUT tells you to ignore them. Irrationality wins every time when you let you basic, primitive emotions rule you.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Yes, but they caught 48 people!

I'm feeling grumpy today. Its becoming increasingly obvious to me that facts don't really matter when it comes to something someone believes in. You could point to the sky and say "that's blue" and the other person would argue that it doesn't reallly matter what color it is anyway.

When you are emotionally invested in a certain stance on something, facts are ignored because your GUT tells you to ignore them. Irrationality wins every time when you let you basic, primitive emotions rule you.

they only tested 446. That's more than 10% Facts and all right?

Welfare annual spending

--The federal government spends just $212 billion per year on what we could reasonably call “welfare.”

Take away 10% from that number and tell me which number is bigger now, the money spent or money saved?

a reply to: Vector99

Then there are those who did not test positive because they knew they would fail.

Just 42 have been referred for a drug test over that time — of the 19 who completed the test, only three have ever tested positive.

So out of 42 people who were supposed to be tested in Arizona, only 16 passed. That is a pass rate of 38% for those referred.

So you can put a huge liberal spin on it and claim 1 in a thousand failed, or you can claim only 38% could pass a drug test. The latter is far more representative of the actual situation.

a reply to: theonenonlyone

Was drug testing welfare recipients worth it?

If you're the owner of the testing facility.....it's the cash cow that just keeps on giving! At least as long as Republicans control our statehouses.

Best thing since cotton candy!

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Vector99

Then there are those who did not test positive because they knew they would fail.

Just 42 have been referred for a drug test over that time — of the 19 who completed the test, only three have ever tested positive.

So out of 42 people who were supposed to be tested in Arizona, only 16 passed. That is a pass rate of 38% for those referred.

So you can put a huge liberal spin on it and claim 1 in a thousand failed, or you can claim only 38% could pass a drug test. The latter is far more representative of the actual situation.

Exactly! I don't think anyone actually read the article. Really to me though is the blatantly obvious fraudulent use of funds by Missouri that is most disturbing. That state spent $336,297 to drug test 446 people total. That is $754 PER drug test, and no-one noticed.

a reply to: Flatfish

Only 38% passed in Arizona, any comment about that?

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Vector99

Then there are those who did not test positive because they knew they would fail.

Just 42 have been referred for a drug test over that time — of the 19 who completed the test, only three have ever tested positive.

So out of 42 people who were supposed to be tested in Arizona, only 16 passed. That is a pass rate of 38% for those referred.

So you can put a huge liberal spin on it and claim 1 in a thousand failed, or you can claim only 38% could pass a drug test. The latter is far more representative of the actual situation.

Exactly! I don't think anyone actually read the article. Really to me though is the blatantly obvious fraudulent use of funds by Missouri that is most disturbing. That state spent $336,297 to drug test 446 people total. That is $754 PER drug test, and no-one noticed.

Should cost $50 per test. I'd love a breakdown of where that money went.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

At the hospital up here you can purchase a drug test kit, for less than 50$, my best guess is the rest of the money went to pay for a clinic to do all the test, the paperwork and what not, bureaucracy wasting money is what they do best.

Honestly, the only drug that's going to stay in your system long enough to be caught by a "standard" drug panel is THC from marijuana. Any kind of stimulant or opiate is out of the user's system within days. Unless you are being tested weekly or bi-weekly, the only think you're going to catch is marijuana -- which honestly I could care less about.

If we care about marijuana, then we better figure out a way to test for alcohol consumption, as that drug is much more destructive to people living in poverty.

Urine tests have always been flawed because of this crippling bias against marijuana. Someone could have used that drug once, 2 weeks ago and it would show positive...yet someone could have partaken in much more dangerous street drugs and it not show up at all.

IMO its a waste of money and misguided. If they really want to do something like this, it would have to be much more invasive. They'd have to do hair testing or something to get a much better picture, and that still won't detect alcoholism.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

At the hospital up here you can purchase a drug test kit, for less than 50$, my best guess is the rest of the money went to pay for a clinic to do all the test, the paperwork and what not, bureaucracy wasting money is what they do best.

The $50 I quoted should include all that. As you said you can buy the kit yourself for less, they get it for a much better price.

Whether you agree with the testing or not, the waste is ridiculous.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Honestly, the only drug that's going to stay in your system long enough to be caught by a "standard" drug panel is THC from marijuana. Any kind of stimulant or opiate is out of the user's system within days. Unless you are being tested weekly or bi-weekly, the only think you're going to catch is marijuana -- which honestly I could care less about.

If we care about marijuana, then we better figure out a way to test for alcohol consumption, as that drug is much more destructive to people living in poverty.

Urine tests have always been flawed because of this crippling bias against marijuana. Someone could have used that drug once, 2 weeks ago and it would show positive...yet someone could have partaken in much more dangerous street drugs and it not show up at all.

IMO its a waste of money and misguided. If they really want to do something like this, it would have to be much more invasive. They'd have to do hair testing or something to get a much better picture, and that still won't detect alcoholism.

It's quite easy to test for alcohol, and quite easy to test for only recent MJ use.

For the price they are paying per subject tested it should be random testing where they show up unannounced.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well if they're not drunk, a breathalyzer isn't going to do much. They can test for EtG, but that's only testable in urine for about 3-4 days, right along with opiates, stimulants and other street drugs. A lot of people can slip through the cracks if they haven't used anything in a few days.

Then, there are whole slew of ways to cheat on a urine test. ATS isn't the place to discuss them, but just know that a lot rides on how the tests are conducted and how strict the protocols are. Without going into detail, I kind of know what I'm talking about here.

EDIT: Unless you want to conduct blood tests for marijuana, any other kind of test to detect "recent use" is going to be very expensive. Hell, they only *just* claim to have come out with a device for police to test people behind the wheel...a marijuana "breathalyzer" of sorts. That is still in development too.

How short of a leash do we want to have to put these people on? How close of scrutiny do we feel they need to be under? How much are we willing to spend when we're already giving these people assistance?

The best thing would be bi-weekly urine tests with monthly hair tests. I know people on parole for felonies that don't even have to undergo that.

Do we want to treat people on welfare worse than convicted felons? What crime have they committed? Being poor and accepting assistance?

In Florida it was a total waste of money (2%) positive rare and ended up being found unconstitutional. Other state test under something called suspicion and do not test everybody.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well if they're not drunk, a breathalyzer isn't going to do much.

Which is all that should matter. Like I said, they should only test for if someone is currently high on MJ.

originally posted by: MrSpad
In Florida it was a total waste of money (2%) positive rare and ended up being found unconstitutional. Other state test under something called suspicion and do not test everybody.

Not because that is how many were on drugs, but because anyone who knows they have a drug test will prepare for it. Only 2-3% of people are so inept as to fail that test.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I agree....I mean, holy crap if they show up inebriated to a drug test? ...

...they totally have a serious problem, and giving them assistance is only enabling their addiction.

If anything, if you show up to a drug test for welfare drunk or high, you should be taken and put into in-patient treatment IMO. Maybe part of the deal when you sign up would be that if you pop positive or show up under the influence, you consent to being stuck in treatment. If you agree to that along with random drug tests, you an get the assistance.

I have no idea how we'd pay for it though....but I do know that people that show up drunk/high probably need more than cash for groceries.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Vector99

Then there are those who did not test positive because they knew they would fail.

Just 42 have been referred for a drug test over that time — of the 19 who completed the test, only three have ever tested positive.

So out of 42 people who were supposed to be tested in Arizona, only 16 passed. That is a pass rate of 38% for those referred.

So you can put a huge liberal spin on it and claim 1 in a thousand failed, or you can claim only 38% could pass a drug test. The latter is far more representative of the actual situation.

They only cut the benefits of what? Less than 30 people in five years out of 140,000 applicants. Of course this is a state that only tests when the person in under supposition of drug use. That is a waste of time and money.