Remember Florida's welfare drug tests?

www.nytimes.com...
They completely failed. 98% of those on welfare passed them. The state spent more testing everyone than it saved in weeding marijuana use out from 2% of welfare recipients.

The only winner of the program was the states governor who owned the medical company doing the tests.

reply to post by Vrill


Was that the same governor who refused a drug test to get his own government paycheck when asked by reporters?

Right, hypocrisy and greed, nothing new from our government servants.

reply to post by Vrill


I think there was a thread about this yesterday mate.there is word of them starting this sort of thing here in the u.k. for jobseekers allowance.more about keeping their medical buddies milking the public purse I think.

If they brought that plan to Australia I would support it whole heartedly, even if only 2% of those tested were found to be drug abusers. I work my bum off every day and pay a healthy share of tax that goes towards government assistance (amongst other things). I don't want the money I busted my arse working for given to someone who's just gonna duck down the alley and inject it into their arm

Originally posted by Vrill
www.nytimes.com...
They completely failed. 98% of those on welfare passed them. The state spent more testing everyone than it saved in weeding marijuana use out from 2% of welfare recipients.

The only winner of the program was the states governor who owned the medical company doing the tests.

What is unknown is the number of people who stayed drug-free because of the law. How can you quantify that number? If 98% were drug free it seems like the law had outstanding effect.

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Vrill

 

Was that the same governor who refused a drug test to get his own government paycheck when asked by reporters?

Right, hypocrisy and greed, nothing new from our government servants.

How is that hypocrisy? A paycheck is not welfare.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I think the point is it cost more than it saved.

reply to post by LordGoofus


you moan about paying tax which goes into government assistance for junkies yet it doesn't bother you that this cost more than it saved?the irony.

Originally posted by glen200376
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I think the point is it cost more than it saved.

The point wasn't to keep people off drugs if they were receiving welfare checks? How can one quantify the percentages of people who got cleaned up because of the law? 98%, to me, appears to be a fantastic success. I think people are more important than $$$.

Already a big thread on the topic here www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Lol, youjr misreading the statistics, they weren't drug free because of the test, they were drug free already and passed because of that fact.

The ridiculous belief that if your poor your a druggie is just stupid, it doesn't even make sense. There have always been poor people, matter of fact, more people are poor than not, and more people are drug free than not.

Ergo most poor people are already drug free in the first place. See it is simple math I will show you.

Drugs cost X, when your poor you don't have any money, so no matter the vvalue of X you can't afford to buy it. I think your confusing the methadone clinic with the welfare office.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Vrill
www.nytimes.com...
They completely failed. 98% of those on welfare passed them. The state spent more testing everyone than it saved in weeding marijuana use out from 2% of welfare recipients.

The only winner of the program was the states governor who owned the medical company doing the tests.

What is unknown is the number of people who stayed drug-free because of the law. How can you quantify that number? If 98% were drug free it seems like the law had outstanding effect.

Why do you object so much that poor people on welfare are taking from the system, but don't bat an eyelid about the fact that, although they don't need it, the rich gov and his wife are taking far more from the same system?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Vrill

 

Was that the same governor who refused a drug test to get his own government paycheck when asked by reporters?

Right, hypocrisy and greed, nothing new from our government servants.

How is that hypocrisy? A paycheck is not welfare.

Does his paycheck come from taxpayers? If he refuses the same drug test that he is forcing on citizens in order to receive income paid from tax monies, then he should suffer the same consequences of having this income withdrawn.

He makes YOU live by this law because it makes him rich. Meanwhile, he can go pushing charlie up his nose by the bucketful if he wants to, and continue to draw his gov paycheck (and healthy profits from his company), all paid for by YOU.

So, your tax dollar could very well be funding a rich politician's drug habit. How do you feel about that?

But let's all jump on the jobless poor.

Originally posted by doobydoll

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Vrill
www.nytimes.com...
They completely failed. 98% of those on welfare passed them. The state spent more testing everyone than it saved in weeding marijuana use out from 2% of welfare recipients.

The only winner of the program was the states governor who owned the medical company doing the tests.

What is unknown is the number of people who stayed drug-free because of the law. How can you quantify that number? If 98% were drug free it seems like the law had outstanding effect.

Why do you object so much that poor people on welfare are taking from the system, but don't bat an eyelid about the fact that, although they don't need it, the rich gov and his wife are taking far more from the same system?

What r u talking about? I didnt say ANY of that. Way to straw man. I said it's great 98% of the welfare recipients are drug free.

I concur with the other poster that the druggie welfare users cleaned up prior to the test. Now go back and test them again.

I find it hilarious the people who want to GIVE AWAY FREE money for welfare are suddenly concerned about the costs of a drug testing.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Lol, youjr misreading the statistics, they weren't drug free because of the test, they were drug free already and passed because of that fact.

The ridiculous belief that if your poor your a druggie is just stupid, it doesn't even make sense. There have always been poor people, matter of fact, more people are poor than not, and more people are drug free than not.

Ergo most poor people are already drug free in the first place. See it is simple math I will show you.

Drugs cost X, when your poor you don't have any money, so no matter the vvalue of X you can't afford to buy it. I think your confusing the methadone clinic with the welfare office.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. In order to continue receiving benefits they had to remain drug free and in order to start receiving benefits they had to be drug free. You have no idea how many folks "got clean" in order to pass the preliminary drug screen and you have no idea how many recipients remained drug free to continue welfare. 98% is outstanding success in my book. At the end of the day 98% of the welfare recipients are drug free.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


How do you know they weren't drug-free all along?

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

How do you know they weren't drug-free all along?

I'm sure many were. Bottom line is today 98% are drug free.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by doobydoll

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Vrill
www.nytimes.com...
They completely failed. 98% of those on welfare passed them. The state spent more testing everyone than it saved in weeding marijuana use out from 2% of welfare recipients.

The only winner of the program was the states governor who owned the medical company doing the tests.

What is unknown is the number of people who stayed drug-free because of the law. How can you quantify that number? If 98% were drug free it seems like the law had outstanding effect.

Why do you object so much that poor people on welfare are taking from the system, but don't bat an eyelid about the fact that, although they don't need it, the rich gov and his wife are taking far more from the same system?

What r u talking about? I didnt say ANY of that. Way to straw man. I said it's great 98% of the welfare recipients are drug free.

You know what I'm talking about. Poor people being forced to jump through hoops for money so they can buy basic food, accused of being druggies for no other reason than they have hit on hard times and ask for help - but not a word about corrupt gov Scott and his conflicting interests in pushing this law through.

And that 98% are probably not drug abusers in the first place, which is why they passed the test, and also why they stay drug-free. Why do you not consider that?

reply to post by doobydoll


No, actually i DON'T know what you're talking about. And I'm all for helping people in need, but here is a lesson for you that you should have learned in elementary school. Rules etc are always made because of the few abusers and everyone suffers as a result.