23.5% of Welfare Rec. in NC Test Positive for Drugs

[Meathead]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

 

[tyroneweaver]

glad I left that crap alone. Really seen it screw up lives.
If I was Prez I would fly secret missions over poppy fields loaded with Roundup
Maybe throw a little soil sterilizer in there for good measure.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well, life is hard and sometimes people do drugs to make it a little easier. Maybe if you raised the minimum wage or fought to get more of the profit going to the workers. Well, maybe there'd be a lot less people on it.

 

[Meathead]

Well, life is hard and sometimes people do drugs to make it a little easier. Maybe if you raised the minimum wage or fought to get more of the profit going to the workers. Well, maybe there'd be a lot less people on it.

Ya think? An abstract theory to be sure, but income does not seem to dictate levels of drug abuse. In fact, simple economics would mean an increase in abuse if anything. It is true that the rich have more treatment options given that they are able to pay for it.

The question is if taxpayers should subsidize drug abuse.

 

[Compost]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

Well, see, Common Core math teaches that the answer is what makes you feel good.

 

[sealybobo]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

It would be great to kick all those caught off welfare.

I used to argue its not worth the cost but I think it is. I've seen personally too many taking advantage of welfare. If we could purge 23% off welfare that'd be good

 

[jillian]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

hey, dumbass, you left out the part of your link that says:

"From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened."

again, moron. that;s less than 0.3% of the total number.

clearly either your reading skills are woefully inadequate or you're just a garden variety wing nut liar.

 

[Meathead]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

hey, dumbass, you left out the part of your link that says:

"From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened."

again, moron. that;s less than 0.3% of the total number.

clearly either your reading skills are woefully inadequate or you're just a garden variety wing nut liar.

Seriously? I left that out? US public education, right?

 

[jillian]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

hey, dumbass, you left out the part of your link that says:

"From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened."

again, moron. that;s less than 0.3% of the total number.

clearly either your reading skills are woefully inadequate or you're just a garden variety wing nut liar.

Seriously? I left that out? US public education, right?

when i said "left it out", your o/p is intentionally misleading.

i saw it included. you clearly ignored it, moron.

 

[sealybobo]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

hey, dumbass, you left out the part of your link that says:

"From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened."

again, moron. that;s less than 0.3% of the total number.

clearly either your reading skills are woefully inadequate or you're just a garden variety wing nut liar.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Meathead]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

hey, dumbass, you left out the part of your link that says:

"From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened."

again, moron. that;s less than 0.3% of the total number.

clearly either your reading skills are woefully inadequate or you're just a garden variety wing nut liar.

Seriously? I left that out? US public education, right?

when i said "left it out", your o/p is intentionally misleading.

i saw it included. you clearly ignored it, moron.

Sure Jilly.

How did Americans get so dumbed down. You're a Hillary supporter eh?

 

[midcan5]

The thing about drug use is the poor use the pusher and the well to do the doctor. Funny thing is if America were to measure drug use that included prescription opioids, SSRIs, etc etc, drug usage would be fifty percent. Look at that hypocrite Limbaugh for example. I know very few women who do not use something or another to get through it. Many men too. Here's the thing, Mathew in his post above has a point, insecurity plays into drug use and it does so at all levels. Living in a society that worships the wrong things and then having a political party that plays on fears helps nada. Anyway stability in life, a fair wage, a just support system all would help. But unless you are truly naive, humans are humans and so it goes. I wonder how bad drug use is in say Sweden or Finland?

 

[sealybobo]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

hey, dumbass, you left out the part of your link that says:

"From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened."

again, moron. that;s less than 0.3% of the total number.

clearly either your reading skills are woefully inadequate or you're just a garden variety wing nut liar.

Seriously? I left that out? US public education, right?

when i said "left it out", your o/p is intentionally misleading.

i saw it included. you clearly ignored it, moron.

Here's the thing. I personally know multiple men who would never gotten away with being the losers they are. My parents would have micromanaged us into being productive citizens. The gov just gives help to anyone who can show they don't make x amount of $. They don't look into why. They all have enough for weed cigarettes and poker. What about all these men?

Then there's all the baby mamas on foodstamps

 

[sealybobo]

The thing about drug use is the poor use the pusher and the well to do the doctor. Funny thing is if America were to measure drug use that included prescription opioids, SSRIs, etc etc, drug usage would be fifty percent. Look at that hypocrite Limbaugh for example. I know very few women who do not use something or another to get through it. Many men too. Here's the thing, Mathew in his post above has a point, insecurity plays into drug use and it does so at all levels. Living in a society that worships the wrong things and then having a political party that plays on fears helps nada. Anyway stability in life, a fair wage, a just support system all would help. But unless you are truly naive, humans are humans and so it goes. I wonder how bad drug use is in say Sweden or Finland?

I think people who don't need welfare should be free to get high all they want.

What would you tell your pot smoking unemployed kid?

This isn't about drugs. This is about slackers playing the system

 

[Meathead]

The thing about drug use is the poor use the pusher and the well to do the doctor. Funny thing is if America were to measure drug use that included prescription opioids, SSRIs, etc etc, drug usage would be fifty percent. Look at that hypocrite Limbaugh for example. I know very few women who do not use something or another to get through it. Many men too. Here's the thing, Mathew in his post above has a point, insecurity plays into drug use and it does so at all levels. Living in a society that worships the wrong things and then having a political party that plays on fears helps nada. Anyway stability in life, a fair wage, a just support system all would help. But unless you are truly naive, humans are humans and so it goes. I wonder how bad drug use is in say Sweden or Finland?

No one is arguing that drugs are bad. The question is if drug use should be subsidized by the taxpayer.

 

[jillian]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

hey, dumbass, you left out the part of your link that says:

"From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened."

again, moron. that;s less than 0.3% of the total number.

clearly either your reading skills are woefully inadequate or you're just a garden variety wing nut liar.

Seriously? I left that out? US public education, right?

when i said "left it out", your o/p is intentionally misleading.

i saw it included. you clearly ignored it, moron.

Here's the thing. I personally know multiple men who would never gotten away with being the losers they are. My parents would have micromanaged us into being productive citizens. The gov just gives help to anyone who can show they don't make x amount of $. They don't look into why. They all have enough for weed cigarettes and poker. What about all these men?

Then there's all the baby mamas on foodstamps

as pointed out, the numbers are miniscule. it is intended only to humiliate poor people. that's the real message to take from the article, not the meathead;s (as in dead from the neck up) misleading o/p title.

as for "baby mama's" aside from the insulting nature of the term, i'm all for reproductive choice and education and contraception.

the people who write o/p's like this one aren't.

 

[jillian]

The thing about drug use is the poor use the pusher and the well to do the doctor. Funny thing is if America were to measure drug use that included prescription opioids, SSRIs, etc etc, drug usage would be fifty percent. Look at that hypocrite Limbaugh for example. I know very few women who do not use something or another to get through it. Many men too. Here's the thing, Mathew in his post above has a point, insecurity plays into drug use and it does so at all levels. Living in a society that worships the wrong things and then having a political party that plays on fears helps nada. Anyway stability in life, a fair wage, a just support system all would help. But unless you are truly naive, humans are humans and so it goes. I wonder how bad drug use is in say Sweden or Finland?

No one is arguing that drugs are bad. The question is if drug use should be subsidized by the taxpayer.

you mean that 0.3% of a limited sample?

i don't think we should subsidize a lot of things that get subsidized...like michele bachmann's "family farm" and her pray away the gay husband.... and corporations who don't pay taxes, and unnecessary wars.

that's life

 

[Meathead]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

hey, dumbass, you left out the part of your link that says:

"From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened."

again, moron. that;s less than 0.3% of the total number.

clearly either your reading skills are woefully inadequate or you're just a garden variety wing nut liar.

Seriously? I left that out? US public education, right?

when i said "left it out", your o/p is intentionally misleading.

i saw it included. you clearly ignored it, moron.

Here's the thing. I personally know multiple men who would never gotten away with being the losers they are. My parents would have micromanaged us into being productive citizens. The gov just gives help to anyone who can show they don't make x amount of $. They don't look into why. They all have enough for weed cigarettes and poker. What about all these men?

Then there's all the baby mamas on foodstamps

as pointed out, the numbers are miniscule. it is intended only to humiliate poor people. that's the real message to take from the article, not the meathead;s (as in dead from the neck up) misleading o/p title.

as for "baby mama's" aside from the insulting nature of the term, i'm all for reproductive choice and education and contraception.

the people who write o/p's like this one aren't.

23.5% of those tested showed drug use - fact. The 0.3% result is the one that's designed for dumbed down Americans like yourself who can hardly read.

 

[jillian]

An interesting article designed for dumbed down liberals which states that only 0.3% of those screened tested positive. Now, I would like to challenge those with US public education to figure out this paragraph of the article:

From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened.

North Carolina reveals results of welfare applicant drug tests

hey, dumbass, you left out the part of your link that says:

"From the 7,600 recipients and applicants given an initial screening, social workers referred only 2% for drug testing. That amounted to 89 people. Of those 89, 21 people tested positive for drugs, representing less than 0.3% of the total number of those screened."

again, moron. that;s less than 0.3% of the total number.

clearly either your reading skills are woefully inadequate or you're just a garden variety wing nut liar.

Seriously? I left that out? US public education, right?

when i said "left it out", your o/p is intentionally misleading.

i saw it included. you clearly ignored it, moron.

Sure Jilly.

How did Americans get so dumbed down. You're a Hillary supporter eh?

so tell the class why you constructed an intentionally misleading thread, liar boy.

you are aware that hillary supporters are a lot more intelligent and educated than the wingers who like trump or cruz, right, moron?

 

[martybegan]

Well, life is hard and sometimes people do drugs to make it a little easier. Maybe if you raised the minimum wage or fought to get more of the profit going to the workers. Well, maybe there'd be a lot less people on it.

Ya think? An abstract theory to be sure, but income does not seem to dictate levels of drug abuse. In fact, simple economics would mean an increase in abuse if anything. It is true that the rich have more treatment options given that they are able to pay for it.

The question is if taxpayers should subsidize drug abuse.

The answer depends on what you see welfare and support by the state as accomplishing. If the goal is to elevate these people so they can take care of themselves and become productive members of society, then no, what should happen is they should be put into rehab and tested continuously while on support.

If the actual goal of the welfare state is to keep the poor docile, dependent on government, and ignorant, then let them blaze em up.