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

[Meathead]

OP is misleading.

Why? Were not 23.5 of

Tell me what this says?

During the period in which the law was in effect, 4,406 applicants submitted to drug testing. Only 108 — less than 3 percent — tested positive for drugs. Another 2,306 applicants failed to complete the applications or receive the drug screens.

“Viewing all of the facts in the light most favorable to the state, we agree with the district court that the state has failed to establish a demonstrable or peculiar drug-use problem among TANF applicants. If anything, the evidence extant suggests quite the opposite: that rates of drug use in the TANF population are no greater than for those who receive other government benefits, or even for the general public,” Marcus wrote.

Appeals Court: Welfare Drug Tests Unconstitutional

Mark

What it says is that some 25% want to get welfare benefi

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 somebody is full of shit somewhere.

Every time they have tested welfare recipients in other state they found it was a waste of time. Almost none tested positive. Guess what Eating and paying rent beats getting high for them.

The numbers don't add up either.

It says they sent 89 people. But first it said they sent 2% for testing and 2% of 7600 people is 152 people NOT 89.

21 test positive which is 13% of those they sent for testing and only .0027631 of the total of 7600.

WHICH ONCE AGAIN IS ALMOST NONE.

QUIT LYING

25% of those test failed the drug test. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Taxpayers should not be subsiding the drug abuse of 25% of welfare recipients.

=============
Once again, dumbass, get your fuckin' calculator out and have someone show you how to use it.

152 people were tested and 21 came up positive. 21 / 152 = .13185 --- nowhere near 25% it's 13%
and that is 13% of the small sample tested. It is only .002763157 of the total of 7600 people they pulled in.

ONCE AGAIN DUMBASS ... ALMOST NONE OF THEM TESTED POSITIVE.

Only 13% of the sample and two thousandths of a percent of the total 7600.

Even if the small sample was PERFECTLY representative of the whole group that would only be 988 out of 7600 which is 13% of the total and there is no evidence that that is the case.

Normally they would have selected those 152 people because they profiled them as being possible drug users but only 13% were. It is very likely there are drug users who weren't sent for testing but it would be a small small number.

THEY CAN'T AFFORD DRUGS

It tells me that 25% of those mooching on government benefits are using drug. It tells me that e people are free-loaders.

 

[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

===========

Well somebody is full of shit somewhere.

Every time they have tested welfare recipients in other state they found it was a waste of time. Almost none tested positive. Guess what Eating and paying rent beats getting high for them.

The numbers don't add up either.

It says they sent 89 people. But first it said they sent 2% for testing and 2% of 7600 people is 152 people NOT 89.

21 test positive which is 13% of those they sent for testing and only .0027631 of the total of 7600.

WHICH ONCE AGAIN IS ALMOST NONE.

QUIT LYING

25% of those test failed the drug test. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Taxpayers should not be subsiding the drug abuse of 25% of welfare recipients.

=============
Once again, dumbass, get your fuckin' calculator out and have someone show you how to use it.

152 people were tested and 21 came up positive. 21 / 152 = .13185 --- nowhere near 25% it's 13%
and that is 13% of the small sample tested. It is only .002763157 of the total of 7600 people they pulled in.

ONCE AGAIN DUMBASS ... ALMOST NONE OF THEM TESTED POSITIVE.

Only 13% of the sample and two thousandths of a percent of the total 7600.

Even if the small sample was PERFECTLY representative of the whole group that would only be 988 out of 7600 which is 13% of the total and there is no evidence that that is the case.

Normally they would have selected those 152 people because they profiled them as being possible drug users but only 13% were. It is very likely there are drug users who weren't sent for testing but it would be a small small number.

THEY CAN'T AFFORD DRUGS

No, 89 people were tested, of which 21 failed the test. That is 25% who failed the test. About 25% moochers.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

What the fuck????

Earth to Matthew instead of doing meth they would be doing cocaine if the NC MW was raised.

North Carolina don't surprise me that many, but are they including prescriptions ?

 

[Arizona Willie]

OP is misleading.

Why? Were not 23.5 of

Tell me what this says?

During the period in which the law was in effect, 4,406 applicants submitted to drug testing. Only 108 — less than 3 percent — tested positive for drugs. Another 2,306 applicants failed to complete the applications or receive the drug screens.

“Viewing all of the facts in the light most favorable to the state, we agree with the district court that the state has failed to establish a demonstrable or peculiar drug-use problem among TANF applicants. If anything, the evidence extant suggests quite the opposite: that rates of drug use in the TANF population are no greater than for those who receive other government benefits, or even for the general public,” Marcus wrote.

Appeals Court: Welfare Drug Tests Unconstitutional

Mark

What it says is that some 25% want to get welfare benefi

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 somebody is full of shit somewhere.

Every time they have tested welfare recipients in other state they found it was a waste of time. Almost none tested positive. Guess what Eating and paying rent beats getting high for them.

The numbers don't add up either.

It says they sent 89 people. But first it said they sent 2% for testing and 2% of 7600 people is 152 people NOT 89.

21 test positive which is 13% of those they sent for testing and only .0027631 of the total of 7600.

WHICH ONCE AGAIN IS ALMOST NONE.

QUIT LYING

25% of those test failed the drug test. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Taxpayers should not be subsiding the drug abuse of 25% of welfare recipients.

=============
Once again, dumbass, get your fuckin' calculator out and have someone show you how to use it.

152 people were tested and 21 came up positive. 21 / 152 = .13185 --- nowhere near 25% it's 13%
and that is 13% of the small sample tested. It is only .002763157 of the total of 7600 people they pulled in.

ONCE AGAIN DUMBASS ... ALMOST NONE OF THEM TESTED POSITIVE.

Only 13% of the sample and two thousandths of a percent of the total 7600.

Even if the small sample was PERFECTLY representative of the whole group that would only be 988 out of 7600 which is 13% of the total and there is no evidence that that is the case.

Normally they would have selected those 152 people because they profiled them as being possible drug users but only 13% were. It is very likely there are drug users who weren't sent for testing but it would be a small small number.

THEY CAN'T AFFORD DRUGS

It tells me that 25% of those mooching on government benefits are using drug. It tells me that e people are free-loaders.

======
How does it feel to be a LIAR?

I have already proven to you TWICE that your 25% figure is a LIE yet you keep on spewing it.

Obviously you are a Republican because you have no regard for TRUTH.

 

[Arizona Willie]

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 somebody is full of shit somewhere.

Every time they have tested welfare recipients in other state they found it was a waste of time. Almost none tested positive. Guess what Eating and paying rent beats getting high for them.

The numbers don't add up either.

It says they sent 89 people. But first it said they sent 2% for testing and 2% of 7600 people is 152 people NOT 89.

21 test positive which is 13% of those they sent for testing and only .0027631 of the total of 7600.

WHICH ONCE AGAIN IS ALMOST NONE.

QUIT LYING

25% of those test failed the drug test. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Taxpayers should not be subsiding the drug abuse of 25% of welfare recipients.

=============
Once again, dumbass, get your fuckin' calculator out and have someone show you how to use it.

152 people were tested and 21 came up positive. 21 / 152 = .13185 --- nowhere near 25% it's 13%
and that is 13% of the small sample tested. It is only .002763157 of the total of 7600 people they pulled in.

ONCE AGAIN DUMBASS ... ALMOST NONE OF THEM TESTED POSITIVE.

Only 13% of the sample and two thousandths of a percent of the total 7600.

Even if the small sample was PERFECTLY representative of the whole group that would only be 988 out of 7600 which is 13% of the total and there is no evidence that that is the case.

Normally they would have selected those 152 people because they profiled them as being possible drug users but only 13% were. It is very likely there are drug users who weren't sent for testing but it would be a small small number.

THEY CAN'T AFFORD DRUGS

No, 89 people were tested, of which 21 failed the test. That is 25% who failed the test. About 25% moochers.

============
According to the ORIGINAL ARTICLE 152 people were tested --- not 89.

You people just keep trying to change the numbers to make your fantasy work.

 

[Meathead]

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.

 

[Meathead]

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.

25% of those given tests failed. Meaning that a quarter of those getting wealfare were on drugs.

 

[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.

If 89 people were tested for drugs and 29 were postive thats not 0.3%. Without knowing what they mean by "initial screening" these numbers are worthless.

The 89 tested for drugs were those who were at the highest risk of being drug users.....those with previous convictions

So of 89 known drug users, it was found that 23% still used drugs

So they didn't actually test the other 7511 applicants they just assumed they were clean and used that to come up with the 0.3%. That is some really bad statistical math.

They tested people who were likely users. As was pointed out, doing random tests was a ridiculous waste of money.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

If 89 people were tested for drugs and 29 were postive thats not 0.3%. Without knowing what they mean by "initial screening" these numbers are worthless.

The 89 tested for drugs were those who were at the highest risk of being drug users.....those with previous convictions

So of 89 known drug users, it was found that 23% still used drugs

So they didn't actually test the other 7511 applicants they just assumed they were clean and used that to come up with the 0.3%. That is some really bad statistical math.

They tested people who were likely users. As was pointed out, doing random tests was a ridiculous waste of money.

But they counted 7511 people who were not tested in the results.Bad math to back up a claim doesn't work.

 

[jillian]

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.

If 89 people were tested for drugs and 29 were postive thats not 0.3%. Without knowing what they mean by "initial screening" these numbers are worthless.

The 89 tested for drugs were those who were at the highest risk of being drug users.....those with previous convictions

So of 89 known drug users, it was found that 23% still used drugs

So they didn't actually test the other 7511 applicants they just assumed they were clean and used that to come up with the 0.3%. That is some really bad statistical math.

They tested people who were likely users. As was pointed out, doing random tests was a ridiculous waste of money.

But they counted 7511 people who were not tested in the results.Bad math to back up a claim doesn't work.

Well beside the fact that I don't believe in humiliating poor people by drug testing them; or wasting tax dollars that can feed hungry people by spending those dollars on drug tests, the sample doesn't seem to have been random. It seems people were tested they had cause to test. And even those results showed minimal drug use.

The point, though, was that the o/p created an intentionally dishonest thread title.

 

[Timmy]

Dude , your bogus thread title really shoots down this whole thread . You make it seem that 1/4 of wElfare folk test positive and that's not the case .

Shame on you .

 

[rightwinger]

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 somebody is full of shit somewhere.

Every time they have tested welfare recipients in other state they found it was a waste of time. Almost none tested positive. Guess what Eating and paying rent beats getting high for them.

The numbers don't add up either.

It says they sent 89 people. But first it said they sent 2% for testing and 2% of 7600 people is 152 people NOT 89.

21 test positive which is 13% of those they sent for testing and only .0027631 of the total of 7600.

WHICH ONCE AGAIN IS ALMOST NONE.

QUIT LYING

25% of those test failed the drug test. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Taxpayers should not be subsiding the drug abuse of 25% of welfare recipients.

25% of the known drug users failed the test

To which you equated to 25% of all welfare recipients

 

[Meathead]

Sure. Of the 159 to be tested, 70 did not come and 21 failed meaning 91 did not pass the test and lose their benefits although their children don't. They can go through a program and reapply for the test but will have to pay for their own testing.

So (math warning), 57.2% of drug using moochers will be off the welfare rolls for at least a month. These program need to go nationally if taxpayers are to stop subsidizing drug abuse.

Spare your righteous indignation for dying polar bears or something.

 

[ConservativePolitician]

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

But this is how the left buys & pays for votes. The more low income low information citizens dependent on the government, all the better for the left. Liberals have created a society full of lazy & entitled slugs.

 

[rightwinger]

Sure. Of the 159 to be tested, 70 did not come and 21 failed meaning 91 did not pass the test and lose their benefits although their children don't. They can go through a program and reapply for the test but will have to pay for their own testing.

So (math warning), 57.2% of drug using moochers will be off the welfare rolls for at least a month. These program need to go nationally if taxpayers are to stop subsidizing drug abuse.

Spare your righteous indignation for dying polar bears or something.

Now you are getting closer

If you want to punish drug users on welfare, go after those who have been proven to be drug users and leave the rest alone

 

[Arizona Willie]

If 89 people were tested for drugs and 29 were postive thats not 0.3%. Without knowing what they mean by "initial screening" these numbers are worthless.

The 89 tested for drugs were those who were at the highest risk of being drug users.....those with previous convictions

So of 89 known drug users, it was found that 23% still used drugs

So they didn't actually test the other 7511 applicants they just assumed they were clean and used that to come up with the 0.3%. That is some really bad statistical math.

They tested people who were likely users. As was pointed out, doing random tests was a ridiculous waste of money.

But they counted 7511 people who were not tested in the results.Bad math to back up a claim doesn't work.

Well beside the fact that I don't believe in humiliating poor people by drug testing them; or wasting tax dollars that can feed hungry people by spending those dollars on drug tests, the sample doesn't seem to have been random. It seems people were tested they had cause to test. And even those results showed minimal drug use.

The point, though, was that the o/p created an intentionally dishonest thread title.

=========
Correct, they profiled the 7600 people and only sent a small group for testing and in that group 13% tested positive --- not 25%.

But the right weiners are bound and determined to claim that 25% of that 7600 are on drugs even though I < PROVED > that their figures were bogus and nothing but LIES --- they ignore the FACTS and continue to spew the approved right weiner ideology and lies.

Republicans have NO USE FOR THE TRUTH.

 

[Arizona Willie]

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 somebody is full of shit somewhere.

Every time they have tested welfare recipients in other state they found it was a waste of time. Almost none tested positive. Guess what Eating and paying rent beats getting high for them.

The numbers don't add up either.

It says they sent 89 people. But first it said they sent 2% for testing and 2% of 7600 people is 152 people NOT 89.

21 test positive which is 13% of those they sent for testing and only .0027631 of the total of 7600.

WHICH ONCE AGAIN IS ALMOST NONE.

QUIT LYING

25% of those test failed the drug test. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Taxpayers should not be subsiding the drug abuse of 25% of welfare recipients.

25% of the known drug users failed the test

To which you equated to 25% of all welfare recipients

=========
And actually, as I proved to them TWICE --- the true figure is 13% of the people they tested, tested positive === NOT 25%.

But, as is typical of Republican weiners they ignore the FACTS and continue to spew their LIES.

 

[Meathead]

The 89 tested for drugs were those who were at the highest risk of being drug users.....those with previous convictions

So of 89 known drug users, it was found that 23% still used drugs

So they didn't actually test the other 7511 applicants they just assumed they were clean and used that to come up with the 0.3%. That is some really bad statistical math.

They tested people who were likely users. As was pointed out, doing random tests was a ridiculous waste of money.

But they counted 7511 people who were not tested in the results.Bad math to back up a claim doesn't work.

Well beside the fact that I don't believe in humiliating poor people by drug testing them; or wasting tax dollars that can feed hungry people by spending those dollars on drug tests, the sample doesn't seem to have been random. It seems people were tested they had cause to test. And even those results showed minimal drug use.

The point, though, was that the o/p created an intentionally dishonest thread title.

=========
Correct, they profiled the 7600 people and only sent a small group for testing and in that group 13% tested positive --- not 25%.

But the right weiners are bound and determined to claim that 25% of that 7600 are on drugs even though I < PROVED > that their figures were bogus and nothing but LIES --- they ignore the FACTS and continue to spew the approved right weiner ideology and lies.

Republicans have NO USE FOR THE TRUTH.

Yeah Slick, 70 did not even show up to be tested. So, of the 159 ordered tested, only 68 passed so 91 lose benefits. That's math and an excellent reason why the testing should be extended so taxpayers don't subsidize drug abuse and those who need help might be motivated to get it.

It's pretty much a win-win, except for those who think taxpayers should support moochers' drug abuse.