Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The most colossal failure of this policy was in Arizona, which passed a drug-testing law in 2009. In 2012, an evaluation of the program had startling results: After three years and 87,000 screenings, only one person had failed the drug test, with huge costs for the state, which saved a few hundred dollars by denying benefits, compared to the hundreds of thousands spent to conduct the tests.
The myth of welfare recipients spending their benefits on drugs is just thata myth. And indeed, in Utah, only 12 people out of 466or 2.5 percentshowed evidence of drug use after a mandatory screening. The total cost to the state was $25,000, or far more than the cost of providing benefits to a dozen people. The only thing gained from mandatory drug testing is the humiliation of desperate people.
Which, judging from the GOPs continued enthusiasm for the idea, is enough. In Ohio, for instance, state senator Tim Schaffer has introduced legislation that would establish a drug-testing program for the states welfare program. It is time that we recognize that many families are trying to survive in drug-induced poverty, and we have an obligation to make sure taxpayer money is not being used to support drug dealers, Schaffer said. We can no longer turn a blind eye to this problem.
If Ohio is anything like Florida, which also has a drug-testing program, Schaffer will find that the large majority of welfare recipients are neither drug users nor drug dealers. From 2011 to 2012, just 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test faileda rate of 2.6 percent, compared to a national drug use rate of over 8 percent. The total cost to Florida taxpayers? $45,780.
The biggest reason is likely the way Arizona determines "reasonable cause." Essentially, the state asks new recipients whether they've used drugs in the past 30 days, and only those who answer yes are tested. With no penalty for lying, a couple of dozen owned up. Of those, several tested negative; the rest failed to take the test... another 1,633 people failed to return their drug use questionnaires. And did not receive benefits.
With no penalty for lying, a couple of dozen owned up. Of those, several tested negative; the rest failed to take the test.
But repubs want less govt. and less regulations, oh yeah, that only covers big business.......sorry, let's get back to GOP intrusion...
CaféAuLait;8827122 said:As pointed out in this article the reason the program fails in Arizona is the way they determine probable cause to test, a potential recipient can lie without penalty.
The biggest reason is likely the way Arizona determines "reasonable cause." Essentially, the state asks new recipients whether they've used drugs in the past 30 days, and only those who answer yes are tested. With no penalty for lying, a couple of dozen owned up. Of those, several tested negative; the rest failed to take the test... another 1,633 people failed to return their drug use questionnaires. And did not receive benefits.
Drug testing welfare applicants nets little ? USATODAY.com
Arizona only tests those applicants who admit to drug use within the last 30 days.
Seems to me if any program were to work it can't rely on self incrimination or allowing one to lie, such a program would have to do pop drug testing if a state wishes it to work.
The reason why only one person tested positive is only a few dozen said they did drugs in the past 30 days and less than that were tested.
With no penalty for lying, a couple of dozen owned up. Of those, several tested negative; the rest failed to take the test.
Drug testing welfare applicants nets little ? USATODAY.com
CaféAuLait;8827122 said:As pointed out in this article the reason the program fails in Arizona is the way they determine probable cause to test, a potential recipient can lie without penalty.
The biggest reason is likely the way Arizona determines "reasonable cause." Essentially, the state asks new recipients whether they've used drugs in the past 30 days, and only those who answer yes are tested. With no penalty for lying, a couple of dozen owned up. Of those, several tested negative; the rest failed to take the test... another 1,633 people failed to return their drug use questionnaires. And did not receive benefits.
Drug testing welfare applicants nets little ? USATODAY.com
Arizona only tests those applicants who admit to drug use within the last 30 days.
Seems to me if any program were to work it can't rely on self incrimination or allowing one to lie, such a program would have to do pop drug testing if a state wishes it to work.
The reason why only one person tested positive is only a few dozen said they did drugs in the past 30 days and less than that were tested.
With no penalty for lying, a couple of dozen owned up. Of those, several tested negative; the rest failed to take the test.
Drug testing welfare applicants nets little ? USATODAY.com
Lol even if the Arizona study was flawed, it's still clear that drug abuse among welfare recipients in that state is still quite low with those variables in mind. It also does nothing to negate the other studies showing no significance. The bottom line is that it really isn't much of a problem. Why? Because welfare recipients get peanuts anyways
Take food stamps for example. The average recipient lives in a household with a total monthly income of $744 a MONTH. The average recipient only receives $133 a month.
SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
I am the only one that has the right to collect and keep my pee.Howard Hughes spirit has possessed me....
Studies show that people on welfare who use drugs is quite low.
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use - The Daily Beast
The most colossal failure of this policy was in Arizona, which passed a drug-testing law in 2009. In 2012, an evaluation of the program had startling results: After three years and 87,000 screenings, only one person had failed the drug test, with huge costs for the state, which saved a few hundred dollars by denying benefits, compared to the hundreds of thousands spent to conduct the tests.
The myth of welfare recipients spending their benefits on drugs is just thata myth. And indeed, in Utah, only 12 people out of 466or 2.5 percentshowed evidence of drug use after a mandatory screening. The total cost to the state was $25,000, or far more than the cost of providing benefits to a dozen people. The only thing gained from mandatory drug testing is the humiliation of desperate people.
Which, judging from the GOPs continued enthusiasm for the idea, is enough. In Ohio, for instance, state senator Tim Schaffer has introduced legislation that would establish a drug-testing program for the states welfare program. It is time that we recognize that many families are trying to survive in drug-induced poverty, and we have an obligation to make sure taxpayer money is not being used to support drug dealers, Schaffer said. We can no longer turn a blind eye to this problem.
If Ohio is anything like Florida, which also has a drug-testing program, Schaffer will find that the large majority of welfare recipients are neither drug users nor drug dealers. From 2011 to 2012, just 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test faileda rate of 2.6 percent, compared to a national drug use rate of over 8 percent. The total cost to Florida taxpayers? $45,780.
As you can see, another issue exposes just how full of shit republicans actually are.
CaféAuLait;8827122 said:As pointed out in this article the reason the program fails in Arizona is the way they determine probable cause to test, a potential recipient can lie without penalty.
Drug testing welfare applicants nets little ? USATODAY.com
Arizona only tests those applicants who admit to drug use within the last 30 days.
Seems to me if any program were to work it can't rely on self incrimination or allowing one to lie, such a program would have to do pop drug testing if a state wishes it to work.
The reason why only one person tested positive is only a few dozen said they did drugs in the past 30 days and less than that were tested.
Drug testing welfare applicants nets little ? USATODAY.com
Lol even if the Arizona study was flawed, it's still clear that drug abuse among welfare recipients in that state is still quite low with those variables in mind. It also does nothing to negate the other studies showing no significance. The bottom line is that it really isn't much of a problem. Why? Because welfare recipients get peanuts anyways
Take food stamps for example. The average recipient lives in a household with a total monthly income of $744 a MONTH. The average recipient only receives $133 a month.
SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
I have no issue with people doing drugs, it's their life... But you sound so utterly ignorant and blissfully stupid it's almost hard to believe.
Your OP has 0% credibility when it was shown that in order to be tested you has to say "yes" to drug use in the last 30 days. If a study were done where they just showed up and tested people randomly without giving people a heads up or a choice, you would claim it was against peoples will and that's why the study does not count... Of course in that study it wouldn't be shocking if people tested at over 50% using drugs.
It's about paying for other peoples way while they spend their own money on drugs. That's the issue you hyper bias moron.
CaféAuLait;8827122 said:As pointed out in this article the reason the program fails in Arizona is the way they determine probable cause to test, a potential recipient can lie without penalty.
The biggest reason is likely the way Arizona determines "reasonable cause." Essentially, the state asks new recipients whether they've used drugs in the past 30 days, and only those who answer yes are tested. With no penalty for lying, a couple of dozen owned up. Of those, several tested negative; the rest failed to take the test... another 1,633 people failed to return their drug use questionnaires. And did not receive benefits.
Drug testing welfare applicants nets little ? USATODAY.com
Arizona only tests those applicants who admit to drug use within the last 30 days.
Seems to me if any program were to work it can't rely on self incrimination or allowing one to lie, such a program would have to do pop drug testing if a state wishes it to work.
The reason why only one person tested positive is only a few dozen said they did drugs in the past 30 days and less than that were tested.
With no penalty for lying, a couple of dozen owned up. Of those, several tested negative; the rest failed to take the test.
Drug testing welfare applicants nets little ? USATODAY.com
Lol even if the Arizona study was flawed, it's still clear that drug abuse among welfare recipients in that state is still quite low with those variables in mind. It also does nothing to negate the other studies showing no significance. The other studies are based on actual drug test results. The bottom line is that it really isn't much of a problem. Why? Because welfare recipients get peanuts anyways
Take food stamps for example. The average recipient lives in a household with a total monthly income of $744 a MONTH. The average recipient only receives $133 a month.
SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
Studies show that people on welfare who use drugs is quite low.
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use - The Daily Beast
The most colossal failure of this policy was in Arizona, which passed a drug-testing law in 2009. In 2012, an evaluation of the program had startling results: After three years and 87,000 screenings, only one person had failed the drug test, with huge costs for the state, which saved a few hundred dollars by denying benefits, compared to the hundreds of thousands spent to conduct the tests.
The myth of welfare recipients spending their benefits on drugs is just thata myth. And indeed, in Utah, only 12 people out of 466or 2.5 percentshowed evidence of drug use after a mandatory screening. The total cost to the state was $25,000, or far more than the cost of providing benefits to a dozen people. The only thing gained from mandatory drug testing is the humiliation of desperate people.
Which, judging from the GOPs continued enthusiasm for the idea, is enough. In Ohio, for instance, state senator Tim Schaffer has introduced legislation that would establish a drug-testing program for the states welfare program. It is time that we recognize that many families are trying to survive in drug-induced poverty, and we have an obligation to make sure taxpayer money is not being used to support drug dealers, Schaffer said. We can no longer turn a blind eye to this problem.
If Ohio is anything like Florida, which also has a drug-testing program, Schaffer will find that the large majority of welfare recipients are neither drug users nor drug dealers. From 2011 to 2012, just 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test faileda rate of 2.6 percent, compared to a national drug use rate of over 8 percent. The total cost to Florida taxpayers? $45,780.
As you can see, another issue exposes just how full of shit republicans actually are.
Again. I'm not bias on the topic but the studies are slanted. HARD DRUGS stay in your system only for days and WEED stays in your system for months.
I am the only one that has the right to collect and keep my pee.Howard Hughes spirit has possessed me....
And I should be the only one that is allowed to collect my own money and give it to others through welfare.
Fucking retarded you people are.
Lol even if the Arizona study was flawed, it's still clear that drug abuse among welfare recipients in that state is still quite low with those variables in mind. It also does nothing to negate the other studies showing no significance. The bottom line is that it really isn't much of a problem. Why? Because welfare recipients get peanuts anyways
Take food stamps for example. The average recipient lives in a household with a total monthly income of $744 a MONTH. The average recipient only receives $133 a month.
SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
I have no issue with people doing drugs, it's their life... But you sound so utterly ignorant and blissfully stupid it's almost hard to believe.
Your OP has 0% credibility when it was shown that in order to be tested you has to say "yes" to drug use in the last 30 days. If a study were done where they just showed up and tested people randomly without giving people a heads up or a choice, you would claim it was against peoples will and that's why the study does not count... Of course in that study it wouldn't be shocking if people tested at over 50% using drugs.
It's about paying for other peoples way while they spend their own money on drugs. That's the issue you hyper bias moron.
No you tool. Even if the Arizona study was flawed, it does nothing to negate the other three studies discussed with results based on actual drug test results.
Lol even if the Arizona study was flawed, it's still clear that drug abuse among welfare recipients in that state is still quite low with those variables in mind. It also does nothing to negate the other studies showing no significance. The bottom line is that it really isn't much of a problem. Why? Because welfare recipients get peanuts anyways
Take food stamps for example. The average recipient lives in a household with a total monthly income of $744 a MONTH. The average recipient only receives $133 a month.
SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
I have no issue with people doing drugs, it's their life... But you sound so utterly ignorant and blissfully stupid it's almost hard to believe.
Your OP has 0% credibility when it was shown that in order to be tested you has to say "yes" to drug use in the last 30 days. If a study were done where they just showed up and tested people randomly without giving people a heads up or a choice, you would claim it was against peoples will and that's why the study does not count... Of course in that study it wouldn't be shocking if people tested at over 50% using drugs.
It's about paying for other peoples way while they spend their own money on drugs. That's the issue you hyper bias moron.
No you tool. Even if the Arizona study was flawed, it does nothing to negate the other three studies discussed with results based on actual drug test results.
When the peopel that write and pass the laws are drug tested equality will triumph...
