Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-25-2011, 12:57 AM   #1
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Welfare drug-testing yields 2 percent positive results

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/20...res-ar-252458/

Quote:
TALLAHASSEE --

Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.

At Scott's urging, the Legislature implemented the new requirement earlier this year that applicants for temporary cash assistance pass a drug test before collecting any benefits.

The law, which took effect July 1, requires applicants to pay for their own drug tests. Those who test drug-free are reimbursed by the state, and those who fail cannot receive benefits for a year.

Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people — 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested — fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won’t get, saving the state $2,680 to $4,020 a month.

Since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year’s worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200 to $48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months.

The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge.

The ACLU has been threatening for months that it may challenge the constitutionality of the program; Tuesday, Newton said his group is still weighing a lawsuit.

DCF spokesman Joe Follick said that families and accountability are the main focuses of the program.

"The taxpayers deserve to know that the money they are spending is being used for its intended purpose," he said. "In this case, with [temporary cash assistance], the purpose is to help families become independent and self-sufficient. If a family receiving [cash assistance] includes someone who has a substance abuse problem, the odds of that money being used for purposes other than helping that family increases."

More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2011, 01:01 AM   #2
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
So the state saves $60,000 and spends $178 million.

Did I mention Gov. Scott Walker owns majority shares in the company which is doing all the testing?
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2011, 01:42 PM   #3
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
Well at least now there is proof that people on that program aren't a bunch of druggies so that argument is weakened if anyone tries to implement a drug testing policy for similar programs, although something tells me that the stereotype will continue to persist.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2011, 02:20 PM   #4
Renatus
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Back in Wisconsin(thinking about invading the south)
Posts: 3,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn View Post
So the state saves $60,000 and spends $178 million.

Did I mention Gov. Scott Walker owns majority shares in the company which is doing all the testing?
But what does that have to do with this? Scott Walker is the Governor of Wisconsin, whereas this policy is happening in Tennessee.
__________________
"The chaos of the world viewed from a distance reveals perfection."- me

"Never overestimate the intellect of someone so foolish that they would exploit and perpetuate stupidity in the people around them, for they create their own damnation as they tear out and sell the pillars that support society as a whole, bringing it crashing down upon them."-me

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”- Einstein
Renatus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2011, 03:35 PM   #5
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
I had totally overlooked the "Walker" in Sternn's post and just assumed he was still talking about Rick Scott, thanks for pointing that out.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 01:11 AM   #6
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Err.. Rick Scott. Sorry!
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 01:11 AM   #7
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
The question is, will bankers and CEO's who took government money have to take drug tests as well or are they exempt? What about politicians?
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 09:53 AM   #8
Mr.Doobie
 
Mr.Doobie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: under the kitchen sink
Posts: 386
I'm more bothered that, apparently, people who do drugs have no right to make a living.
__________________
Mr.Doobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 10:08 AM   #9
Spooky Spencer
 
Spooky Spencer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: "Historic" River City
Posts: 327
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Doobie View Post
I'm more bothered that, apparently, people who do drugs have no right to make a living.
Is anyone else as amused as I am that "Mr. Doobie" made that comment?

Now we need "Ms. Crackhead" and "Heroin Hero" to weigh in.
Spooky Spencer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 10:21 AM   #10
Grausamkeit
 
Grausamkeit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Doobie View Post
I'm more bothered that, apparently, people who do drugs have no right to make a living.
I think the government needs to give up its idiot 'War on Drugs' bullshit. If I earn a fucking wage I deserve to get drunk or high with my money if I choose to, after my bills are paid.
__________________
I'd rather label myself than have a million other people do it for me. ~ Pathogen

...I've been accused of folly by a fool. ~Antigone

Grausamkeit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 01:32 AM   #11
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grausamkeit View Post
I think the government needs to give up its idiot 'War on Drugs' bullshit. If I earn a fucking wage I deserve to get drunk or high with my money if I choose to, after my bills are paid.
Thats it in a nutshell.

I posted an article the other day about how many people actually receive money from the government who do not realise it. For example, the tax back you get from being married or having children is a government subsidy. Are they going to start drug testing those people too?

How exactly can the repubs claim they want smaller government and a free market with less intrusion, then do something as invasive as this?

Who are they to dictate what a person can spend money on? How is that a free market and smaller government?
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 07:15 AM   #12
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
And don't forget students who get loans and grants!

A lot of that money probably goes towards binge drinking and drugs. The whole "test the poor" crowd probably wouldn't feel as good if the government was testing their good kids, huh?
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 07:33 AM   #13
Grausamkeit
 
Grausamkeit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn View Post
Thats it in a nutshell.

I posted an article the other day about how many people actually receive money from the government who do not realise it. For example, the tax back you get from being married or having children is a government subsidy. Are they going to start drug testing those people too?

How exactly can the repubs claim they want smaller government and a free market with less intrusion, then do something as invasive as this?

Who are they to dictate what a person can spend money on? How is that a free market and smaller government?
They just don't want people to do to them what thy are doing to others. They don't want smaller government, they want fewer restrictions for themselves.

Saya, that would probably suck if they did that since there are some college students who take things like adderall thinking it is helping them get better grades.

Don't do drugs to make good grades, kids. You do drugs or get drunk only after you ace the finals! I kid! Don't do drugs kids. Drugs are for....wait, it begins with an 'L'....
__________________
I'd rather label myself than have a million other people do it for me. ~ Pathogen

...I've been accused of folly by a fool. ~Antigone

Grausamkeit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 12:58 AM   #14
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
TIME magazine did a nice piece on this...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...090871,00.html

It's funny how politicians want to test the poor, yet in '97 when they tried to have political candidates tests the same politicians raised holy hell.

No one has even suggested testing all the businesses which handle government contracts or politicians and their staff. Why not?
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 04:05 AM   #15
Babs
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grausamkeit View Post
I think the government needs to give up its idiot 'War on Drugs' bullshit. If I earn a fucking wage I deserve to get drunk or high with my money if I choose to, after my bills are paid.
I agree for people who make their own money.

However, people who are dependant on welfare programs paid for by my tax dollars... Not so much. I think a bigger issue with welfare programs is not the drug use, though - it's people who use their ebt to pay for their food and then ask the cashier to ring their $60 video game up separately "I'll pay cash for that..."

I see that all the time when I'm on register at my job.
Babs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 07:03 AM   #16
Grausamkeit
 
Grausamkeit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,271
I say just help the fucking needy and quit making excuses to cut funding for the poor who need it. All these excuses and anecdotes about the 0.001 who 'cheat the system' *eyeroll* are made to justify cutting funds for the many more who actually need the programs(that do little enough as it is).

I would rather pay for 20 jobless lazyasses to get high than let one family or person go hungry.
__________________
I'd rather label myself than have a million other people do it for me. ~ Pathogen

...I've been accused of folly by a fool. ~Antigone

Grausamkeit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:09 AM   #17
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babs View Post
I agree for people who make their own money.

However, people who are dependant on welfare programs paid for by my tax dollars... Not so much. I think a bigger issue with welfare programs is not the drug use, though - it's people who use their ebt to pay for their food and then ask the cashier to ring their $60 video game up separately "I'll pay cash for that..."

I see that all the time when I'm on register at my job.
Okay, this is totally retarded.

Just because people are on a welfare program, it doesn't mean that they should have to answer to a code of ethics or standard of living that no one else has to adhere to. You don't put poor people on social programs in order to simply keep them sustinant(sp). It's so that they can live somewhat closer to where you're at financially. This includes being able to afford a videogame.

Seriously. You're saying that because a person has a NEED for help on acquiring food, they should not ever be able to have a simple luxury or to have something like a beer or shot of whiskey. SERIOUSLY. Their standard of living pretty much sucks. If anyone deserves a fucking drink, it'd be someone who needs welfare in order to survive. Drinking is one of the most common things a person can indulge in and it's quite natural and socially acceptable on certain levels. Why should people on welfare not be able to indulge in this?
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 09:26 AM   #18
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babs View Post

However, people who are dependant on welfare programs paid for by my tax dollars... Not so much.
Quote:
I see that all the time when I'm on register at my job.

You're a cashier?? You're a part of the working class that ACTUALLY gets a tax refund when it comes time to file taxes?

YOU. DON'T. HAVE. ANY. REASONABLE. EXCUSE. TO. HOLD. YOUR. POSITION.

Your tax dollars aren't paying for someone else's welfare. You get your taxes BACK.

SHUT. UP.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 03:22 PM   #19
Babs
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
Okay, this is totally retarded.

Just because people are on a welfare program, it doesn't mean that they should have to answer to a code of ethics or standard of living that no one else has to adhere to. You don't put poor people on social programs in order to simply keep them sustinant(sp). It's so that they can live somewhat closer to where you're at financially. This includes being able to afford a videogame.

Seriously. You're saying that because a person has a NEED for help on acquiring food, they should not ever be able to have a simple luxury or to have something like a beer or shot of whiskey. SERIOUSLY. Their standard of living pretty much sucks. If anyone deserves a fucking drink, it'd be someone who needs welfare in order to survive. Drinking is one of the most common things a person can indulge in and it's quite natural and socially acceptable on certain levels. Why should people on welfare not be able to indulge in this?
Being poor doesn't make a person 'deserving' of anything.

Welfare is supposed to be a temporary assistance for people while they work toward making a better life and getting off welfare.

If people want a higher standard of living they should work for it - not get on welfare so they can live that standard for half the effort.
Babs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 04:04 PM   #20
Grausamkeit
 
Grausamkeit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,271
Yeah, that's totally NOT a privileged attitude coming from someone who's probably never been in the poor house. Government assistance is for the needy, not the lazy so get off your high horse.
__________________
I'd rather label myself than have a million other people do it for me. ~ Pathogen

...I've been accused of folly by a fool. ~Antigone

Grausamkeit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 04:49 PM   #21
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babs View Post
If people want a higher standard of living they should work for it - not get on welfare so they can live that standard for half the effort.
Higher.... than what?
Do I smell a contradiction or a poorly thought out argument?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 05:06 PM   #22
Babs
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16
You're right... I did grow up in a 'rich' family - my parents having both worked their way there from being on welfare when I was too young to remember.

And then I got married and got cut off. And then reality set in. I'm
Not going to act like I have it the worst, or even close, But I'm well aware of what it feels like to have no money in the bank, And an empty piggy bank, with no food in the cupboards and plenty of bills on the front porch.
Babs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 05:13 PM   #23
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
So... you just hate people that were in the same situation as your parents were, or...?

I'm kind of confused here.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 05:17 PM   #24
JCC
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,678
The guy thinks he knows the seamy side of life because his dad has told him some stories about getting welfare checks, basically. You don't have a clue Babs, stop gassing.
JCC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2011, 05:24 PM   #25
Babs
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
So... you just hate people that were in the same situation as your parents were, or...?

I'm kind of confused here.
Not at all. I am frustrated with people who work the system. It's quite common where I'm from.
Babs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:19 PM.