Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,454
    Michigan tried to require drug testing of welfare recipients in the 90s, and the courts slapped it down.

    There is a back way to require drug testing for some welfare recipients-if the benefits are tied to a work requirement. To get most jobs these days, one has to pass a drug test. This would be for what we used to call ADC-benefits to able bodied parents of children in need of assistance.

    As far as those who get assistance because they are disabled and exempt from work requirements, there's not much that can be done on that end. The courts will slap it down every time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    That is pretty amazing, I would have never thought especially in Florida.
    I don't know what the tolerances were in the tests. I think it's surprising as well, as I am given to understand that marijuana smoking is ubiquitous in that age group and demographic. Frankly, while I don't care for marijuana or being around those who are stoned, I also don't see the point in testing for pot but not testing for liquor.

    I have now found the article I got that from:

    Florida's four-month drug-testing run in 2011 yielded 108 negative drug tests, according to Department of Children and Families data. Only 2.6 percent of applicants who took the test failed, though supporters of the law say that does not account for people who walked away from the application process because they were on drugs.

    The walk-away rate is an unknown quantity which could range from zero upward. I should think it would be very low since most drug users believe that they can clean up for a couple of days and pass such a test, and the benefits far outweigh a couple of days away from the pot. I seriously doubt that there are too many crackheads in the process as filling out forms and waiting patiently in lines probably isn't their idea of the best use of their time. Of course, all of that is speculation including the idea that there are people who walked away rather than be tested.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    Michigan tried to require drug testing of welfare recipients in the 90s, and the courts slapped it down.

    There is a back way to require drug testing for some welfare recipients-if the benefits are tied to a work requirement. To get most jobs these days, one has to pass a drug test. This would be for what we used to call ADC-benefits to able bodied parents of children in need of assistance.

    As far as those who get assistance because they are disabled and exempt from work requirements, there's not much that can be done on that end. The courts will slap it down every time.
    While I think it's a dog and pony show designed to pander to people who think that all SNAP recipients are shiftless welfare queens, I really don't see any constitutional barrier to doing this. One is not entitled to SNAP without condition. It's not a civil right. The government already requires that you meet certain tested criteria, so I don't see how a drug test is different from an asset test.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I don't know what the tolerances were in the tests. I think it's surprising as well, as I am given to understand that marijuana smoking is ubiquitous in that age group and demographic. Frankly, while I don't care for marijuana or being around those who are stoned, I also don't see the point in testing for pot but not testing for liquor.

    I have now found the article I got that from:

    Florida's four-month drug-testing run in 2011 yielded 108 negative drug tests, according to Department of Children and Families data. Only 2.6 percent of applicants who took the test failed, though supporters of the law say that does not account for people who walked away from the application process because they were on drugs.

    The walk-away rate is an unknown quantity which could range from zero upward. I should think it would be very low since most drug users believe that they can clean up for a couple of days and pass such a test, and the benefits far outweigh a couple of days away from the pot. I seriously doubt that there are too many crackheads in the process as filling out forms and waiting patiently in lines probably isn't their idea of the best use of their time. Of course, all of that is speculation including the idea that there are people who walked away rather than be tested.
    What really surprised me is that I didn't think you could take a cross section of ANY part of society and only get 2% failure.
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    If everyone in every state had to take the drug test before they got welfare it would end welfare as we know it.
    Are you sure it will end Welfare as we know it...make it more expensive maybe.

    Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program
    The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

    The state's net loss? $45,780.

    "That's not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy," Newton said.

    The law also didn't impact the number of people who applied for benefits.
    Source
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •