98 Percent of Welfare Applicants Pass Drug Test
 

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/98-welfa...pass-drug-test


Great Job on that smaller government, conservatives!:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Impossible.

I know so many people on food stamps that smoke weed it's ridiculous.

BTW, until very recently I did not know that a ton of college students apply for and receive food stamps. Lowly paid interns, too.

I could maybe understand it if they're relying on student loans but I know a few whose parents are paying their way through college. Curious if they have to lie to get the benefits or if it's OK to have your pretty-well-to-parents pay for your college but not your food.

very easy to beat drug tests

Test them the day AFTER they get the first check.

He should have to pay $1 personally out of his own pocket to every single one of them who pass the test.

Are most people on drugs really that smart though?

BINGO!

Coke, crack, meth, etc. are usually out of your system within 72 hours ... and that's if you're not smart and clean your urine or use the urine of another.

Weed can be another issue...much longer detection times.

You are thinking of the 2% that failed... the rest were obviously smart enough...:winkwink:

duh you stay clean until the money clears

Haven't seen any stories about this but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true. Poor people on food stamps usually just sit around and watch TV or DVDs. They aren't all drug addicts.

Have any of you had any exposure to a poor neighborhood? There are usually the few crack heads everyone knows about and the rest of the people are relatively normal.

"Percent of persons 12 years of age and over with any illicit drug use in the past month: 8.7% (2009)"

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/druguse.htm

So you really think that those on welfare happen to have 4x lower drug use rates? If so, what would explain that?

Anything about this from a reliable source?
Any major news organization?

The link goes to The Root, which describes itself as " news and commentary from an African-American perspective ... The Root offers a unique take on breaking news. I really just want news, not a "unique" African-American take" on the news. I've like to hear from a somewhat objective and reliable source rather than relying on a site which openly admits they are trying to push a liberal "black" agenda.

Maybe that they have no money?

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

Here you go :)

Drug use and drug addiction or chronic drug use that impairs someone's ability to function are two separate things.

Having lived a somewhat divided childhood myself, I grew up in a poor neighborhood but hung around wealthy people as I got older, I would say that drug use among the affluent is MUCH higher than among the poor. The difference is that kids from upper middle class and above homes have a huge safety net, so they can do drugs and still live a somewhat normal life despite the consequences. A kid in a poor neighborhood has no safety net, so the first time he gets busted or has drug a related problem, his life begins to spiral out of control and never gets back on track. That's what makes poor people look like such hopeless drug addicts, it's because they have no safety net. There is no family they can move in with, they can't spend a few months in rehab while their family loves them and tells them how proud they are, even though they come out and keep doing drugs.

My point is that people are poor because they either choose not to work, or they can't work. It's not because they are drug addicts.

Of course, I still don't know if the original stats posted in this thread are accurate and I said so in my first post. All I'm saying is based on my own experience, it wouldn't surprise me. Drug use among those on social assistance is probably the same or maybe even a bit lower than the general population due to their lack of disposable income.

Some people try to equate poverty with drug abuse.
To them all the poor people are evil.

It's stupid as fuck.

The bottom line is that poor people have zero influence and zero power. If any politician is trying to demonize them, it means they are shifting the blame away from the real culprits.

Never believe anyone who is trying to blame a voiceless group. Blaming those who can't defend themselves is such an old and tired tactic by those in power, I can't believe it still works. But when people are angry, it's easy to get them worked up over stuff like this.

poor people can"t afford drugs?

bullshit. my primate bias against those lower on on the ape hierarchy tells me different.

There are lies, damn lies, & liberal blogs.

Blog says each test was 30 bucks. AKA, easily beat. Just the notion...welfare peeps use drugs 4x less then the people...absurd.

lack of money for drugs?

the tampa newspaper is a liberal blog?

No shit. Shows his ignorance.

I think it is only for Cash assistance only not food stamps!

So you people are naive enough to believe that the poor have a much lower instance of drug use (not necessarily abuse; just use) than most others?

I have a bridge to sell you.

Not saying they're all drugs addicts. The number also isn't 2%.

They just know about the $15 cleaner at GNC...like everybody else. Or they didn't do drugs for a few days before the test.

Touche, as newspapers never have political bias. Lol.

On this matter, i would generally oppose drug testing here. Doing the test right would not be efficient or cost effective. However i would not use utter nonsense to justify this position. Left wing BS has the same stink as trickle down theory.

you are an moron. your opinion means little. :2 cents:

Bull shit. I have at least three in laws who all pass their drug tests. Even poor people drink the tea to pass drug screening, in fact, I would argue that they are quite good at it.

Brad

congrats on generalizing your trash relatives onto the whole of people who have no money.

I hate to introduce logic here, but if everyone is so convinced that drug tests are easy to pass, then why did everyone think the tests were a good idea in the first place?

It's like demanding someone take a lie detector test, then when they pass you claim that lie detector tests are easy to fool so the person is still a liar. You can't have it both ways. Why did you demand the test in the first place if you didn't plan on accepting the outcome.

The vast majority of the people on welfare don't do drugs. 100's of millions are being spent to find this out. lol

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/p...gif?1298684502

Why not just deduct the cost of the test from what they would be paying out, across the board? Or would that make too much sense. $30 less free money isn't really something to complain about.

Who are you talking about. Nobody here calling out the bullshit has defended the testing. It would seem that opposing the tests could easily be done with facts, not fantasies like nobody on welfare is doing drugs.

objective was not to find out what percentage of welfare recipients use drugs... but probably to reduce drug use... so one possible interpretation is that before drug testing was introduced welfare recipients had 8% drug use rate, just like everyone else...

AFTER mandatory drug testing the rate dropped to 2%... making the program a huge success... :winkwink:


that's probably unlikely, but it's plausible that while most drug users cheated to continue getting welfare, some may have actually stopped or at least reduced drug use...:2 cents:

people try and make the lives of those who are a rung under them in the social hierarchy as miserable as possible. no secret there.

All the welfare MoFo's in America could not snort up the $10 Billion of coke that is
running through this place every year/month/day/....

:1orglaugh

Wasn't there some big controversy about this guy owning a company which would profit from the mandatory tests? Didn't he shuffle the company around and put it in his wife's name so he could claim that he didn't own it or some such thing?

exactly. to those who supported the testing, i bet deterrance was the real goal. Repubs tend to put morality in front of fiscal prudence. But of course, libbys cant stand anything that deters government spending. So the OP & the blog are most concerned about the budget ramifications of testing. Ironic...

It isn't about logic. It's about politics and defeating the enemy. So sit down and shut up so we can spend three pages fighting about the meaning of the word "is".

I wonder what the result would be if they did hair follicle testing on 10,000 random applicants.

NO his point is that the Tampa Tribune is closer to Fox News than it is MSNBC. That's why your "liberal" comment was retarded.

98% of the people? I have a hard time believing those statistics.

How much advance warning were they given?

Not to worry. they were not testing for that.

You must be talking about pissing in a cup.

If they really wanted to check your drug history, they would take a lock of your hair and test that. It will show much further back that a few days in regards to your usage. Before coming self employed, those companies I worked for that were dead serious about drug screening tested you this way. At least around here. While others did the cup.

they beat the tests, I guarantee a much higher % are actually using dope

Always thought that would be a good idea. Wouldn't it make more sense to test those in power then those on on welfare?

Congrats on generalizing all drug users as trash. Because people who smoke pot are clearly the same as the ones on crack, coke and crank.

should have just banned them...