Originally Posted by signupdamnit (Post 18386373)

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?

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 18386896)

yeah, so millions are wasted on many people who don't need/don't deserve assistance but its a drop in the bucket in comparison to a lot of money wasted on other things. all the money goes right back into the economy one way or another, these people do not save money. in canada its next to impossible to live off welfare unless you have a bunch of kids. even then, unless you are doing something for cash on the site, life will suck.

Originally Posted by shimmy2 (Post 18386869)

yes, rick scott owns quite a few hospitals and clinics in florida, the kickbacks circulate. and the tests are for people getting food stamps. food stamps are not the same as cash aid, there are no checks people can only buy food with them so thats why they couldn't just deduct the $30 from any payout. because most recipients dont get any cash payout only food

Originally Posted by signupdamnit (Post 18386373)

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?

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 18386424)

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.

Originally Posted by mynameisjim (Post 18386204)

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.

Originally Posted by PR_Glen (Post 18386936)

Also there is no test in the world so shitty that wouldn't detect meth or coke in your system after 3 days... no chance in hell... If they were that bad they wouldn't even bother testing people for anything.

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18387086)

I just came across the "catch" here. That is aside from the claim that "98%" passed when 2% decided not to take the test and 2% failed. Someone can't do math.