http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpIfVUiKvLI
Printable View
Results are starting to come in. Only 2% of the testers are failing. That means that the state is on the hook for $30,000 to $40,000 a month to reimburse those that were lucky enough to be able to afford the tests in the first place.
As I said to begin with, this had nothing to do with taking druggies out of the system and leaving them without support. This is was all about our Governor helping his own business and creating yet another hurdle for those in need. Wonder if Scott will continue his claims that those on public support use drugs at a higher rate than the general population.
That's ridiculous logic, just because 2% are failing does not mean that only 2 percent who would have applied were druggies. How many druggies are either cleaning up, or not applying, due to knowledge of this law? Have you never heard of Heisenberg?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
According to the local paper there has been no noticeable drop in applicants.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Looking into what type of test they use, but considering its for such a wide range of drugs, I'm assuming its something more in depth than urine, such as hair, which means the test would show a history of use going back to a point before the law was passed. Could be another reason why those who fail can't retest for an entire year.
Did find this Time article in the meantime.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...090871,00.html
I don't know. Do you know how many there would have to be for this test to be worthwhile in terms of $$$??Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No, absolutely not. OG may not realise it but he keeps making a good point why this should be (more) affordable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
If OG's right that this was just gifted to the governor's company (or whatever the relationship is) then open this up to open tenders from other drug testing companies and it should be even cheaper to do.
EDIT: It hadn't been made clear earlier that those who pass the test are reimbursed the money for the test. So the state is ultimately paying for it then?
EDIT2: I really don't get the logic either that this is designed to stigmatise the needy. The needy are already stigmatised, if this weeds out the crack addicts and leaves the genuine behind then great - we'll know all those on welfare are clean and the stigma can be lifted.
I can guarantee many would not pass this. I live in a relatively affluent area and go to a decent high school, yet more than half my friends, intellectual juggernauts or not, have done weed at some point. This number jumps if you ask me how many have drank before.
Because drug users (or addicts) can't be needy? This is another one of those bullshit social conventions I just don't get. Why does it matter if they spend their free government mandated money on one need or another? I mean, the whole justification for taking half my fucking money is to help those who can't help themselves... I can't think of anyone who fits that description more than an unemployed, high-school dropout with a drug habit.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If we're not doing the helping the needy thing anymore, I'm cool with that too, but if we're going to pick and choose which needy people are worthy of help, and which aren't, I wanna pick me and keep all my fucking money from now on. :mad:
Research suggest otherwise. So far only 2% are failing, compared to the accepted 8-10% figure for the rest of the population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega
Guilty until innocent eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
repeated research showing that the hard off have no greater a drug habit than the rest of the population suggests otherwise.Quote:
the stigma can be lifted.
Does "fucking money" indicate the intended use for that money, like "lunch money"?
Sadly, no. Stupid anti-prostitution laws and all. :(
I don't think the best strategy would be to drug test *everyone*. Make it random. Also pass the law quietly and don't start drug testing at all for a few months. Then randomly start doing it and then ban the person from welfare for the next 5 years. :)
The goal of course being to deprive undeserving people of funds and thus saving tax payers money.
Well keeping your own money would be the best option. However since that's not likely to happen politically at least we can give money to those who are actually not wasting it on their habits. I kinda think there needs to be an alcohol, tobacco test too... why should the sponges of society waste the tax payers money on that crap?Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
could you provide a link? Maybe it's just the school/area I live in. But I'd be surprised because the county I live in isn't known throughout the usa and it's one of the richest one. I can only assume the drug problems worsen as you move to poorer/worst countries. I just based it off my own personal experience and a little bit of logic, but hey, numbers don't lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
How would you pass a law quietly these days? No that's not realistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
However glad you agree on the alcohol & tobacco point. Guess firearms too perhaps in your nation?
What OG doesn't seem to understand is it doesn't make any difference whatsoever if those on welfare get wasted no more than Charlie Sheen. Charlie Sheen is doing so with his own cash and I'm not paying for it (any more than I pay to get Comedy Central and choose to watch Two & A Half Men). If someone on welfare wants to get wasted then they can earn some money and do so.
Sure, but why is happiness an "undeserving" goal? For that matter, caffeine withdrawal is pretty brutal (and withdrawal from more powerful recreational drugs is even worse), so is avoiding the suck an "undeserving" goal too? And why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Frankly, better to spend that $14,400 lifetime max ($300 by 48 months) on supporting someone's drug habit than on employing a bureaucrat for ~10 weeks to support this drug testing initiative, no?
Why should they waste it on food or clothing or rent or gas or anything else? For the absolutely no difference it makes to you, I don't see why you care in the first place, but more importantly, you're falling into the progressive trap of assuming you know what's best for someone else's life. If someone wants to prioritize some drug over other basic necessities (or cable TV, for that matter), who are you to say they can't, and how do you even know that's the "wrong" decision? What's next - scrutinizing their grocery lists to make sure they're not wasting any taxpayer money on junk food or convenience items (like pre-made salads or meals ready to cook, etc.)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Well, life also gets very different once you're out on your own (and have to pay for your own stuff), not to mention that as people age, they get better at making decisions about the future. Hell, teens usually profile as sociopaths for that reason - neural development in the area(s) of the brain responsible for thinking about the future and consequences don't reach maturity until around 20. Not that a source would be the worst thing in the world, but your personal experiences with high school kids aren't applicable to fully mature adults.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega
The Time article I linked to above mentions one research piece. 70% of drug users are employed full-time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega
Sorry, I understand perfectly fine whats going on with this law. But I have to ask, are you seriously suggesting that drug users use their welfare resources to purchase illegal drugs (not even the pro-testing articles are willing to go this far)? You understand we aren't actually giving them real cash right?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Good for them! Again, if the Charlie Sheen's and Amy Winehouse's of this world want to snuff their hard earned money up their nose and into the morgue, well so be it. I don't want to pay for them - and I'm not - but nor do I want to pay for the remaining 30% either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I'm looking at this from the perspective of socialist Europe, where we do give them real cash. What do you give them there?Quote:
Sorry, I understand perfectly fine whats going on with this law. But I have to ask, are you seriously suggesting that drug users use their welfare resources to purchase illegal drugs (not even the pro-testing articles are willing to go this far)? You understand we aren't actually giving them real cash right?
You walk past the rather Orwellian-named JobCentre in town and there is always a crowd of chav's hanging outside smoking cigarettes. I suspect they're not the employees.
Dirty looks and 300 bucks a month, for up 48 months, lifetime (on this particular program). $3600 a year. Shit, you could almost support a 2 week crack habit with what they get in a year. You can't even make rent, or buy a month's worth of food [for a family] with that, let alone buy drugs... which makes it all the more ridiculous to pay for drug screenings. Just increasing the cost of the program by however much your drug screens cost, because even if you do catch someone, they'll be back next year. So, yippie for more government waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Well, given that scrapping your BS programs isn't an option, why do you have a problem with how the money's spent? (Unless you're using the way the money's spent as an argument for scrapping the program.) Using the money for recreational drugs [legal or otherwise] is more objectionable than using the money for broadband internet, or cable TV, or an iPhone, or stupidly expensive shoes? And if so, why?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Undeserving? Do you have a set of criteria that makes someone undeserving of help?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I do object to how much we give the feckless in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
I'm happy to have welfare as a safety net, but its spiralled out of control and isn't that any more. When you've got these chavs some of which are third generation of never having held a job, there's a problem.
Maybe by pointing this out something will be done about it.
Makes me curious how this socialist haven I live in manages to keep such low unemployment figures...
Probably through the generous but judicious use of LOVE :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Because clearly unemployment only has one cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Drug criminalization or prostitution bans?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Labor market flexibility, education level of the work force, generosity of unemployment benefits, capital/labor relations, etc.
Couldn't let me be happy for even a little while, could you?
I've always wondered if people might deny someone unemployment benefits on the grounds that they may be able to sell their bodies.
Another great way to have a low unemployment rate is to have a ridiculously high disability rate, something that the Netherlands are experts in (~8% for the Dutch compared to under 6% average in the rest of OECD).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Obviously, you are not one of those compassionate conservatives we hear exist. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
But let's say your wet dream comes true, and undeserving people are deprived of gov't assistance, and banned from "welfare" for 5 years.....even if they drink some beers (to numb their pain or feel giddy for a bit) or bum a smoke (to kill their hunger)---two perfectly legal "vices", by the way....
Can they rely on your church to provide a hot meal seven days a week, a change of clean clothes, a place to sleep (for months on end, while job-searching), plus job-training, internet and phone access, and transportation? Or would your church also proclaim they're undeservingly sponging off limited church charity funds? The goal, of course, being saving money. :donkey: