[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 03 October 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

Please read post number 47 in this thread.

In my opinion testing them is not about them being more likely to use but to insure they are not using while on our dime. I am not saying drugs are good but some people function and support themselves using while others cannot. As far as the finances section of the thread they are saying we would pay. I believe it should be the responsibility of the recipient.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 03 October 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

In my opinion testing them is not about them being more likely to use but to insure they are not using while on our dime. I am not saying drugs are good but some people function and support themselves using while others cannot. As far as the finances section of the thread they are saying we would pay. I believe it should be the responsibility of the recipient.

I think what continues to be over looked by the supporters of drug testing is what I've brought up in this thread already and has been ignored. You guys are so focused on drug testing them to catch them using marijuana, crack, meth, heroin, etc. But again I ask (as I'm watching this documentary on Prohibition on PBS right now) what about alcohol use? What are you going to do about the people who are on welfare and are also alcoholics. IMO alcohol is just as bad as hard drugs are and I'd bet more often abused than hard drugs are. How are you going to test for that? How are you going to stop alcoholic welfare recipients from getting drunk off our dime? Plus we haven't even mentioned prescription drug abuse either. But like I said alcohol can destroy families and communities too. Look like I said I don't totally disagree with the idea. But I just see it as a big waste of money (because even if it's taken out of their welfare check it's still tax payer money) and it is un-American (we can't ignore the U.S. Constitution).


Also at what point do we stop attacking the poor just because they are easy targets and start focusing on the billion dollar corporations who are getting corporate welfare thanks to our dimes. Or are they still untouchable just because they are rich and powerful? While your guys are going around chasing poor people with little plastic cups, I hope these protest on Wall Street continue. It's about time we start focusing on the real problem, not that people at the bottom are stealing our tax dollars it's that the people at the top are stealing our tax dollars. Let's do something about that.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 03 October 2011 - 11:38 PM, said:

I think what continues to be over looked by the supporters of drug testing is what I've brought up in this thread already and has been ignored. You guys are so focused on drug testing them to catch them using marijuana, crack, meth, heroin, etc. But again I ask (as I'm watching this documentary on Prohibition on PBS right now) what about alcohol use? What are you going to do about the people who are on welfare and are also alcoholics. IMO alcohol is just as bad as hard drugs are and I'd bet more often abused than hard drugs are. How are you going to test for that? How are you going to stop alcoholic welfare recipients from getting drunk off our dime? Plus we haven't even mentioned prescription drug abuse either. But like I said alcohol can destroy families and communities too. Look like I said I don't totally disagree with the idea. But I just see it as a big waste of money (because even if it's taken out of their welfare check it's still tax payer money) and it is un-American (we can't ignore the U.S. Constitution).


Also at what point do we stop attacking the poor just because they are easy targets and start focusing on the billion dollar corporations who are getting corporate welfare thanks to our dimes. Or are they still untouchable just because they are rich and powerful? While your guys are going around chasing poor people with little plastic cups, I hope these protest on Wall Street continue. It's about time we start focusing on the real problem, not that people at the bottom are stealing our tax dollars it's that the people at the top are stealing our tax dollars. Let's do something about that.

Alchohol is a legal drug. Might be going to far there. I would not fight it but.... Tax payer money is paid either way. Would rather be sure money is going to the right people and not users. The country was founded on getting away from over taxation. We have already gone the wrong direction. Net taxes will be going up again next year. I heard that Obama wanted to take away the ability for people to write off there Home Equity loans. I dont know if thats true but it would hurt most home owners. Heard anything Mr. Jet? I am not "attacking" the poor because they are poor. It is because they are stealing my money. What "top people are you referring to?

[FlyHiJets]

Mr_Jet, on 03 October 2011 - 01:37 PM, said:

So it was less like Full House and more like The Waltons. Now what if a person wants to do what you suggest but their family member says "no I don't have enough room for you and your family?" What if that person has no family? What if they're estranged from their family. See I'll let you in on a little secret, there are people with jobs who are homeless. If it were all as simple as just moving in with Aunt Martha for a while, we wouldn't have homelessness. I'll tell you this I have family members I love dearly, but I would not want them living with me.

I agree and I too have family I wouldnt want living with me, but why should these people be my problem or yours to support? We have our own families to support. I feel bad that they'd be homeless but if four years of assistance isn't enough to help them find employment & housing, then they should move somewhere else to a location where they can find housing and a job. As for how they can do that, use the shoe leather express for all I care. If they have the energy to screw & have kids, they have the energy to walk their asses somewhere else.

Quote

Prove it. Prove that there are people anywhere that are using welfare money to buy BMWs. If you give me evidence (names, receipts, check stubs, car titles, anything), I'll call the New Jersey DHS myself and report them and give them all the evidence you gave me. But then again since you know for a fact that people on welfare are buying expensive luxury cars, why don't you report them? If this upsets you so much and you know they're using your tax dollars to buy these luxury cars, report them.

I have reported them and have assisted in prosecuting some of them. I have no problem with calling somebody out on fraud when it's my tax dollars going to allow them to get a free ride. People have told me to mind my own business. My answre is that as long as it's money coming out of my paycheck, it is my business. They generally don't like that and I've received empty threats, etc but life's a bitch. They need to stop being bums.

[FlyHiJets]

Mr_Jet, on 14 September 2011 - 11:32 PM, said:

A person has a choice not to take a job with a company that drug tests and work for one that doesn't drug test if they want.

It's also a person's choice to apply for welfare. They can be given the choice of taking the drug test for benefits, or not receive the benefits. That is still a choice no matter what. This is really no different than applying for a job that requires drug testing. It's obviously NOT unconstitutional or else it would have been rescinded in Florida & Kentucky where this practice is already in place. Of course the pussy ACLU is suing to challenge the laws but they should lose handily.

As for the cost of the tests....not as expensive as you think (at least not in Florida)......

"The law requires recipients to foot the bill for the drug test, which costs $30 to $35 per test. Those who test negative are reimbursed with their first payment."

[santana]

Quote

Last year Florida became the first state to pass and fully implement a bill mandating suspicionless drug testing of all applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The law mandated that all applicants pay for the cost of the drug test themselves, and that they be reimbursed if their test came back negative. The law was in effect for a mere four months before the ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit and a federal court blocked the law, saying it was unconstitutional.

Today the New York Times released the most comprehensive data yet on how the law fared during the short period of time it was in effect. We already knew that the law was a failure; what we didn't know was just how much of a failure it was.

In the four months that Florida's law was in place, the state drug tested 4,086 TANF applicants. A mere 108 individuals tested positive. To put it another way, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs — a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of all Floridians, age 12 and up, estimated by the federal government to use illegaldrugs. Now might be a good time to remind folks that in the debate over the bill, Gov. Rick Scott argued that this law was necessary because, he said, welfare recipients used drugs at a higher rate than the general population.

The utter absurdity of this law is magnified when you realize how much it cost the state of Florida to run this program. The data released today shows that Florida spent $118,140 reimbursing the overwhelming number of Florida TANF applicants — 3,938 to be exact — who tested negative for drugs. That is far more than any money saved by the program, at a net cost to the State of over $45,000. And that's only part of the cost to the state to run this program. There are also the administrative costs, staff costs, and, of course, the litigation costs. Furthermore, the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help — an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases.

Despite the complete failure of this program to unearth anything other than the fact that there is no overwhelming drug problem amongst welfare applicants, the state of Florida continues to defend this law. And unfortunately, other states have followed Florida's ill-informed lead. Over 25 states introduced welfare drug testing legislation this year. You'd think that the court rulings and high costs might have logically stopped these bills, but they have not. In fact, just this Monday, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed a bill into law that is very similar to Florida's, mandating all TANF applicants in Georgia be drug tested before being eligible to receive benefits.

As long as states keep fighting to pass and keep these unconstitutional and costly programs in place, the ACLU will be there to keep fighting back.

(Originally posted on Huffington Post.)

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post stated that TANF recipients were reimbursed for the cost of the drug test if the result was positive. That was incorrect. They are reimbursed if the result is negative. Thanks to @smirish for pointing this out on Twitter!

Learn more about drug testing: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

So much for that saving a state money

[HarlemHxC814]

Lol I love how nobody who was behind this has said anything

[Mr_Jet]

HarlemHxC814, on 22 April 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

Lol I love how nobody who was behind this has said anything

That is interesting. That's the problem when facts collide with opinion.

[azjetfan]

HarlemHxC814, on 22 April 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

Lol I love how nobody who was behind this has said anything

If you read my quote from earlier in the thread you will see my opinion is not in line with how the law was written. If it was done the way I thought it should have been done there would be $0 loss to us the tax payers. Hence the post did not apply to me and no response needed. Not to mention it just became nice here in WI and I am spending little time online. I do however love the fact that Harlem comes to the bar fight after everyone has gone home claiming some kind of victory he had no dealing in. Unless I am mistaken I believe that was his first post.

azjetfan, on 03 October 2011 - 09:34 PM, said:

In my opinion testing them is not about them being more likely to use but to insure they are not using while on our dime. I am not saying drugs are good but some people function and support themselves using while others cannot. As far as the finances section of the thread they are saying we would pay. I believe it should be the responsibility of the recipient.

[Mr_Jet]

You know what, the drug test are a waste of time. I mean let's just cut out the middle man here. Instead of drug testing people on government assistance, let's just send DHS workers to their houses and search their homes for drugs. Have DHS workers look through every drawer, cabinet, and closet in their home. Search every inch of their homes and cars for drugs. Stop them when their outside of the house and make them empty their pockets. If necessary let's make a law that will force them to strip down, bend over, and make them spread their cheeks. As we all know people have been known to hide drugs there too. I mean why wait for the results of a drug test, when we can just make a law that says DHS can enter your house anytime they want and go through all your things to see if they find any signs of drug use. If they find any signs of drug use, you lose your assistance.

Like Governor Scott said "people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs than people not on welfare." So let's search their homes and cars, because we're bound to find some drugs somewhere. You know since they're more likely to be on drugs than people who are not on welfare. Though we must remember to ignore the liquor and prescription drug bottles in the house of course since those are both legal. So screw the piss test. Let's just go into their homes and go through their things. If they're taking our hard earned tax dollars, they should be willing to let us search their homes.

[HarlemHxC814]

azjetfan, on 22 April 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

If you read my quote from earlier in the thread you will see my opinion is not in line with how the law was written. If it was done the way I thought it should have been done there would be $0 loss to us the tax payers. Hence the post did not apply to me and no response needed. Not to mention it just became nice here in WI and I am spending little time online. I do however love the fact that Harlem comes to the bar fight after everyone has gone home claiming some kind of victory he had no dealing in. Unless I am mistaken I believe that was his first post.

Lofl whaaaat??

[santana]

Mr_Jet, on 22 April 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

You know what, the drug test are a waste of time. I mean let's just cut out the middle man here. Instead of drug testing people on government assistance, let's just send DHS workers to their houses and search their homes for drugs. Have DHS workers look through every drawer, cabinet, and closet in their home. Search every inch of their homes and cars for drugs. Stop them when their outside of the house and make them empty their pockets. If necessary let's make a law that will force them to strip down, bend over, and make them spread their cheeks. As we all know people have been known to hide drugs there too. I mean why wait for the results of a drug test, when we can just make a law that says DHS can enter your house anytime they want and go through all your things to see if they find any signs of drug use. If they find any signs of drug use, you lose your assistance.

Like Governor Scott said "people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs than people not on welfare." So let's search their homes and cars, because we're bound to find some drugs somewhere. You know since they're more likely to be on drugs than people who are not on welfare. Though we must remember to ignore the liquor and prescription drug bottles in the house of course since those are both legal. So screw the piss test. Let's just go into their homes and go through their things. If they're taking our hard earned tax dollars, they should be willing to let us search their homes.

seems excessive of a response we got your point

one thing to point out about this article is that they only have a single year of data to work with. its a very insignificant amount of data to really reach a conclusion.
obviously getting a program like this going from the get go will cost some more money.
i'm not for the idea of testing everybody seems like it would make more sense to funnel money to a case worker program to get the people that needed help with whatever drug affliction they are facing.

[Mr_Jet]

santana, on 24 April 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:

seems excessive of a response we got your point

one thing to point out about this article is that they only have a single year of data to work with. its a very insignificant amount of data to really reach a conclusion.
obviously getting a program like this going from the get go will cost some more money.
i'm not for the idea of testing everybody seems like it would make more sense to funnel money to a case worker program to get the people that needed help with whatever drug affliction they are facing.

I'm just saying how thin is the line between making laws allowing the state to search somebody's urine for signs drug use and allowing the state to search somebody's dresser drawers for signs of drug use. Especially considering that person has given no suspicion of using drugs.

The results from Florida do mirror the results from Michigan when Michigan had a law like this back in 2000. Like in Florida the number of people in Michigan who actually tested positive was very low. I think if this law were implemented in other states, those states would show the same results Florida and Michigan did. Hardly any welfare recipients getting caught using drugs and state governments wasting money just by testing in the first place. Since the number of drug users on welfare is not higher than the national average, the people who support testing should want that money used on more job training/placement and apprenticeship programs instead of drug tests.

[A1elbow]

azjetfan, on 22 April 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

If you read my quote from earlier in the thread you will see my opinion is not in line with how the law was written. If it was done the way I thought it should have been done there would be $0 loss to us the tax payers. Hence the post did not apply to me and no response needed. Not to mention it just became nice here in WI and I am spending little time online. I do however love the fact that Harlem comes to the bar fight after everyone has gone home claiming some kind of victory he had no dealing in. Unless I am mistaken I believe that was his first post.

Except your opinion is based on how you would write the law. You want to take money away from people who aren't abusing the system for drug testing because a minority of people are. That is dumb and a law like that won't get passed easily because anyone who isn't 100% in favor of drug testing won't try to protect that aspect of it.

Drug testing welfare recipients is more waste of time persecution that focuses on punishing people rather than preventing the ugly situations that cause it. Yet again, if some people in the government spent more time actually trying to brainstorm ideas to help people get out of the poverty cycle rather than punishing them because they don't believe in welfare in the first place more would be accomplished. Unfortunately, those people would rather try to undermine people that don't give a f*** in the first place than do anything about the actual problem.

[azjetfan]

A1elbow, on 24 April 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Except your opinion is based on how you would write the law. You want to take money away from people who aren't abusing the system for drug testing because a minority of people are.

Yes I want people to have to qualify to get money from my paycheck everyweek. It also should be a very limited time. Also who says people have not stopped using drugs who are recieving since they know they will be tested. I can make any report look the way I want. with a little info.

[A1elbow]

azjetfan, on 24 April 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

Yes I want people to have to qualify to get money from my paycheck everyweek. It also should be a very limited time. Also who says people have not stopped using drugs who are recieving since they know they will be tested. I can make any report look the way I want. with a little info.

Your points of emphasis suggest you want to punish people for being on welfare, not to ensure people on it aren't abusing the system. Which is fine, but let's just call a spade a spade. You aren't calling for people receiving Pell Grants to be drug tested. You aren't calling for businesses that were bailed out to be tested.

You're calling for, specifically, welfare recipients to be punished, in their entirety, regardless of guilt or innocence of something that a minority of them have done. I bet some welfare recipients have acted as drug mules. The rate of drug mule-ing is significantly higher in those on welfare than the general population*. I purpose taking a $100 out of everyone on welfare's money to pay for rectal exams. If they refuse the rectal exam, they lose their money because obviously they are carrying drugs across the border.

*(see study: personal opinion)

[santana]

considering there seems to be 100 ways to cheat on a drug test (not that I would know)
also makes this kinda a waste of time

[azjetfan]

A1elbow, on 24 April 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

Your points of emphasis suggest you want to punish people for being on welfare, not to ensure people on it aren't abusing the system. Which is fine, but let's just call a spade a spade. You aren't calling for people receiving Pell Grants to be drug tested. You aren't calling for businesses that were bailed out to be tested.

I would love for all people or entities to qualify for funds from the tax payers regardless of what the funds are for.

Quote

You're calling for, specifically, welfare recipients to be punished, in their entirety, regardless of guilt or innocence of something that a minority of them have done. I bet some welfare recipients have acted as drug mules. The rate of drug mule-ing is significantly higher in those on welfare than the general population*. I purpose taking a $100 out of everyone on welfare's money to pay for rectal exams. If they refuse the rectal exam, they lose their money because obviously they are carrying drugs across the border.
*(see study: personal opinion)

We are talking about Welfare in this thread. If you would like to open the thread up to more I am OK with that.

[azjetfan]

Quote

In the four months that Florida's law was in place, the state drug tested 4,086 TANF applicants. A mere 108 individuals tested positive. To put it another way, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs — a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of all Floridians, age 12 and up, estimated by the federal government to use illegaldrugs. Now might be a good time to remind folks that in the debate over the bill, Gov. Rick Scott argued that this law was necessary because, he said, welfare recipients used drugs at a higher rate than the general population.

The utter absurdity of this law is magnified when you realize how much it cost the state of Florida to run this program. The data released today shows that Florida spent $118,140 reimbursing the overwhelming number of Florida TANF applicants — 3,938 to be exact — who tested negative for drugs. That is far more than any money saved by the program, at a net cost to the State of over $45,000. And that's only part of the cost to the state to run this program. There are also the administrative costs, staff costs, and, of course, the litigation costs. Furthermore, the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help — an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases

I am not sure how they are calculating these numbers. If I google average welfare amount it comes up with $18K per year. If I take $18K times 108 people not recieving benifits it comes up with $1.95 million. If I prorate to the month it is $1500 times 108 per person $162K. The article is claiming $118,140 in testing costs. That is a net gain of $43,860.00. What am I missing here?

[A1elbow]

azjetfan, on 25 April 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

I am not sure how they are calculating these numbers. If I google average welfare amount it comes up with $18K per year. If I take $18K times 108 people not recieving benifits it comes up with $1.95 million. If I prorate to the month it is $1500 times 108 per person $162K. The article is claiming $118,140 in testing costs. That is a net gain of $43,860.00. What am I missing here?

What do you do for a living? You don't have to be specific, just general is fine.