Drug test for welfare recipients.

[swamprat]

Do you agree with what he signed?

 

Yup.

[jericho]

IMO I would rather meet a person smoking pot on the road instead of a drunk driver.

[RomanEmpire]

IMO I would rather meet a person smoking pot on the road instead of a drunk driver.

 

Two great choices right there for sure. Both have resulted in senseless deaths.

[jericho]

Yes I know both have produced stupid sensless deaths. It is my opinion that I would rather drive by a guy high than a drunk driver. if it was a great place, then we would have to face neither.

 

i say there are more deaths associated with drunk driving than a stoned person.

[coldweatherfan]

Yes I know both have produced stupid sensless deaths. It is my opinion that I would rather drive by a guy high than a drunk driver. if it was a great place, then we would have to face neither.

 

i say there are more deaths associated with drunk driving than a stoned person.

 

I would say there are more deaths simply because the sheer number of drunk drivers vs high drivers.

 

But every study/test I have ever seen shows that reaction times, thought process, etc is relatively the same for pot or alcohal.

 

Personally I think pot should be legalized and taxed heavily. It would create a huge amount of cash.

[jericho]

Neither is good I agree.

 

We cant even grow hemp, let alone tax pot. Good idea but I never see it happening.

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

Let's take a look at logistics. My company has to perform random drug tests, and it's about $55 per test. Granted, we're paying a company to perform the tests on our employees for us, but there's still a cost. So the US or an individual state wants to set up drug testing for welfare: They have to set up physical test locations and employ workers to run those locations. There will have to be a lot of the locations too...not all of the people seeking welfare can afford a car to drive 100 miles to get tested, so they will have to stay within "bus route" type distances. Assume maybe one or two locations to serve every few counties? Then you could have a mail-in drug screening process too, but that comes at a cost. Regardless, figure the US finds a way to pare down drug testing costs to $35 per individual test.

 

There are currently over 30 million on food stamps and over 9 million receiving federal unemployment in the United States.

 

So let's do the math: 39,000,000 x $35.00 = $1,365,000,000

 

That puts ONE ROUND of drug testing at 1.365 BILLION DOLLARS. Now how often do you have to screen folks? Monthly? Quarterly? Bi-annually? Annually? If you look into it, the window for which most drugs stay in your system isn't much more than a week at most (marijuana is the exception). So if you assume by those figures, it'll mean a junkie only has to stay off of drugs for give or take a week in order to pass their test. So then, how accurate is all of this testing if we are only doing it one, two or even three times a year? Seems like a lot of money to spend for testing when we're in a country that's already broke as a joke.

[doomer]

What tax dollars will be used for a welfare recipient with kidney disease or emphysema who goes to the hospital but is no longer on welfare due to failing a drug test over weed? They have no other relatives and they do not belong to a church. Who is feeding their child(ren)?

 

We're trying to use this as a stick to reinforce good decisions when good decisions is something many have already shown they are not good at.

 

Not intending to tee off on you Clyde, but in general terms: They can get off the weed!! Many companies now require passing a drug test, and if one fails, no job. It surprises me at the incredible stupidity of people smoking weed allowing it to cost them jobs and opportunities and in this case benefits. When we stop making excuses for this and overtolerating this behaviour it may stop. Is it really that important to smoke weed? I am 100% in favor of drug testing to receive government benefits.

[sportsfan41]

Let's take a look at logistics. My company has to perform random drug tests, and it's about $55 per test. Granted, we're paying a company to perform the tests on our employees for us, but there's still a cost. So the US or an individual state wants to set up drug testing for welfare: They have to set up physical test locations and employ workers to run those locations. There will have to be a lot of the locations too...not all of the people seeking welfare can afford a car to drive 100 miles to get tested, so they will have to stay within "bus route" type distances. Assume maybe one or two locations to serve every few counties? Then you could have a mail-in drug screening process too, but that comes at a cost. Regardless, figure the US finds a way to pare down drug testing costs to $35 per individual test.

 

There are currently over 30 million on food stamps and over 9 million receiving federal unemployment in the United States.

 

So let's do the math: 39,000,000 x $35.00 = $1,365,000,000

 

That puts ONE ROUND of drug testing at 1.365 BILLION DOLLARS. Now how often do you have to screen folks? Monthly? Quarterly? Bi-annually? Annually? If you look into it, the window for which most drugs stay in your system isn't much more than a week at most (marijuana is the exception). So if you assume by those figures, it'll mean a junkie only has to stay off of drugs for give or take a week in order to pass their test. So then, how accurate is all of this testing if we are only doing it one, two or even three times a year? Seems like a lot of money to spend for testing when we're in a country that's already broke as a joke.

 

Accurate enough for me, I'd rather there be lowsy liability than none at all. Like I've said before, and will til the day I die; I have NO PROBLEM helping the person that needs it, but I'm DISGUSTED by the ones that feed off of it.

[doomer]

Let's take a look at logistics. My company has to perform random drug tests, and it's about $55 per test. Granted, we're paying a company to perform the tests on our employees for us, but there's still a cost. So the US or an individual state wants to set up drug testing for welfare: They have to set up physical test locations and employ workers to run those locations. There will have to be a lot of the locations too...not all of the people seeking welfare can afford a car to drive 100 miles to get tested, so they will have to stay within "bus route" type distances. Assume maybe one or two locations to serve every few counties? Then you could have a mail-in drug screening process too, but that comes at a cost. Regardless, figure the US finds a way to pare down drug testing costs to $35 per individual test.

 

There are currently over 30 million on food stamps and over 9 million receiving federal unemployment in the United States.

 

So let's do the math: 39,000,000 x $35.00 = $1,365,000,000

 

That puts ONE ROUND of drug testing at 1.365 BILLION DOLLARS. Now how often do you have to screen folks? Monthly? Quarterly? Bi-annually? Annually? If you look into it, the window for which most drugs stay in your system isn't much more than a week at most (marijuana is the exception). So if you assume by those figures, it'll mean a junkie only has to stay off of drugs for give or take a week in order to pass their test. So then, how accurate is all of this testing if we are only doing it one, two or even three times a year? Seems like a lot of money to spend for testing when we're in a country that's already broke as a joke.

 

I admit it is good in concept, but a practical challenge. However,maybe there will be less people on welfare and food stamps to multiply times the cost of the drug test if it is clear the federal and state aid is no longer to support a life of drugs and leisure as it often does.

[spindoc]

Without the numbers to back my stance up, I'll say modestly that 1/3 of the welfare recipients I treat have a recreational drug problem. And those are the ones who will admit it on a health history form. I'm all for removal of benefits if they test positive. Kids will become wards of the state at some period and likely be as well or better off. Same $ out of different kitty.

[spindoc]

Let's take a look at logistics. My company has to perform random drug tests, and it's about $55 per test. Granted, we're paying a company to perform the tests on our employees for us, but there's still a cost. So the US or an individual state wants to set up drug testing for welfare: They have to set up physical test locations and employ workers to run those locations. There will have to be a lot of the locations too...not all of the people seeking welfare can afford a car to drive 100 miles to get tested, so they will have to stay within "bus route" type distances. Assume maybe one or two locations to serve every few counties? Then you could have a mail-in drug screening process too, but that comes at a cost. Regardless, figure the US finds a way to pare down drug testing costs to $35 per individual test.

 

There are currently over 30 million on food stamps and over 9 million receiving federal unemployment in the United States.

 

So let's do the math: 39,000,000 x $35.00 = $1,365,000,000

 

That puts ONE ROUND of drug testing at 1.365 BILLION DOLLARS. Now how often do you have to screen folks? Monthly? Quarterly? Bi-annually? Annually? If you look into it, the window for which most drugs stay in your system isn't much more than a week at most (marijuana is the exception). So if you assume by those figures, it'll mean a junkie only has to stay off of drugs for give or take a week in order to pass their test. So then, how accurate is all of this testing if we are only doing it one, two or even three times a year? Seems like a lot of money to spend for testing when we're in a country that's already broke as a joke.

How many in your findings are actually under the age of 18 on welfare. I think you'd significantly have a much lower # than the one you used in your theorem.

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

How many in your findings are actually under the age of 18 on welfare. I think you'd significantly have a much lower # than the one you used in your theorem.

 

Good point.

 

I went looking for some more specific numbers to give an idea of adults versus children under 18. I found the following for figures reflecting those specifications:

• In June 2009, the US reported having 16 million households on food stamps. I would assume at least one adult to drug test per household.
  
• As of July 1, 2010 there are 47,664,048 individuals enrolled in the some part of the Medicare program (I didn't figure in Medicare on my last post, but I would guess that most people referring to "welfare" would include it in their figures). Assuming that about a quarter of our population is below 18, I think you could safely round the number of adults over the age of 18 down to 30 million.
  
• As of July 2011 there are 13.9 million unemployed persons in the United States. I think it would be safe to say that at least 9 million of them are over the age of 18.
  

 

So...say those three programs have an approximate adult enrollment, individually, of 16 million, 30 million, and 9 million. You can assume there would be some overlap in there somewhere as well with people who are drawing unemployment and are on foodstamps, etc. That being said, just go with the 30 million figure. There are 30 million drug tests required for medicare enrollment.

 

30,000,000 x $35 = $1,050,000,000

Edited August 19, 2011 by Colonels_Wear_Blue

[acemona]

Welfare recipients who actually care about their families will comply... It's all about personal responsibility.. Something that is greatly missing in today's society.

 

Because addiction is all about choice.

[cammando]

Because addiction is all about choice.

Don't really know how anyone could force you to be an addict.. You are the one that chooses to use an addictive substance so like I said, personal responsibility..