They Forced All Welfare Recipients To Get Drug Tested In North Carolina. Here Are The Results…

[Crabtownboy]

Do we have information on the screening process, and did a statistician make a report?
I would be more tempted to consider the conclusions if the report was sourced, and not hosted on a clickbait site.

I have not research specifics. I expect each state has a slightly different process. Regardless, overall it seems it is a profound waste of money.

From: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/

According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.

From: http://theantimedia.org/after-7-sta...e-recipients-1-thing-became-stunningly-clear/

 

[Kevin]

What was the screening question?

Have you ever used illegal drugs. No I never have. OK, no need to test you. Next

 

[Jeremy Seth]

the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants

This is a misleading and useless ratio when not all applicants are tested.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Well, we have random drug testing where I work. Only fair to have those who are too sorry to work to be randomly tested, too.

 

[Rob_BW]

Ppl have ways of skewing those tests. Trust me. I'm a lab tech and have found condoms in bathrooms where they carried urine in them to pour into the cup. It depends on what cups are used. Some have strips on the bottom that have a temp guage to know if it is warm...body temp. If it is not, then the testing is not done. Sadly, some do not require using those cups.

And then there's the level of the metabolite (or is it metabolate?) needed for the testing agency to score a hit.

For us, in an effort to head off legal troubles, we have a pretty required level for scoring a positive.

 

[Crabtownboy]

From: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/02/19/3747139/states-drug-testing-welfare-recipients/

In 2015, despite lack of evidence that programs in other states accomplished their goals, three more states have implemented similar regimes. And a ThinkProgress survey of the 10 states that now have these programs in place found that they continue to be expensive and not especially effective. All told, states spent another $850,909.25 on the testing regimes in 2015 to uncover just 321 positive tests — in more than one state, none at all.

 

[InTheLight]

Something is fishy. Why does it cost $336,000 to test 293 people in Missouri? Over $1,100 per person! Really?

Yet in Tennessee it cost $19,000 to test 325 people, or about $58 per person.

Furthermore here are the percent positives from testing:

Missouri 13%
Mississippi 5.7%
N. Carolina 14%
Oklahoma 10.4%
Indiana 8.6%
Utah 3.9%
Kansas 25.4%

Kind of puts the lie to the claim of the OP that the drug testing rate is 0.3%!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Something is fishy. Why does it cost $336,000 to test 293 people in Missouri? Over $1,100 per person! Really?

Yet in Tennessee it cost $19,000 to test 325 people, or about $58 per person.

Furthermore here are the percent positives from testing:

Missouri 13%
Mississippi 5.7%
N. Carolina 14%
Oklahoma 10.4%
Indiana 8.6%
Utah 3.9%
Kansas 25.4%

Kind of puts the lie to the claim of the OP that the drug testing rate is 0.3%!

The OP is about total people applying for welfare. You are limiting it to only those tested. The 0.3 is correct when you are honest and apply it to all who applied. We know from studies that if this were done for the general population the percentage found to use drugs would be much higher. Of course if you make enough that you do not qualify for welfare you have more money which translates into more people in that group using drugs. So your conclusion on percentages is not an accurate one and is a fallacy.

To be honest, divide the number found to be using drugs by the entire group who applied for welfare. As you can see in Arizona over 5600 people applied and no one was found to be using drugs. In Maine just over 1800 people applied for welfare and only two people did not qualify for help because of drugs. Now, according to the way you want to think that would mean 100% were guilty of using drugs. That is true for the two who were tested and the same two found to use drugs. But your method takes no notice of the 1800 who were approved.

 

[Rob_BW]

To be honest...

To be honest, your thread title says that "They forced all welfare recipients to get drug tested in North Carolina."

That statement is not honest, as nowhere near every welfare recipient in North Carolina was drug tested.

I reckon we can quibble about statistical methods, but there's a glaring falsehood right in the title.

 

[Crabtownboy]

To be honest, your thread title says that "They forced all welfare recipients to get drug tested in North Carolina."

That statement is not honest, as nowhere near every welfare recipient in North Carolina was drug tested.

I reckon we can quibble about statistical methods, but there's a glaring falsehood right in the title.

Blame the title writer, not me.

The title is and is not true depending on how you look at it. It is true that not all applicants were given a urine test. But all had to answer questions, so all were given written tests. Is the written test a good way to check. I do not know what is on the test. Anyway, as it stands it is true that far fewer welfare
applicants are shown to use drugs than in the general public.

Perhaps if the same type of test was used for a drivers license we would have some interesting comparisons.

 

[Rob_BW]

Blame the title writer, not me.

Unless they held a gun to your head and forced you to include the entire title, I fear you may be a tad bit culpable for what you copy and paste my friend.

 

[Rolfe]

Blame the title writer, not me.

Come on...that is a cop out. You can create your own original Crabtownboy-custom Thread Title.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Unless they held a gun to your head and forced you to include the entire title, I fear you may be a tad bit culpable for what you copy and paste my friend.

Hmmm, several years ago I was criticized severely for putting my own title on a thread and not copying and pasting the article as it appeared online. Now I am being criticized for not making up my own title. It seems more honest, to me, to post the title as it appears in the original article. Oh well ...

 

[Rolfe]

Hmmm, several years ago I was criticized severely for putting my own title on a thread and not copying and pasting the article as it appeared online. Now I am being criticized for not making up my own title. It seems more honest, to me, to post the title as it appears in the original article. Oh well ...

Next time, use the Dumb-Box. That is what it is there for.

(Now don't use it on my Post #34. *laugh*)

 

[Kevin]

Anyway, as it stands it is true that far fewer welfare applicants are shown to use drugs than in the general public.

That is total garbage and anyone with an ounce of reasoning can see how distorted this is. Maybe it is you who should be drug tested.

Wonder what will happen if they had the guts to test every person who applied, as well as everyone already getting benefits.

 

[Rob_BW]

Hmmm, several years ago I was criticized severely for putting my own title on a thread and not copying and pasting the article as it appeared online. Now I am being criticized for not making up my own title. It seems more honest, to me, to post the title as it appears in the original article. Oh well ...

Well, you could avoid posting articles which have outright falsehoods in the title.

I mean, it's hard to take anything seriously from that source after seeing how dishonest the title is.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Have you noticed another active thread where the person used his own creative talent and created an inflammatory OP title instead of simply copying and pasting the title of the article cited. Guess it is a Catch-22. Roflmao

 

[Crabtownboy]

Wonder what will happen if they had the guts to test every person who applied, as well as everyone already getting benefits.

It would be expensive!

But it would be an interesting set of data to examine. Maybe some bright Ph.D student could come up with a way of compiling date on this topic for their thesis.

 

[Rolfe]

Have you noticed another active thread where the person used his own creative talent and created an inflammatory OP title instead of simply copying and pasting the title of the article cited. Guess it is a Catch-22. Roflmao

Dumb-Box. Embrace it. *laugh*

 

[church mouse guy]

Crabtown, you are almost a 1%er and you have denounced "dead doctrine" and advocated evolution and man-caused climate change and said that the unborn child is not a human being. You have advocated an increase in the minimum wage and have not dealt with anyone who earns less than $15 per hour.

Now in the name of money, you have said that states should not be allowed by federal law to test welfare recipients for substance abuse (and I assume alcoholism) but just go ahead and pay the benefits.

Now you know that I have listened for many, many hours to Lester Roloff, who did so much work for addicts in the Corpus Christi area. And Lester Roloff often said that modernist don't care for people in the ditch. http://roloff.org/

So people with addictions are in the ditch, probably for life, which may be short. Wouldn't it be wiser to find and identify them and try to treat their addictions than just to say here is this month's check and please go away until next month?

“I would not put a thief in my mouth to steal my brains.”
― William Shakespeare, Othello



Lester Roloff