You Want to Drug Test Welfare Recipients?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Irrelevant.

Random drug screening washed out 18% of the applicants who planned to abuse drugs on the public dime. That's a success.

Based on your personal hunch? Wow... You should probably call the Governor, and let him know.

[K@th]

48 positive is 10% positive!

Dude... in all these cases, they are selecting people to be tested who they suspect are using drugs. .

So, only 10% of people they suspected were using drugs were caught. I imagine if they sent 4,800 people for drug testing who gave no cause for suspicion, the number would be far, far below 10%.

Anyway, I await evidence that we save money by drug testing everyone. Until then, quit throwing away money.

[Speaker to Animals]

Irrelevant.

Random drug screening washed out 18% of the applicants who planned to abuse drugs on the public dime. That's a success.

Based on your personal hunch? Wow... You should probably call the Governor, and let him know.

Uh, no, based on the number of people who opted out of the program when they were asked to provide a piss sample.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Irrelevant.

Random drug screening washed out 18% of the applicants who planned to abuse drugs on the public dime. That's a success.

Based on your personal hunch? Wow... You should probably call the Governor, and let him know.

Uh, no, based on the number of people who opted out of the program when they were asked to provide a piss sample.

{citation needed}

[Dand]

48 positive is 10% positive!

Dude... in all these cases, they are selecting people to be tested who they suspect are using drugs. .

So, only 10% of people they suspected were using drugs were caught. I imagine if they sent 4,800 people for drug testing who gave no cause for suspicion, the number would be far, far below 10%.

Anyway, I await evidence that we save money by drug testing everyone. Until then, quit throwing away money.

Are you saying that you think that data indicates that only 0.1% (48/38970) of Missouri applicants use drugs? My interpretation is that between 9% and 10% use drugs, which is pretty good! That is the same rate as the general population and indicates that drug abuse is not disproportionately widespread among welfare recipients (which could dispel some anti-poor biases and help your argument). Instead you're making a weaker argumet based on an unbelievable interpretation and insulting me for reading beyond a misleading bar graph

You're right that "saving money" is a disingenuous argument and I'm sure that argument is being used by holier-than-thou religious douchebags that just want to punish the poor and punish drug users and found a way to do both at once. Their shitty argument doesn't mean that the whole purpose of welfare is to save money though and focusing on that one aspect would lead to the conclusion that we should have no welfare. Of course that isn't the whole picture though and we want to do more with welfare than save money. I think economic rehabilitation is a more honest goal and if some addiction rehabilitation happens too, is that such a bad thing? These are people that (ideally) desperately need help and letting self-destructive behaviors continue isn't helping them.

[K@th]

Well, I think far more than 10% of the population uses drugs. (Especially if you count alcohol.) I challenge that 10% of the population is in a $50/week constant fog, though. No way. My consumption of weed is likely average.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Are only the middle class allowed to dull the pain of the human condition? Do you lose that right, if disabled or poor?

[Dand]

Are only the middle class allowed to dull the pain of the human condition? Do you lose that right, if disabled or poor?

The right to use illicit drugs? That might exist as a natural right but our gov sure doesn't acknowledge it.

Well, I think far more than 10% of the population uses drugs. (Especially if you count alcohol.) I challenge that 10% of the population is in a $50/week constant fog, though. No way. My consumption of weed is likely average.

It's all about money with you. I'm sure it is extremely hard to get data on illegal activities but I was just referring to our own gov's numbers: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/ ... ide-trends

I checked a couple of studies and they also found rates of about 10% (for illicit drugs)

[SuburbanFarmer]

Are only the middle class allowed to dull the pain of the human condition? Do you lose that right, if disabled or poor?

The right to use illicit drugs? That might exist as a natural right but our gov sure doesn't acknowledge it.

I consider it a human right, as does society, and even the Puritans have had to concede that our civilization doesn't work without - at a minimum - alcohol consumption.
Yeah. I'd call it a right, or at the least, a social norm. There's never been a civilization without some kind of popular intoxicant.

Remember, they're only illicit because someone drafted a law concerning it. Not as a measure of Good/Evil.

[K@th]

I wouldn't call it a right, per se, but if you leave the poorest of the poor without any vices, the rest of us will quickly wish we had not taken that away.