D.T.W.A.

[Phatscotty]

I wonder, at all, if all the welfare peeps who knew they would fail a drug test might have decided to blow off the test?

How much money has been wasted?

If a drug addict is blowing their welfare check on drugs, I'm sorry, but that doesn't do anything to help our economy whether we are in a recession or not.

Drug addicts need to kick their habit before they even begin to look for a job. You guys continually put the cart in front of the horse.

You are fooling yourself if you think it's okay to keep enabling drug addicts and enriching drug dealers. That's all this is about. The gov't should not be enabling bad behavior, and if people who need the help want the help, then we can help them. But if we are just helping them score drugs and make their addiction even stronger, we are actually hurting them and probably their family/anyone who lives with them.

There are a few things people who want welfare checks need to do. Getting clean is one of them.

If the issue is reducing the addiction to drugs, then cutting welfare checks is not an effective solution, which has been outlined well enough above.

Providing funds for educational campaigns through the mass media, offering better opportunities through education, and providing care centers that directly treat that issue are effective solutions.

I agree. You would have been more correct to say the issue, as far as my post is concerned, is about enabling drug addiction.

It's wrong.

Although welfare checks supplement the income of a few users of illicit drugs, that cost is justified because (according to many) welfare checks still provide a net gain to the country. This cost could be reduced through drug testing; however, the drug testing policy would still be ineffective in stemming addiction compared to the more effective solutions, and such a policy would create additional unintended consequences, which would create additional costs that outweigh the savings earned from the drug testing policy.
Many policies can be construed as morally wrong due to one particular unintended consequence; however, that consequence and its affects have to compared to the overall gain or loss to society.
And, morality becomes wishy-washy. I could make the argument that it's better not to drug test welfare recipients because doing so would create higher costs on taxpayers, which in turn is "more" wrong than the drug-testing policy.
In short, trade-offs matter, and the drug testing policy would create a net loss.

Well, on the other hands it is the case in many places that the voters/taxpayers have in fact decided to support a program that requires drug testing for welfare applicants/suspected drug addicted recipients.

#1 The cost will be less because usually people who know they won't pass a drug test will not take the test. They will get clean first. It will cost less because where before you could walk in and get 300$, now you might have to wait a month = $300 less that was not redistributed. It well do real good because down on their luck people will be facing their problems and doing something about it. If they really need help with addiction and can't afford it or can't do it on their own, I am all for the government having help centers for said issues and myself paying taxes for that.

#2 It's not about morals. Taxpayer dollars going up the noses of people we are trying to help....doesn't help them. It makes the addiction worse. In these cases, it is flat out wrong whichever way you slice it. Taxpayers do not approve.

#3 the program, if governed efficiently, really should be able to be accurate in coming into contact with hard drug addicts and knowing when a drug test is in order.

#4 Just the simple overall "buzzword" that drug use will get your welfare check canceled is enough to scare people straight, probably even more people the program itself will help.

[BigBallinStalin]

I agree. You would have been more correct to say the issue, as far as my post is concerned, is about enabling drug addiction.

It's wrong.

Going against this testing program in Florida has NOTHING to do with "enabling" drug addiction. We have pointed that out several times to you. Stop trying to pretend we have just "misunderstood" your point.

You were wrong, but are not man enough to admit it.

Well, technically, it does enable drug addiction because the unintended consequence of welfare checks supplement the income of a few drug users. A solution to disabling this unintended consequence is to enact drug screening laws and blah blah blah...

[PLAYER57832]

I agree. You would have been more correct to say the issue, as far as my post is concerned, is about enabling drug addiction.

It's wrong.

Going against this testing program in Florida has NOTHING to do with "enabling" drug addiction. We have pointed that out several times to you. Stop trying to pretend we have just "misunderstood" your point.

You were wrong, but are not man enough to admit it.

Well, technically, it does enable drug addiction because the unintended consequence of welfare checks supplement the income of a few drug users. A solution to disabling this unintended consequence is to enact drug screening laws and blah blah blah...

No, because the effectiveness of THIS program is very negligable, and definitely outweighed by the harm it caused to many non-addicted people. Plus, there are many other more cost-effective programs, including more highly targeted testing programs and programs that test more drugs, that could not be implemented because of this program.

Apparently you missed the several pages of explanation to Phattscotty of this?

[Phatscotty]

Player: harm?

BBS: I think it's more than a few.

[PLAYER57832]

Player: harm?

#1 Having to pay $50 before you can even apply for welfare, given that welfare is only allotted to those who already lack significant amounts of cash.. AND knowing that if for any reason, you misjudged your qualifications you can test clear, but still won't get that money back. (you get it back IF you qualify, though you will have to wait for that money.. you get nothing if you don't qualify).

#2. Potential for false positives, which are a real issue with ANY drug test. In this case, the person will lose benefits AND have to pay for a new test, both. Not just one or the other.

#3. HIGH cost to the taxpayers for very negligible results, money that should have been spent on effective methods.

[BigBallinStalin]

I wonder, at all, if all the welfare peeps who knew they would fail a drug test might have decided to blow off the test?

How much money has been wasted?

If a drug addict is blowing their welfare check on drugs, I'm sorry, but that doesn't do anything to help our economy whether we are in a recession or not.

Drug addicts need to kick their habit before they even begin to look for a job. You guys continually put the cart in front of the horse.

You are fooling yourself if you think it's okay to keep enabling drug addicts and enriching drug dealers. That's all this is about. The gov't should not be enabling bad behavior, and if people who need the help want the help, then we can help them. But if we are just helping them score drugs and make their addiction even stronger, we are actually hurting them and probably their family/anyone who lives with them.

There are a few things people who want welfare checks need to do. Getting clean is one of them.

If the issue is reducing the addiction to drugs, then cutting welfare checks is not an effective solution, which has been outlined well enough above.

Providing funds for educational campaigns through the mass media, offering better opportunities through education, and providing care centers that directly treat that issue are effective solutions.

I agree. You would have been more correct to say the issue, as far as my post is concerned, is about enabling drug addiction.

It's wrong.

Although welfare checks supplement the income of a few users of illicit drugs, that cost is justified because (according to many) welfare checks still provide a net gain to the country. This cost could be reduced through drug testing; however, the drug testing policy would still be ineffective in stemming addiction compared to the more effective solutions, and such a policy would create additional unintended consequences, which would create additional costs that outweigh the savings earned from the drug testing policy.
Many policies can be construed as morally wrong due to one particular unintended consequence; however, that consequence and its affects have to compared to the overall gain or loss to society.
And, morality becomes wishy-washy. I could make the argument that it's better not to drug test welfare recipients because doing so would create higher costs on taxpayers, which in turn is "more" wrong than the drug-testing policy.
In short, trade-offs matter, and the drug testing policy would create a net loss.

Well, on the other hands it is the case in many places that the voters/taxpayers have in fact decided to support a program that requires drug testing for welfare applicants/suspected drug addicted recipients.

That may be the case, but majority rule doesn't automatically lead to the best results--especially because voters tend to be stupid are easily misled by the excellent marketing strategies and methods used by politicians.

Politicians are great at playing on people's emotions, and we know that a politician saying something like "drug test welfare applicants" is extremely profitable for the politician because it pays to pander to the target market's desires (via more votes).

Therefore, whenever a politician proposes anything, we have to remain reasonable, and ask that politician about details. We need cold, hard numbers and logical estimates for gaps that numbers can't fill, before we allow ourselves to be fooled by some politician's promises.

#1 The cost will be less because usually people who know they won't pass a drug test will not take the test. They will get clean first. It will cost less because where before you could walk in and get 300$, now you might have to wait a month = $300 less that was not redistributed. It well do real good because down on their luck people will be facing their problems and doing something about it. If they really need help with addiction and can't afford it or can't do it on their own, I am all for the government having help centers for said issues and myself paying taxes for that.

For the above to be true, you have to assume that the drug users will behave rationally (which may not be the case), and that no drug users will try to cheat the test. If it's a urine sample, that's easy to dodge. If it's hair, it isn't, but that'll skyrocket the costs.

Also, frequency and the total sample population for the random testing matters. If the certainty of being tested for 6 months is very, very low, then the deterrence of being caught decrease; therefore, people won't behave along the incentives you typed because they'll simply take the risk of applying while hoping not to get tested. Which means that we may not see the expected benefits of your policy for years... You could raise the frequency and total sample population, but that would elevate the costs of the program, which would further decrease its usefulness if that cost exceeds the cost "wasted" on drug users.

So, answering these big questions will help us estimate the probable cost-effectiveness of drug-testing:

(1) How frequent should the tests be conducted?
(2) How many people should be tested per whatever rate of time?
(3) What type of test should be conducted?
(4) How many users of legal drugs will fail to pass? (For example, Adderall shows up as meth for drug tests).
(5) What's the additional cost of correcting the above problem? (for example, another department for assessing the validity of the drug tests, with the probable, unavoidable delay in cutting off funds, or restarting funds, to the wronged citizen. Then comes court costs for improper handling of a case, and yada yada).
(6) How effective will the test actually be? (How many people will be prevented from doing illegal drugs?)

And finally,

(7) What is the cost of the status quo (i.e. without the drug-testing policy)?
(8) Will the drug-testing policy lower net costs or increase them?

#2 It's not about morals. Taxpayer dollars going up the noses of people we are trying to help....doesn't help them. It makes the addiction worse. In these cases, it is flat out wrong whichever way you slice it. Taxpayers do not approve.

We know it shouldn't be about morals, but it's definitely about trade-offs. I bring up morals because you mentioned the word "wrong" which has plenty of moral implications.

Like I said, if given the choice, would taxpayers want to see their money going toward an outcome that is probably more expensive (i.e. the drug-testing policy), or do taxpayers want the cheaper status quo?

Sure, it may make the addiction problem worse; however, those people will still be likely to spend their income on drugs--even without receiving a welfare check... As stated earlier, if the issue is addiction, the other solutions I mentioned are much more effective than the drug tests.

#3 the program, if governed efficiently, really should be able to be accurate in coming into contact with hard drug addicts and knowing when a drug test is in order.

That's a bold assumption. Given the inefficient history of government programs, #3 is not likely.

#4 Just the simple overall "buzzword" that drug use will get your welfare check canceled is enough to scare people straight, probably even more people the program itself will help.

Assuming that all the drug users will behave rationally and choose to not do drugs instead of trying to cheat the system...

You make a few good points, but nonetheless, many of your factors are expected outcomes, which are not guaranteed, and some aren't even probable.


If you're very serious about supporting the drug testing policy, you have to be able to answer the 9 questions above with empirical data. That's partly how this game of public policy works.

Player: harm?

BBS: I think it's more than a few.

I read ITT that an estimated 3% of welfare recipient do illegal drugs... Compared to the total costs of the program, that's a few.

[PLAYER57832]

BBS.. in this case, 100% of applicants are tested... and they have to pay $50 for the test, to even apply for welfare.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS.. in this case, 100% of applicants are tested... and they have to pay $50 for the test, to even apply for welfare.

Oh, then that means that the costs dramatically increase, so Phatscotty's policy becomes harder to justify.

And that $50 will likely be reimbursed one way or another because some politician will pander to a certain target market by saying that the $50 fee is unfair; therefore, if you vote for me, I'll remove it. Or, it'll be reimbursed via some compromise within the legislation process. It's just too hard for a politician to pass that target market of votes by.

[spurgistan]

BBS.. in this case, 100% of applicants are tested... and they have to pay $50 for the test, to even apply for welfare.

Oh, then that means that the costs dramatically increase, so Phatscotty's policy becomes harder to justify.

And that $50 will likely be reimbursed one way or another because some politician will pander to a certain target market by saying that the $50 fee is unfair; therefore, if you vote for me, I'll remove it. Or, it'll be reimbursed via some compromise within the legislation process. It's just too hard for a politician to pass that target market of votes by.

But then you also have the cranky old people (aka most of Florida) who will see this as somehow enabling drug use among welfare recipients. Remember, these people voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000. In droves.

edit. I finally voted in the poll. I say, maybe. If the tests were
a) provided free of charge to the state by the provider, which just happens to be Rick Scott's company. Sacrifice for society, bitch.
b) mandatory for anybody who gets taxpayer money. So, everybody.
c) tested for both illegal and easily abusable drugs (hey there, alcohol)
d) thrown into a trash bin, or maybe used to demonstrate how laughable the insinuation that drug addiction is a lower-class affliction, then thrown out.

Then I could agree to it. I'm even negotiable on [d]. I'm not unreasonable. The other ones are pretty important, though.

[PLAYER57832]

BBS.. in this case, 100% of applicants are tested... and they have to pay $50 for the test, to even apply for welfare.

Oh, then that means that the costs dramatically increase, so Phatscotty's policy becomes harder to justify.

And that $50 will likely be reimbursed one way or another because some politician will pander to a certain target market by saying that the $50 fee is unfair; therefore, if you vote for me, I'll remove it. Or, it'll be reimbursed via some compromise within the legislation process. It's just too hard for a politician to pass that target market of votes by.

The $50 is repaid IF the person qualifies. If they don't, then they don't get refunded. So, basically someone is hard enough up that they try for welfare, manage to scrape together the $50, pass the test, but get screwed because someone thought they would qualify when they don't. Those who fail don't get refunded, either.. but of course they should not be.

And, tax payers get screwed because they wind up paying for most of the test.
Even with the "original" estimates I used (from a study that gave intentionally high estimates) of 6%, it meant that more would be speant than saved.

[Phatscotty]

Hey. A lot of people don't want to pay for any welfare at all. There is no constitutional right to welfare or to be taken care of. It can be taken away. It can be made harder to get. Budgets are strapped all around the country

I have said a few times the drug testing program is in progress so lets wait and see the results.

[Symmetry]

Hey. A lot of people don't want to pay for any welfare at all. There is no constitutional right to welfare or to be taken care of. It can be taken away. It can be made harder to get. Budgets are strapped all around the country

I have said a few times the drug testing program is in progress so lets wait and see the results.

No constitutional right for the tests either though. Testing people would cost money, and budgets are strapped.

[Phatscotty]

TALLAHASSEE --

Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.

At Scott's urging, the Legislature implemented the new requirement earlier this year that applicants for temporary cash assistance pass a drug test before collecting any benefits.

The law, which took effect July 1, requires applicants to pay for their own drug tests. Those who test drug-free are reimbursed by the state, and those who fail cannot receive benefits for a year.

Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months.

The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge.

The ACLU has been threatening for months that it may challenge the constitutionality of the program; Tuesday, Newton said his group is still weighing a lawsuit.

DCF spokesman Joe Follick said that families and accountability are the main focuses of the program.

"The taxpayers deserve to know that the money they are spending is being used for its intended purpose," he said. "In this case, with [temporary cash assistance], the purpose is to help families become independent and self-sufficient. If a family receiving [cash assistance] includes someone who has a substance abuse problem, the odds of that money being used for purposes other than helping that family increases."

More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/ ... ar-252458/

[BigBallinStalin]

Phatscotty is the Official Dodge King until he provides good reasons in support of his policy:


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779&start=1005#p3334180



Go ahead, Dodge King, make us proud.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS.. in this case, 100% of applicants are tested... and they have to pay $50 for the test, to even apply for welfare.

Oh, then that means that the costs dramatically increase, so Phatscotty's policy becomes harder to justify.

And that $50 will likely be reimbursed one way or another because some politician will pander to a certain target market by saying that the $50 fee is unfair; therefore, if you vote for me, I'll remove it. Or, it'll be reimbursed via some compromise within the legislation process. It's just too hard for a politician to pass that target market of votes by.

But then you also have the cranky old people (aka most of Florida) who will see this as somehow enabling drug use among welfare recipients. Remember, these people voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000. In droves.

edit. I finally voted in the poll. I say, maybe. If the tests were
a) provided free of charge to the state by the provider, which just happens to be Rick Scott's company. Sacrifice for society, bitch.
b) mandatory for anybody who gets taxpayer money. So, everybody.
c) tested for both illegal and easily abusable drugs (hey there, alcohol)
d) thrown into a trash bin, or maybe used to demonstrate how laughable the insinuation that drug addiction is a lower-class affliction, then thrown out.

Then I could agree to it. I'm even negotiable on [d]. I'm not unreasonable. The other ones are pretty important, though.

If I was in Phatscotty's camp, I'd have to at least be reasonable and admit that (c) should be done. Because, we don't want to waste our taxpayer dollars on people's addictions, right, Phatscotty?

[PLAYER57832]

Hey. A lot of people don't want to pay for any welfare at all. There is no constitutional right to welfare or to be taken care of. It can be taken away. It can be made harder to get. Budgets are strapped all around the country

Irrelevant to THIS debate. If your goal is to simply end welfare, this is an EXTREMELY ineffective, expensive and plain stupid way to do that.

[PLAYER57832]

TALLAHASSEE --

Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.

At Scott's urging, the Legislature implemented the new requirement earlier this year that applicants for temporary cash assistance pass a drug test before collecting any benefits.

The law, which took effect July 1, requires applicants to pay for their own drug tests. Those who test drug-free are reimbursed by the state, and those who fail cannot receive benefits for a year.

Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months.

The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge.

The ACLU has been threatening for months that it may challenge the constitutionality of the program; Tuesday, Newton said his group is still weighing a lawsuit.

DCF spokesman Joe Follick said that families and accountability are the main focuses of the program.

"The taxpayers deserve to know that the money they are spending is being used for its intended purpose," he said. "In this case, with [temporary cash assistance], the purpose is to help families become independent and self-sufficient. If a family receiving [cash assistance] includes someone who has a substance abuse problem, the odds of that money being used for purposes other than helping that family increases."

More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/ ... ar-252458/

Apparently you think the above SUPPORTS your claims????

[Phatscotty]

no. It does and it doesn't. Obviously 2% is very low. Perhaps the program is working better than expected?

It does support some of them. For instance, you might notice applications were down 33%?

[radiojake]

For instance, you might notice applications were down 33%?

Maybe some people were able to find work in that particular month -

[Phatscotty]

BBS.. in this case, 100% of applicants are tested... and they have to pay $50 for the test, to even apply for welfare.

Oh, then that means that the costs dramatically increase, so Phatscotty's policy becomes harder to justify.

And that $50 will likely be reimbursed one way or another because some politician will pander to a certain target market by saying that the $50 fee is unfair; therefore, if you vote for me, I'll remove it. Or, it'll be reimbursed via some compromise within the legislation process. It's just too hard for a politician to pass that target market of votes by.

But then you also have the cranky old people (aka most of Florida) who will see this as somehow enabling drug use among welfare recipients. Remember, these people voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000. In droves.

edit. I finally voted in the poll. I say, maybe. If the tests were
a) provided free of charge to the state by the provider, which just happens to be Rick Scott's company. Sacrifice for society, bitch.
b) mandatory for anybody who gets taxpayer money. So, everybody.
c) tested for both illegal and easily abusable drugs (hey there, alcohol)
d) thrown into a trash bin, or maybe used to demonstrate how laughable the insinuation that drug addiction is a lower-class affliction, then thrown out.

Then I could agree to it. I'm even negotiable on [d]. I'm not unreasonable. The other ones are pretty important, though.

If I was in Phatscotty's camp, I'd have to at least be reasonable and admit that (c) should be done. Because, we don't want to waste our taxpayer dollars on people's addictions, right, Phatscotty?

Maybe if they see good results it will be free or reduced. I think it's bunk too that they have to pay for it.

Also none of this has anything to do with stereotypes or one that implies the poor are bigger users. It's the principal that it's taxpayer money and welfare is supposed to help people.

To put it generally, it's just one form of welfare abuse. If the welfare is being abused, then we shouldn't provide the abuser with welfare. What's wrong with that?

[jimboston]

Hey. A lot of people don't want to pay for any welfare at all. There is no constitutional right to welfare or to be taken care of. It can be taken away. It can be made harder to get. Budgets are strapped all around the country

I have said a few times the drug testing program is in progress so lets wait and see the results.

No constitutional right for the tests either though. Testing people would cost money, and budgets are strapped.

Moot point.

Welfare is a privilege not a right... If the people want to make recipients take a test for the privilege of receiving welfare it is the people's right to do so. Regardless of wether or not there are savings.

Point # 2... The article said there was savings. The savings were minimal but they were there. The stats don't factor in many other savings, like....
- People who didn't bother applying because they knew they would fail.
- People who stopped (even for a little while) so they could pass.
- The public's long-term opinion of welfare... If the public is reasonably sure that druggies don't get our money we will be more likely / more open to funding welfare better.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS.. in this case, 100% of applicants are tested... and they have to pay $50 for the test, to even apply for welfare.

Oh, then that means that the costs dramatically increase, so Phatscotty's policy becomes harder to justify.

And that $50 will likely be reimbursed one way or another because some politician will pander to a certain target market by saying that the $50 fee is unfair; therefore, if you vote for me, I'll remove it. Or, it'll be reimbursed via some compromise within the legislation process. It's just too hard for a politician to pass that target market of votes by.

But then you also have the cranky old people (aka most of Florida) who will see this as somehow enabling drug use among welfare recipients. Remember, these people voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000. In droves.

edit. I finally voted in the poll. I say, maybe. If the tests were
a) provided free of charge to the state by the provider, which just happens to be Rick Scott's company. Sacrifice for society, bitch.
b) mandatory for anybody who gets taxpayer money. So, everybody.
c) tested for both illegal and easily abusable drugs (hey there, alcohol)
d) thrown into a trash bin, or maybe used to demonstrate how laughable the insinuation that drug addiction is a lower-class affliction, then thrown out.

Then I could agree to it. I'm even negotiable on [d]. I'm not unreasonable. The other ones are pretty important, though.

If I was in Phatscotty's camp, I'd have to at least be reasonable and admit that (c) should be done. Because, we don't want to waste our taxpayer dollars on people's addictions, right, Phatscotty?

Maybe if they see good results it will be free or reduced. I think it's bunk too that they have to pay for it.

Also none of this has anything to do with stereotypes or one that implies the poor are bigger users. It's the principal that it's taxpayer money and welfare is supposed to help people.

To put it generally, it's just one form of welfare abuse. If the welfare is being abused, then we shouldn't provide the abuser with welfare. What's wrong with that?

If you feel that welfare doesn't help people in the long-run, then filtering out a very small proportion for addiction to illicit drugs isn't the correct solution.

[natty dread]

Just read a bunch of Phatscotty posts? Have no fear, the help is near:

[PLAYER57832]

no. It does and it doesn't. Obviously 2% is very low. Perhaps the program is working better than expected?

It does support some of them. For instance, you might notice applications were down 33%?

I see, and you don't think a problem coming up with a $50 application fee mattered?

We fully realize that YOUR real goal is just to make welfare as ineffective and painful as possible. The problem is this is an EXTREMELY dishonest way to go about it....

[BigBallinStalin]

no. It does and it doesn't. Obviously 2% is very low. Perhaps the program is working better than expected?

It does support some of them. For instance, you might notice applications were down 33%?

I see, and you don't think a problem coming up with a $50 application fee mattered?

We fully realize that YOUR real goal is just to make welfare as ineffective and painful as possible. The problem is this is an EXTREMELY dishonest way to go about it....

Don't waste your time with the Dodge King until he addresses the following link, which might properly defend his discriminatory and ineffective policy.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779&start=1005#p3334180


Until then, the Dodge King shall continue to bear the crown.