Welfare Drug Testing Takes Effect

[Duke EB]

Rick Scott also had a corporate connection to the drug testing lab that was used in FL.

Seems like a waste of money considering only 2% tested positive in FL.

Even if you assume that all who refuse it would test positive, that’s far below the overall rate of use both nationally and in the state of Florida. According to federal data, 7-7.7% of Florida residents use illicit drugs, meaning the rate of welfare recipients is about half that of the general population of the state. And remember, Scott sold this idea on the grounds that welfare recipients used drugs at a higher rate than others.

And by the way, this is going to cost a fortune:

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.

Sources:

http://tbo.com/ap/politics/welfare-drug ... lts-252458
http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k7State/Ch2.htm#Fig2-1

[Captain90s]

Washington State now sells MJ to anyone over 18. I'd be willing to bet more than 2% on welfare would fail here.

Actually under the recreational legalization, you must be 21 to purchase marijuana. If you're saying that we should disqualify people for using a legal substance, then we'd need to put alcohol and nicotine on there too. I don't like welfare abuse either, but if we as a state (the voting population) have declared marijuana to be a legal recreational substance, then we need to treat it like one.

[AR15L]

Washington State now sells MJ to anyone over 18. I'd be willing to bet more than 2% on welfare would fail here.

Actually under the recreational legalization, you must be 21 to purchase marijuana. If you're saying that we should disqualify people for using a legal substance, then we'd need to put alcohol and nicotine on there too. I don't like welfare abuse either, but if we as a state (the voting population) have declared marijuana to be a legal recreational substance, then we need to treat it like one.

21, you're right.
I have no blanket answers...

[skey]

MJ, being a State sponsored Activity in WA, Will generate....MILLIONS..in revenue..Look at CO...These other States need to jump on the Bandwagon and then there is no issue. If all goes as well as CO and the General Fund does not waste it on studying cow farts and giving themselves raises, welfare will be a non issue, as everyone will be high and not really give a S**t about whizz quizzes and where the $$ goes...Win, Win for all involved....So smoke up Washistonedians...You will not care about anything but which 7-11 is open so you can buy munchies after a night of bong-a-rama....

Yeah, but what do you want to bet they f##k it up by getting greedy?

[quantsuff]

/tinfoilhatmode/
one can record a DNA profile from a urine sample, one cannot obtain congressional funding for a voluntary dna profiling system of us citizens
\tinfoilharmode\

[golddigger14s]

Another winner of drug testing:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/j ... es-firing/

[AR15L]

Another winner of drug testing:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/j ... es-firing/

Regardless of what happens, capturing the title of first buyer of legal pot in Spokane was worth the employment woes to Boyer.

[Yeadon]

I don't see a problem with it. Hell...I have to do drug tests just to keep my job!

+1

[dogfish]

Meh....


Much bigger issues out there than piss testing welfare recipients.

[Fishin Musician]

/tinfoilhatmode/
one can record a DNA profile from a urine sample, one cannot obtain congressional funding for a voluntary dna profiling system of us citizens
\tinfoilharmode\

If you want to stay annonymous, stay off public assistance.

[mcyclonegt]

Washington State now sells MJ to anyone over 18. I'd be willing to bet more than 2% on welfare would fail here.

Actually under the recreational legalization, you must be 21 to purchase marijuana. If you're saying that we should disqualify people for using a legal substance, then we'd need to put alcohol and nicotine on there too. I don't like welfare abuse either, but if we as a state (the voting population) have declared marijuana to be a legal recreational substance, then we need to treat it like one.

If a person has money to waste on beer, tobacco and pot, they should not be on any kind of government assistance. It would be fair to the taxpayers if all unnecessary recreation be illegal while getting a free check.

[PNW9995]

Washington State now sells MJ to anyone over 18. I'd be willing to bet more than 2% on welfare would fail here.

Actually under the recreational legalization, you must be 21 to purchase marijuana. If you're saying that we should disqualify people for using a legal substance, then we'd need to put alcohol and nicotine on there too. I don't like welfare abuse either, but if we as a state (the voting population) have declared marijuana to be a legal recreational substance, then we need to treat it like one.

tricky subject it is... Yes its state legal. As well as its state legal to own a firearm for most to all people in here... But now when you add posession of weed and a firearm to a federal charge... lookin at some time.

Now the shit i think is ridiculous is these heroin and meth addicts who say they are homeless to get $200+ food stamps, or junkies with kids on TANF who get $200-$500 cash assistance and can go buy cigs, alcoholor take the cash out (with a transaction fee for Chase Bank every transaction). Drug testing might help, but limiting what they can purchase will help 10 fold. Its also a joke that Chase Bank adds fee's for ATM uses (checking your balance or cash withdrawl) and profits off a welfare program is even more ridiculous

[Gumebare]

[quote

If you want to stay annonymous, stay off public assistance.[/quote]

Truth!

[deadshot2]

I wonder how long this will last, considering a judge on the U.S. District Court declared that Florida requiring welfare recipients to be drug tested was unconstitutional.

Different District, maybe a different decision. Then it would be off to the "9 wise souls in WA DC" to decide.

[rayjax82]

Washington State now sells MJ to anyone over 18. I'd be willing to bet more than 2% on welfare would fail here.

Actually under the recreational legalization, you must be 21 to purchase marijuana. If you're saying that we should disqualify people for using a legal substance, then we'd need to put alcohol and nicotine on there too. I don't like welfare abuse either, but if we as a state (the voting population) have declared marijuana to be a legal recreational substance, then we need to treat it like one.

If a person has money to waste on beer, tobacco and pot, they should not be on any kind of government assistance. It would be fair to the taxpayers if all unnecessary recreation be illegal while getting a free check.

That.