Imagine that...

NASHVILLE ? Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey expects Tennessee will put in place a law that requires drug tests for people drawing government assistance or workers? compensation. Other high-ranking Republicans aren?t so sure.
The House speaker and the governor have voiced concerns about the cost and whether federal rules that govern the programs, including food stamps and welfare, give the state enough flexibility to start drug-testing programs that can survive a legal challenge.
Ramsey, R-Blountville, recently told the Nashville Chamber of Commerce that a similar proposal last legislative session carried a $12 million price tag, but did not take into account the savings the state or employers will see from cutting off benefits to drug users.
Ramsey expects law mandating drug tests for those receiving government assistance- Kingsport Times-News

Someone other than working folks getting tested.:D

I love it, saw it on WCYB-5 from what they are saying, it will most likely pass. I hope VA follows suit, and I think it would save money down the road...

They tried it in Florida and it lost money. That was from the cost of the test alone compared to the small amount saved by the 5% who lost benefits from testing positive. Then there was the yet to be determined cost of the various lawsuits including a strong one from the ACLU. Already been put on hold there.

I'm not kidding when I say that the first people in this country who should be drug tested are office holders and Federal and state appointees. Just ran into a sitting judge in TN being a pill head. That's a lot bigger problem than a few welfare moms doing the same. The cost of retrying all of his cases is going to be huge.

It sounds good on paper, but it's a complete failure in practice. It might possibly work on a small scale where drugs are highly present and assistance is just as high, but state-wide it's a disaster. People don't grasp that drug-tests cost money, a lot of money and in every state it would cost a lot more to carry out then save. Only 1-2% actually tested positive, contrary to all of the stereotypes not all or most of the people receiving assistance are scumbag druggies.

Your facts are different than the story-

"Less than 1 percent of welfare applicants in Florida tested positive in the first quarter after the law went into effect in July. Thirty-two applicants failed the test, 7,028 passed and 1,597 didn’t take it, according figures released by the state"- that would be 1% plus the 1600 that didn't even try the test. !600 out of 8600 isn't 1%

Lol So 1,600 that didn't take the test tested positive? Sitting here trying to figure out that ridiculous math you have going on. You can't assumed all failed it or even close to it, at best for your have to assume that the same amount failed in that smaller group, which would be 32 out of 1600(that's of course about 5 times highers then what you should really use), leaving a whopping 64 people out of 8600+. It's a failure, face it, sorry that everyone receiving assistance wasn't on drugs, this dumb myth Reagan conjured up with his "welfare queen" images to stick in the mind of middle/lower classes to deflect their income issues on why the wealthiest get cut after cut.

Working around people who receive assistance has given me a pretty good grasp on it. There are many, many people who do need this aid. We cant allow ourselves to take it from them, ever.

But there are several cheaters of the system. Lowlifes, and I mean lowest of the low, are getting this. If I were to guess, I would say at least twenty percent are abusing the system, and I'm being generous with that number. I could go into detail, but I would only piss everybody off.

For all the good I think this system does, it is still severely flawed.

I also think Food stamps need to be more like WIC. I don't feel like tax dollars should be spread around so people can use them to stock up on an abundance of Mountain Dew and gummy worms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

Lol So 1,600 that didn't take the test tested positive? Sitting here trying to figure out that ridiculous math you have going on. You can't assumed all failed it or even close to it, at best for your have to assume that the same amount failed in that smaller group, which would be 32 out of 1600(that's of course about 5 times highers then what you should really use), leaving a whopping 64 people out of 8600+. It's a failure, face it, sorry that everyone receiving assistance wasn't on drugs, this dumb myth Reagan conjured up with his "welfare queen" images to stick in the mind of middle/lower classes to deflect their income issues on why the wealthiest get cut after cut.

---

In the real world, if you refuse to take a drug test it is considered positive- at least the rules I have to play by. And can you give me a reason a person would cut off thier own "cash cow" other than knowing you can't pass this test? The story mentions a 25-35 dollar cost for the test, why stop welfare or food stamps for such a small amount?

I haven't used any illegal substance in over a quarter of a century and as a truck driver I use to take DOT drug screens, I was even in charge of transportation and monitoring other employees having screens but now that I have been self employed for several years my attitude has shifted radically concerning drug testing. When it was first introduced by the Government I felt it was an invasion of my privacy but I ended up submitting to it anyway. Now I would never submit to a drug test under ANY circumstances despite not being a drug user. We have given away our rights in this country in order to "feel safer", but as Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

duckmeat: aren't there already safeguards in place to weed out cheaters? Aren't these policies ignored or poorly policed, if policed at all?

We could save more money and help the country far more by requiring anyone running for office to take random drug tests and also requiring tests for judges, D.A's etc.

The pillhead judge in Tn is going to cost the taxpayer millions due to retrials, lawyers, expert witnesses, etc. Know how many welfare cheats who'd have to catch to equal the savings of catching him before he screwed up 100's of cases? Including the Channon Christian case, which is going to run into the millions by itself to retry. Not to mention the agony that her family will have to again endure. Catching him beforehand would trump catching every welfare cheat in the state.

Personally I cannot disagree with much of anything duckmeat said. Its not a majority of the people who abuse this system, but it is much higher than 1%. There are people who have qualified for it who have no business qualifying, and there are people who need it, and cannot be approved that I have seen. Its extremely flawed, and will continually get worse as time goes on unfortunately.

Gotch, going along with what you have said about who to drug test, why not incorporate it to anyone applying and holding a federal or state job. You must take a test at application time/submitting your request for nomination, and then random test throughout your time in office/job.

Yeah, I would go along with that ^ and it would have a potential upside that is much greater than testing those on welfare while costing less.

BUT

Anyone who has worked in a business that uses drug testing should already know that testing catches a small percentage of drug users. I worked with guys who were regular drug users and never got caught over a period of years, even a decade or more despite numerous random tests.

While working in transportation and monitoring drug tests I learned a couple of truly ingenious tricks that don't involve drinking anything, switching samples, or any of the more common dodges. One is nearly undetectable even if being watched and apparently works because I know a drug user who passed DOT tests for more than a decade using it.

Point being, drug tests are probably a waste of time and money for the most part.