Arizona Spent Over $1.7 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients to Catch One Person

August 4, 2015   |   Lavonne Mireles-Clardy

Lavonne Mireles-Clardy
August 4, 2015

(ANTIMEDIA) Backwards Land, also known as the United States of America, hosts many states that have implemented arguably counterproductive mandatory drug testing policies that violate personal rights and constitutional liberty. Additionally, such programs are, arguably, a total waste of money. Those suffering from scrutiny regarding what they choose to ingest are often those living in indigency. Seeking public assistance is now contingent upon the ingestion of specific chemicals, but one could argue that better allocation of funds—towards tangible solutions to address poverty, for example—may be more practical, especially after examining the following data.

Millions Spent, for Funzies

According to figures 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.” In fact, more alarming is that the statistics show applicants actually test positive for drug use at a lower rate than the general population, which is 9.4%.

When Arizona initiated this program in 2009, the state mentioned it was relying on a questionnaire to determine which of the applicants requesting aid needed to be tested for drugs. In the time since the intention (2009) to save an estimated 1.7 million dollars, 87,000 people have been tested and the results are interesting, to say the least.

According to USA Today, more than 87,000 welfare recipients went through Arizona’s program in the three years after it began. The total number of drug cheats caught was exactly one—a single positive result, which saved the state precisely $560. [UPDATE: According to numbers provided by the ACLU, the cost of Arizona’s drug testing program may be higher than we first reported. The ACLU estimates that each drug test costs $42, bringing the total cost as high as $3.65 million if all of the new welfare recipients were subjected to the tests.]

According to Tuscon Weekly, there was “One during the first three years of the program, and a grand total of three from 2009 to 2014.”  The results of Arizona’s implemented questionnaire and its efficiency are in question. Further, Arizona is not the only example of excessive drug testing.

Ponder this question while you consider the following statistics straight from Backwards Land: What do you think your money should be spent on? Hindering people or helping them?

Results from around the Land:

Missouri

Applicants for benefits that required drug screening, March 2013–September 2014: 69,587
Total required to take follow-up drug test: 1,646
Disqualified due to a positive drug test: 69
Adults disqualified for failing to complete required drug test: 711

Utah

Applicants for benefits that required drug screening, August 2012–July 2014: 9,253
Total required to take follow-up drug test: 1,878
Disqualified due to a positive drug test: 29
Adults disqualified for failing to complete required drug test: N/A

Tennessee

Applicants for benefits that required drug screening, July 2014–December 2014: 11,300
Total required to take follow-up drug test: 273
Disqualified due to a positive drug test: 24
Adults disqualified for failing to complete required drug test: N/A

Who benefits from these drug tests?

Drug testing in the U.S. has become a multibillion-dollar industry. A little known fact surrounding state-mandated drug testing is that pharmaceutical companies who profit from the testing are the main groups lobbying for their implementation. Also, as big companies begin phasing out drug tests because they are realizing how much of a waste of money they are, these same lobbyists are pushing to get drug testing into public schools to make up for lost profits.

One company at the forefront of the lobbying push for mandatory drug testing is Hoffman-La Roche, which ironically is the same company that produces Valium and other highly addictive sleeping pills. This company also spends money to keep cannabis illegal—and weed is one of the few drugs that these tests can reliably detect. In fact, an entire trade association (Drug & Alcohol Testing Industry Association) has been created as a front for Big Pharma’s lobbying efforts to get as many Americans drug tested as possible while ensuring the War on Drugs stays in full-effect.

In Florida, Governor Rick Scott outsourced much of the testing directly to his wife’s company, Solantic, which now makes millions from the scheme. Governor Scott, being the honorable man that he is, transferred his $62 million stake in the company to his wife a few months before the drug testing began, making sure there was no conflict of interest. At least that’s what we’re supposed to believe.

Politicians benefit by providing a falsified solution to the very real problem of state budget shortfalls. Instead of enacting real solutions which would require a lot of political capital to accomplish, (mostly Republican) politicians are able to use the poor as a scapegoat, fueled by bogus Fox New propaganda. As ironic as it sounds, though, the very so-called fix to wasteful government spending has ended up costing states dearly in this casewith little or no return on investment.

Solutions:

Are there more important things to focus on here? Why do these families require assistance in the first place? What if said required tests are actually preventing those who would benefit from sincere help in battling an addiction from getting help? What if we allocated the funds spent (which is an alarming amount) on actually helping people reform their lives?

Example:

  • Funding education to teach people about all functions of the body, aiding them in their ability to make informed personal health decisions.
  • Establishing local food forests and education vital to growing food everywhere, empowering people to be more connected to the source of their sustenance.
  • Treating drug addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal issue (alcoholism, nicotine addiction anyone?)
  • End the conflict of interest between special interest groups which lobby to enact laws based on the sole motivation of increasing their bottom lines.

Attention to the above would partially remove the necessity of providing people with food services. Imagine if all people had access to real, nutritious food. An objective look at the statistics gathered over the six years that drug testing has been in effect leaves one pondering, indeed.


This article (Arizona Spent $1.7 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients to Catch One Person) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Lavonne Mireles-Clardy and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Horia Varlan. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

Lavonne Mireles-Clardy joined Anti-Media as an independent journalist in August of 2012. Her topics of interest include health, wellness, science and innovation, gardening and seed-saving, metaphysics, and meditation. Living in Lemon Grove, she hosts Anti-Media Radio on Friday’s. Learn more about Mireles-Clardy here!

Author: Lavonne Mireles-Clardy

Lavonne Mireles-Clardy joined Anti-Media as an independent journalist in August of 2012. Her topics of interest include health, wellness, science and innovation, gardening and seed-saving, metaphysics, and meditation. Living in Lemon Grove, California, she hosts Anti-Media Radio on Friday’s.

Share This Post On

138 Comments

  1. Bullshit. I have no doubt that the government officials have found a way to fuck it up, but as long as the working class that is paying taxes has to be tested to have a job, then those who are collecting benefits for free should be. It's so simple. You fail the test, you cannot reapply for 12 months. Random tests for those who are receiving benefits. You can walk into Wal-Mart and but a test for $15. I'll bet it can be even cheaper.

    Post a Reply
  2. So what's 108,000 x $15?
    Answer, over $1.6M.
    And just because a large percentage of employers have decided to deprive potential employees of their right to privacy doesn't mean that we should support our government doing the same.
    That money could be returned to tax payers or be used to help train the unemployed.

    Post a Reply
  3. How does it work if the working class doesn't have to take a test? I've had several jobs over the last 18 years including working at a drug store. I've never been drug tested. How about the politicans making these laws? Should they be drug tested? Because they aren't. So it seems like a fairly decent size of the population doesn't have to be drug tested…should they not be allowed to receive paychecks? And why stop at drug testing? Why not IQ testing? Idiots serving the public can do just as much (if not more) harm than some druggies. I think if you can't pass a minimun IQ test, then you shouldn't collect any government benefits. You can go online and do IQ testing for free. Forget $15!

    Post a Reply
  4. this is all bullshit info for arizona . try blood work urine tests are no longer reliable

    Post a Reply
  5. where are the cites to look up this info froma trusted site not some randon journalist

    Post a Reply
  6. Leighton Schnell The 1.7M was referencing 1 person which is only the first three years. There were only 87,000 people testing in the first 3 years. So you take 15 bucks, and you subtract a normal retail profit margin which is at least 30%, you're left with around a 10 dollar test. You multiply 10 dollars by 87,000 folks and you're looking at 870,000 in expenses assuming the state bought the test from a company at a wholesale rate. Even if that one individual happened to have had a serious medical condition which were exercised while on Arizona's Mercy Care program, that alone could exceed several hundred thousand dollars by itself, not to mention the fact that a number of folks either never applied because of the laws or did not return to take the test because of various reason like being dirty. But the truth is, you could test these folks the basics for less than five bucsk a head most likely when you get to the bottom of all the profits and patents. Even in states like Missouri, they deterred or caught about 800 people out of only 69,000. That is 500k saved on a test costing 350k. You actually saved money in that state yet, its being used as a negative thing? Lets try to improve the cost effectiveness of the test and the process instead of saying fuck it. The test is a good idea in theory, how about you spend your time trying to make it a good idea in practice as well instead of wasting your time on stupid sites like this tearing it down?

    Post a Reply
  7. Andre Mallette Jr. One difference is that the job is vouluntary. You do it for benefits which you earn. With welfare you are applying for a literal handout. For a handout you need to give plausible reason. I mean, why wouldn't you? There is a fine line between what is required and what isn't. Just like minimum wage, what is the right amount? I've always been a fan of letting the market dictate. So in that frame of thought, welfare would just disappear. The only issue with that, is there simply isn't enough work for other people to take on, and you'll either have:

    1) People dying from starvation until there is balance between those with wealth and those without or;

    2) Excessive violence in various areas causing a larger disparity between the wealthy and the poor, speeding up the likeliness of #1.

    Now, with that said, I think with government benefits, which is a form of regulation, there should be rules in place which govern those regulations. So the true cost of welfare is greater than the face value of the benefits being paid. Lets make that as efficient as possible and make sure that within those governed programs, that those people are directed to new jobs which someone should be creating(You, go start a business).

    Post a Reply
  8. Also as a side note regarding the states which have low positive testing rates: If anything it just means that the program in place has already shown success. As the rules continue on, there will be less and less positive results. Kind of like paying for a judicial system and having laws against crimes. Zero crimes would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

    Post a Reply
  9. All of the red text you see in the article are called hyperlinks, they will lead you to the source of where the claim is coming from.

    Post a Reply
  10. Of course APPLICANTS won't test positive, what fool would apply knowing they'll fail. Put out a notice all recipients need a positive drug test before they get their next check, make them pay for the $15.00 test up front, to be reimbursed upon passing. Watch the people just drop off or fail by the thousands.

    Post a Reply
  11. Of course APPLICANTS won't test positive, what fool would apply knowing they'll fail. Put out a notice all recipients need a positive drug test before they get their next check, make them pay for the $15.00 test up front, to be reimbursed upon passing. Watch the people just drop off or fail by the thousands.

    Post a Reply
  12. I know what hyperlinks are and i sure did click them brought me back to this page like i said not a trusted source

    Post a Reply
  13. This is a joke ur cites are two or one word which then the writer could manipulate! Also ur sources are bunk ! If this is true one could of did better at proving it cause then their would be a ton of info to back it all up legitimately! Plus work cited would of helped

    Post a Reply
  14. This is a joke ur cites are two or one word which then the writer could manipulate! Also ur sources are bunk ! If this is true one could of did better at proving it cause then their would be a ton of info to back it all up legitimately

    Post a Reply
  15. *blinks* um…. I'm sorry.. I couldn't comprehend the point you were trying to make. Could you try running your post through a spell check and maybe post it again?

    Post a Reply
  16. 1) If you test all recipients for every check, you'd be wasting so many millions of your own taxpayer money to fund a fruitless venture.

    2) As if testing weren't morally scrupulous enough already! Testing EVERYONE before EVERY check? I guess no one needs privacy ever…

    3) The cost of a drug test is usually far greater than $15, but for the sake of argument, we'll say it is. Families who need food stamps likely can't afford even that amount.

    Post a Reply
  17. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $177 per hour. I work through this link,

    go? to tech tab for work detail—–>> w­w­w.M­a­x­C­a­s­h­3­4­.c­o­m

    Post a Reply
  18. You are just about stupid aren't you. Has there been a drop in drug use ? No.. Do you know any american history? This is a huge step backwards into the great depression era! Disenfranchisement to more people! Who don't deserve this treatment. But a greater percentage of those in government and big business are "guilty" of all that is being pushed on us all.

    Post a Reply
  19. Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail..

    w­w­w.p­a­y­d­a­y-2­4.c­o­m 🙂

    Post a Reply
  20. Mʏ ʟᴀsᴛ ᴘᴀʏ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ᴡᴀs $8000 working 9 hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 29 hours a week. I ᴄᴀɴᴛ ʙᴇʟɪᴇᴠᴇ ʜᴏᴡ ᴇᴀsʏ ɪᴛ ᴡᴀs ᴏɴᴄᴇ I ᴛʀɪᴇᴅ ɪᴛ ᴏᴜᴛ.Tʜɪs ɪs ᴡʜᴀ­ I ᴅᴏ,……

    w­w­w.­d­a­i­l­y-i­n­c­o­m­e­2­4.c­o­mONLY
    ­­
    PLEASE REMOVE THE ONLY

    Post a Reply
  21. You just don't get it. It's not about the war on drugs, which is a fucking money wasting failure. It's about lobbyist from the pharmaceutical industry convincing politicians to transfer tax dollars to them. And you don't take a drug test because your employer wants you too. In collusion with the drug testing companies, the insurance companies blackmailing your employer. And if you are truly working class, working at a labor intensive job that pays low wages , with little or no benefits, then you don't pay very much taxes. In fact, most working class get almost ALL of the money that is deducted from their check. Some of the lowest paid people get more than they paid in.

    Post a Reply
  22. Arizona does not test everyone who applies. They get a questionairre. The speculated cost described by the article (number of recipients x cost per test) is a theoretical number only, and not an accurate report of actual spending. Arizona does actually spend money to support recipients in obtaining job training. They even have some funding available to help applicants purchase work uniforms or trade related tools. The programs that support people in seeking training and purchasing materials are not widely publicized, but participation in other job readiness programs — resume and interviewing workshops, for example — are mandatory for anyone who is employable. I'm a little curious about the intention behind this story. It isn't accurate, and it seems angry and spiteful. If it was inspired by real concern for under-served people, why not get the facts straight, report accurate numbers, and also mention what programs do exist? To be honest, I'm troubled by the fact that transitional programs to get people back to work aren't openly communicated. If a person feels that they can't complete trade training due to economic barriers, it would be helpful to know that support exists. In Arizona, there is even funding for things like car repairs, if transportation is a barrier to obtaining gainful employment. Obviously funding is meager, and there are hard caps for recipients of these benefits. But denying that any good exists helps no one.

    Post a Reply
  23. Not tested before every check, just before you get one more, no notice. Many seem to find $10 bucks a day to smoke cigarettes, which I quit when they reached $3 a pack because even with my job, I couldn't afford to smoke. they can afford to put that money out for a test. If testing a so morally scrupupulos, why'd my husband have to test before he gets the pleasure of working for those benifits. If you can buy a drug test at rite aid for $15 bucks, the state could buy in bulk, sell them right at the welfare office for cost. Your test is negative you get your food stamps, bet card refilled, your Medicaid and your test cost back. Positive test, you have four weeks to test clean, if yo pass you will be tested every month at your cost, pass 6 months in a row, you get your test money back and a 6 month test free trial, test positive again, your off, no notice. Why can't you all understand we could take care of our poor and needy better if we could get all the leeches off the system.

    Post a Reply
  24. Not tested before every check, just before you get one more, no notice. Many seem to find $10 bucks a day to smoke cigarettes, which I quit when they reached $3 a pack because even with my job, I couldn't afford to smoke. they can afford to put that money out for a test. If testing a so morally scrupupulos, why'd my husband have to test before he gets the pleasure of working for those benifits. If you can buy a drug test at rite aid for $15 bucks, the state could buy in bulk, sell them right at the welfare office for cost. Your test is negative you get your food stamps, bet card refilled, your Medicaid and your test cost back. Positive test, you have four weeks to test clean, if yo pass you will be tested every month at your cost, pass 6 months in a row, you get your test money back and a 6 month test free trial, test positive again, your off, no notice. Why can't you all understand we could take care of our poor and needy better if we could get all the leeches off the system.

    Post a Reply
  25. Why aren't people up in arms with corporate -welfare. Since that is a huge amount that tax payers have to cover. I would rather my tax money go for food stamps/medical/housing/disabled/veterans/elderly/working poor than tax breaks for corporations that can afford to pay but will not. Google search on how much you pay every year for welfare then search corporate-welfare. Then you will see where the outcry should be.

    Post a Reply
  26. Why aren't people up in arms with corporate -welfare. Since that is a huge amount that tax payers have to cover. I would rather my tax money go for food stamps/medical/housing/disabled/veterans/elderly/working poor than tax breaks for corporations that can afford to pay but will not. Google search on how much you pay every year for welfare then search corporate-welfare. Then you will see where the outcry should be.

    Post a Reply
  27. No need if u dont know the work bunk then its a lost cause and plus i ahve no errors i dont use spell check #imaeducatedstudent and im done with this silly so called media news

    Post a Reply
  28. " Additionally, such programs are, arguably, a total waste of money. " It's not arguably a waste of money. It just IS a waste of money.

    Post a Reply
  29. Dig further. They only tested new applicants, who said they had did drugs in the past 30 days. Didn't test "all" applicants.

    Post a Reply
  30. You're an* educated student? What, a preschool student? You seriously can't tell someone "I ahve no errors" and literally have an error while saying that.

    Post a Reply
  31. Brandon Griffin lmao not from not knowing how to spell it totally from tying to fast duh!

    Post a Reply
  32. $85 an hour! Seriously I don't know why more people haven't tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…And whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids. Heres where I went

    w­­­­­­w­­­­­­w.n­­e­­w-jo­­bs­­8.c­­o­­m

    Post a Reply
  33. Brandon Griffin The point I'm making, hence the reason I used, "if anything", is that this is a terrible study with lots of holes in it and that data doesn't mean jack shit. What they should point out is the potential cost of having even a dozen people on Mercy Care in Arizona who shoudn't be. Those costs could be hundreds of thousands of dollars, easily. The cost of welfare is increased by this, but the problem isn't the testing, the problem is welfare to begin with and arguably the people on welfare in some cases. The problem is everyone NOT on welfare not creating jobs for these people so they don't have the excuse they don't have a job.

    Post a Reply
  34. Brandon Griffin The point I'm making, hence the reason I used, "if anything", is that this is a terrible study with lots of holes in it and that data doesn't mean jack shit. What they should point out is the potential cost of having even a dozen people on Mercy Care in Arizona who shoudn't be. Those costs could be hundreds of thousands of dollars, easily. The cost of welfare is increased by this, but the problem isn't the testing, the problem is welfare to begin with and arguably the people on welfare in some cases. The problem is everyone NOT on welfare not creating jobs for these people so they don't have the excuse they don't have a job.

    Post a Reply
  35. Brandon Griffin But you and I both know we are job positive in that we've created more jobs than we've ever taken. Until these other douches can say the same thing, they can stfu.

    Post a Reply
  36. Brandon Griffin But you and I both know we are job positive in that we've created more jobs than we've ever taken. Until these other douches can say the same thing, they can stfu.

    Post a Reply
  37. Lol, I wasn't bullying you, I was calling you out and for the record, that hadn't been your only error, some weren't due to fast typing, but from you having bad grammar.

    Post a Reply
  38. What needs to happen IMHO is some of these people who are tested and then refused help – need to go on a murder spree. They need to target the politicians who voted in favor of the testing and their families. This is the only real way they should respond. The politicians are taking away their ability to survive and get food based on their consumption of a plant that grows in nature. Just having pot in your system does not mean you spent money on it. So yeah … I hope some old people who go hungry because of this legislation commit horribly violent and brutal murders of the politicians that voted for this … and their families. (No incitement or encouragement of violence here , just my HOPE that this happens and my own personal beliefs on what should be the normal response to govt intrusion in peoples private lives)

    Post a Reply
  39. Oh and by the way for all you fks in support of this. I would be willing to be it is only a matter of time before those same states start wanting to make testing clean mandatory to vote. Little steps to get to more and more control.

    Post a Reply
  40. I always get my jobs from postings in comments where the profile picture contains cleavage. It's a secret tip to success!

    Post a Reply
  41. LM Carey Those cheap tests are cheap for a reason, the likelyhood of both false positives and false negatives is higher – and they have expiration dates. The whole point behind this is to push the testing and taxpayer funds to a relatives or friends company involved in the testing.
    Now – if we were surprise testing state or federal congressmen and employees, now that would have some interesting results. Like that one Florida congressman who voted for harsher drug penalties, then months later is caught buying cocaine in Washington DC from an undercover officer. Since he wasn't in his own state he didn't face a mandatory minimum, and just got a fine and rehab. Should have lost his job and more for both doing the crime, and violating the public trust.

    Post a Reply
  42. James Morris It's a lot like prohibition, the poor were demonized, but the majority users were middle class – as a medicine to balance a day of hard work, they'd enjoy a few shots. Today it's shots, lines, joints, bowls, etc. Same human behavior essentially.
    Fact is, jobs should never have checked anyway except for public service jobs like police, firemen, aviation workers, etc. If you work retail – you could be high/drunk as hell and be fine in most cases (unless you drive the forklift through the sales floor doing figure 8's… )

    Post a Reply
  43. Tyler Lee States aren't likely to use the least reliable tests, they use actual labs – where an employee handles each sample. Those tests run well over $20. The last one i took prior to joining the army cost me $75. But that was in 2000. You should never estimate costs on the lowest possible price – it's just not realistic at all. Better the median price in the market as a calculation factor.

    Post a Reply
  44. Tyler Lee States aren't likely to use the least reliable tests, they use actual labs – where an employee handles each sample. Those tests run well over $20. The last one i took prior to joining the army cost me $75. But that was in 2000. You should never estimate costs on the lowest possible price – it's just not realistic at all. Better the median price in the market as a calculation factor.

    Post a Reply
  45. LM Carey are you saying ALL people who get food stamps or a check smoke, I don't and WORED 30+ years before I had to get cervical spine surgery and now can't walk without a walker, can't sit or stand for more than a half an hour before having to move due to arthritis which I was born with, along with a congenital heart defect… NEVER smoked and NEVER will, can't afford it with my SS disabilirty check and the whopping 184 a month in food stamps to feed 4 people…and if your spouse has to pass a drug test that's on him for working in a field that requires it, not many work places do. I woorked as a cashier at Ames no drug testing, worked for a resturant no drug testing, worked for school no drug testing, worked as a vbolunteer for a hospital no drug testing…I worked at least 2 jobs because my ex hubby left (he had CP) and wasn't required to support his kids (3) so I did and still do support my kids and I don't recieve a check through welfare I EARNED every penny of my check…I find your comments offensive, not everyone is using drugs on welfare, not everyone who needs help from food stamps does them either and no one I know who recieves them SMOKE so where the hel% do you get your information from????? Smoking has decreased in the past years since people know it causes cancer, back in the 50's it was advertized as a cure all for nerves etc, but we know better now…..

    Post a Reply
  46. LM Carey are you saying ALL people who get food stamps or a check smoke, I don't and WORED 30+ years before I had to get cervical spine surgery and now can't walk without a walker, can't sit or stand for more than a half an hour before having to move due to arthritis which I was born with, along with a congenital heart defect… NEVER smoked and NEVER will, can't afford it with my SS disabilirty check and the whopping 184 a month in food stamps to feed 4 people…and if your spouse has to pass a drug test that's on him for working in a field that requires it, not many work places do. I woorked as a cashier at Ames no drug testing, worked for a resturant no drug testing, worked for school no drug testing, worked as a vbolunteer for a hospital no drug testing…I worked at least 2 jobs because my ex hubby left (he had CP) and wasn't required to support his kids (3) so I did and still do support my kids and I don't recieve a check through welfare I EARNED every penny of my check…I find your comments offensive, not everyone is using drugs on welfare, not everyone who needs help from food stamps does them either and no one I know who recieves them SMOKE so where the hel% do you get your information from????? Smoking has decreased in the past years since people know it causes cancer, back in the 50's it was advertized as a cure all for nerves etc, but we know better now…..

    Post a Reply
  47. The point of the tests is not to actually catch anyone but to stop folks from even applying for the benefits at all,the right will point to the number of applicants before and the number after the law was implemented.If it was lower after they will claim victory and they could arguably be correct.

    Post a Reply
  48. Because it does not jive with their underlying motive. And the reason we are seeing this article is because people are happy to share things which aligns with thier manipulated beliefs. Things they learn to believe because of the media itself. Sheep.

    Post a Reply
  49. Hurray! Stop a person from feeding kids because they took two hits off of a joint on Saturday a week and a half ago! What a victory! Now we are truly helping people, right? *sarcasm alert for those who have trouble understanding*

    Post a Reply
  50. Fantastic. Now help them, solve the problem, call it a day. It isn't so much to ask since seeing where the whole problem is, is so easy for you.

    Post a Reply
  51. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $177 per hour. I work through this link,

    go? to tech tab for work detail—–>> w­w­w.M­a­x­C­a­s­h­3­4­.c­o­m

    Post a Reply
  52. Lol it references think progress as a news source…..what a crock of shit.

    Post a Reply
  53. "Adults disqualified for failing to complete required drug test: N/A"
    Interesteing they left that number out…
    As in the number that signed up but didn't show up for the test.

    Post a Reply
  54. The states need to test every household member her the age of ten. Just because the mother who is the actual applicant can pass a drug test does not mean the money is not diverted to or commandeered by an unruly teen or other household member.

    Post a Reply
  55. It is patently unconstitutional to force anyone to undergo a drug test (i.e. a search of their blood or urine) without probable cause to believe that particular person has been taking an illegal drug. That's what the 4th Amendment says and I believe it. That applies to everyone whether they are taking a job or applying for public assistance.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    By failing to defend our Constitution, by letting random drug testing become a commonplace in American life, we have proven ourselves cowards.

    Post a Reply
  56. My point Kelly is that it's likely the tax payers dollars paid for that joint. People who had to not only go to work, had to pay taxes, and take a piss test to do so.

    Post a Reply
  57. The problem with your logic (in my humble opinion) is their home is being paid for by my tax dollars. Applying for assistance is voluntary and is not a right. You need to pass a driver test to get a license.

    Post a Reply
  58. WHAT SCHOOL OF STUPID DID THESE PEOPLE GO TO????? DON’T SAY TO SAVE MONEY BECAUSE IT WOUNT
    DRUG TEST WELFARE RECIEPIENTS???? ,,,EIGHT different states,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Oklahoma drug tested …… or screened …,,,,,,,,,, 3,342…. 297 tested positive ..….cost $185,219 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$623 per positive case
    Missouri drug tested .…… or screened …….…38,970 ……48 tested positive…… cost $336,297,,,,,,,,,,,,Over $ 7,000 pere positive case
    Florida drug tested………..or screened…………. 4,086 ….108 tested positive ….…cost $118,140 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$,1093 per positive case
    Mississippi drug tested…. or screened …………..3,656 ……..2 tested positive ……….cost$ 1,634,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$817 per positive case
    Utah drug tested ………… or screened …………… 838 ……29 tested positive ….…cost $64,000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$2,206 per positive case
    Tennessee drug tested … or screened ………..…. 279 ……37 tested positive……… cost $5,295.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$143 per positive case
    Arizona’s drug tested …….or screened………….…. 42 ……..3 tested positive…..….. cost $499.06.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$166 per positive case
    Kansas drug tested ………or screened……………… 65 ..….11 tested positive…’’’’…. cost $40,000.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,….$3,363 per positive case
    some states screened thousands of people which only a few were tested and others tested a percentadge,,others used still diferent measures,,,,,BUT THEY ALL FAILED MONETARILY

    Post a Reply
  59. Chris Stew Stewart ,,,,FOR some reason you think YOU are the only person oin this coutry that pays taxs? ,,The people who receive welfare MUST BE U S tax paying citizens also,,,,,TURN OFF FIX NEWS and take a civics class

    Post a Reply
  60. “why only drugs?? why not running stop signs,,, how about tax cheats,, and dont forget those people who tear the tags off their pillows,,,,, this is nothing more than a WHICH HUNT”
    “You are NOT REQUIRED to take a drug test to get a job,,, What you are required to do is GIVE UP your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT against unwarranted search and seizure, the 4th amendment ,ALSO the 5th amendment against self incrimination and you MUST SIGN documents that state that you do give up those rights and submit voluntarily to a drug/alcohol screening, and they are looking for WHAT? drugs? Hardly,, last time I checked tobacco (nicotine) coffee (caffeine) and w Alcohol ere ALL DRUGS,, so now what? Look for illegal drugs?? Alcohol was at one time illegal,, today it is perfectly legal ,, cocaine at one time was perfectly legal it was even in a popular drink,, today it is illegal,,, what they are looking for is a way to deny a claim,for insurance companies nothing less,,,,DRUGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT,,,,,,WHAT THIS IS an attack on the constitution by corporate America make no mistake about it”

    Post a Reply
  61. Chris Stew Stewart – Taking a driving test is not a search and is not addressed in the Constitution.
    The USA is not supposed to be a monarchy, nor is it supposed to be a police state. It is the clear intent and meaning of the Constitution that NO ONE be searched physically or medically without probable cause to believe they have committed a crime. The mere fact that someone has applied for a job or public assistance does not IMO constitute probable cause.

    OTOH it seems to me that, IF one feels that people applying for taxpayer subsidies in the form of truly small sums of public assistance should and can be forced to endure drug testing, THEN the executives of every business and corporation recieving HUGE taxpayers subsidies should and can also be forced to endure drug testing before any tax abatements or cash payments are paid.

    Post a Reply
  62. BLAME THE POOR!
    That is the diversion tactic that is played on us, and we/the many stupid uninformed people fall for it! How many hundreds of thousands of people have lost jobs that they worked at for years when hundreds of these big companies up and left the country to go overseas in the last 20 years and where they then are able to hire poor workers at SLAVE WAGES. These American people with families and homes were dumped, and so right there the country loses taxes-paid-in, and then we lose the taxes from these companies that NOW keep their money/bank off shore too! BUT we buy their F#$%*ng products at the same prices as if they WERE made in the USA! BS!
    But lets all bitch about the poor, because they are taking so much… all those veterans that came back from the BS recent 2 Bush [lies] Wars, 40% are homeless, and the face of poverty in this… THIS so called great country is a 9 year old child… SHAME ON the stupid people that will not see what is happening right before their own eyes! The statistic for welfare abuse is very low, something like 2%, look it up too if your ragged to do so!
    How many know that the favorite jibe about "the cart in front of me in the grocery store was loaded with all kinds of junk food… I wish I could afford that stuff" Well ASK… no look it up… see who lobbies to KEEP these items on the list….IT IS THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE THE CRAP! Just like the lobbying that provides the drug testing… they FN make lots and lots of money and looks likethe florida governor fully knows how to play the game too!
    Look at the poor, so you don't notice the wealthy robbing you blind!

    One last memory just came to me, my older sister remembers when we were down and out and my mom called the church and they told her to call another church and then that one told her to call another one… WE got NO help from the catholic church in the 1950's, my own childhood could have benefited from apublic ssistance, but we got thru, by going hungry!

    Post a Reply
  63. Violate rights? Give me a fucking break!!! I see individuals selling their food stamps for cash all the time to buy drugs! Can't wait till Donald Trump gets elected!

    Post a Reply
  64. Vouchers with the individuals photo ID stamped, only used for common food not allowing welfare recipients to hit up the local shrimp truck or every other fucking place that takes food stamps!! Keeps heading in this direction the next auto commercial you see will have a "now accepting ebt logo in the corner!!

    Post a Reply
  65. iT WORKS OUT GOOD BC THE ONE WHO ARE DEMANDING THIS TESTING THEY PROB OWN STOCK IN THE DRUG TESTING COMPANIES THAT WILL GET THE INCREASED REVENUE. oR IT IS A "FAMILY" OWNED BIZ…sry about all caps…did not feel like retyping in lc.

    Post a Reply
  66. THE PROGRAM WORKS!! Qoute from above: "applicants actually test positive for drug use at a lower rate than the general population, which is 9.4%" The purpose of the drug testing is NOT to stop payments to needy people. It is make give incentive to needy people to live clean drug free lifes. We do not want to be ENABLERS that make it easy for a drug abusing person to continue abuse via government assiatance. The reported stats seem to indicate the program has been successfull at getting the people to NOT USE drugs.

    Post a Reply
  67. Really? You see it all the time–right out in the open, in front of you? And you stand around and watch these transactions? Where do you hang out (I suspect Fox "News").

    Post a Reply
  68. Mr. Weaver – I must ask you… So What?
    Our nation is not supposed to be a kindergarten. Saying "Look what Bobby does!" did not convince our parent that we should be allowed to do "bad" things (and doing unconstitutional things is IMO very bad) too.

    As my folks used to say "If Janet jumps off the cliff are you going to jump off the cliff too?"

    Post a Reply
  69. know what else is successful at getting people to not use drugs? not having enough money for food and shelter.

    Post a Reply
  70. This is an inflammatory fluff piece to enrage us all! The data is suspect to say the least. If the story were true? Major news outlets would be leading with it for weeks! *Want to solve 60-80% of America's "Drug Problem"? Legalize Canabis & tax it heavily!

    Post a Reply
  71. Omg lets spend more money on this shit then what it's worth…. How flippen stupid is this,,, man if the government would think before they act smfh

    Post a Reply
  72. And big deal ppl smoke weed test for the hard core shit like hariron, cocaine, meth, ect that's the shit that can and will fuck u up worse then weed,,,, come on ppl get with the program

    Post a Reply
  73. And big deal ppl smoke weed test for the hard core shit like hariron, cocaine, meth, ect that's the shit that can and will fuck u up worse then weed,,,, come on ppl get with the program

    Post a Reply
  74. And big deal ppl smoke weed test for the hard core shit like hariron, cocaine, meth, ect that's the shit that can and will fuck u up worse then weed,,,, come on ppl get with the program

    Post a Reply
  75. I'm making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I'm my own boss. This is what I do,

    ­­­t­­­i­n­­­y­­­u­­­r­­­l­­­.­­­c­­­o­­­m­­/PayTimes996-Com

    Post a Reply
  76. Funny, they did that in Colorado and the only change in crime rates was an increase of people stealing pot and a tiny increase in the number of people caught driving while high. It did nothing to change the number of people arrested for hard drugs or DUI's.

    Making outlandish claims only hurts our efforts at legalization.

    Post a Reply
  77. Daniel Weaver Used to people completely ignoring everything you say, are you? Here, let me give you a virtual pat on the back for finally getting a response to something you posted on the internet after all these years of trying. Keep up the good work Danny, who knows, maybe someone will reply again before you die of old age, hate and rhetoric.

    Post a Reply
  78. ☛ ☛ ☛ Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer has gone so far as to Support the practice "work at home", it is the good way to earn more and more money at home.$45h – $65h…how? part time or full time, I've been bringing in $63h¿ , You can make $38h easily. You can check it out here…
    it is completely free to register..
    w­­w­­w.worknet4.c­­o­­mCOPY THE LINK

    Post a Reply
  79. Arizona never drug tested a single welfare recipient . I live in Arizona and can tell you this is 100% fake it never happened

    Post a Reply
  80. How did they lose money? If you kick the positives out of the system, youj save thouands of dollars every year on each of these people.

    Post a Reply
  81. Thomas Grass ,,,,,These TAX PAYING American citizens dont get kicked of they are temorarily suspended TURN OFF FIX NEWS and take a civics class

    Post a Reply
  82. how about mandatory drug testing for all cabinet positions, senators, congressmen and women, and all presidential candidates? also how about psychological evaluations for the aforementioned? would there be anyone left to run for office then?

    Post a Reply
  83. TRY AGAIN FOX FOOL,,,,,Welfare recipient drug testing brings shocking results – AOL …
    http://www.aol.com/article/…/welfare-recipient-drug-testing…/21212782/
    AOL
    Jul 24, 2015 – Three years after the program was initiated in Arizona, over 87,000 welfare recipients have been tested: One test came up as positive which …
    Arizona drug-tested 87,000 welfare recipients and found …
    http://www.dailykos.com/…/-Arizona-drug-tested-87-000-welfare-re...
    Daily Kos
    Jul 22, 2015 – A lot of money has gone down the drain testing welfare recipients. From Gregory …… Just for fun, here's a link to the Arizona Drug Use Statment.
    Is Arizona Wasting Taxpayer Money When Drug Testing …
    http://www.tucsonweekly.com/…/is-arizona-wasting-taxpayer-...
    Tucson Weekly
    Jul 23, 2015 – In 2009, Arizona became the first state to impose a drug-test rule for Welfare recipients (when there is a reasonable cause that is, which …

    Post a Reply
  84. WHAT SCHOOL OF STUPID DID THESE PEOPLE GO TO????? DON’T SAY TO SAVE MONEY BECAUSE IT WOUNT
    DRUG TEST WELFARE RECIEPIENTS???? ,,,EIGHT different states,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Oklahoma drug tested …… or screened …,,,,,,,,,, 3,342…. 297 tested positive ..….cost $185,219 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$623 per positive case
    Missouri drug tested .…… or screened …….…38,970 ……48 tested positive…… cost $336,297,,,,,,,,,,,,Over $ 7,000 pere positive case
    Florida drug tested………..or screened…………. 4,086 ….108 tested positive ….…cost $118,140 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$,1093 per positive case
    Mississippi drug tested…. or screened …………..3,656 ……..2 tested positive ……….cost$ 1,634,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$817 per positive case
    Utah drug tested ………… or screened …………… 838 ……29 tested positive ….…cost $64,000,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$2,206 per positive case
    Tennessee drug tested … or screened ………..…. 279 ……37 tested positive……… cost $5,295.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$143 per positive case
    Arizona’s drug tested …….or screened………….…. 42 ……..3 tested positive…..….. cost $499.06.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$166 per positive case
    Kansas drug tested ………or screened……………… 65 ..….11 tested positive…’’’’…. cost $40,000.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,….$3,363 per positive case
    some states screened thousands of people which only a few were tested and others tested a percentadge,,others used still diferent measures,,,,,BUT THEY ALL FAILED MONETARILY

    Post a Reply
  85. Daniel I must call bull on this. Firsf of all I see people are confusing WIC with SNAP aka food stamps. Now to say you see people selling stamps for cash is false because it's all on debit cards now. Also, if you are witness to this blatant abuse of a State program such as defrauding. Why haven't you reported such abuse? Second, who do you associate with? Because I can't imagine perfect strangers doing " illegal money transactions " in front of you. Lastly, are you even a little bit curious of how much more of your money you would have every 4/15 if companies such as Bank of America, Google, and every pharmaceutical company known would actually pay something. You would be a lot less angry at your neighbors. Hell you might even inhale.

    Post a Reply
  86. Missouri is the only state that reported refusals – 711 refusals and 69 positive drug screens, that's over 45% of the people selected for drug tests that had an effective positive test result

    Post a Reply
  87. What are the stats on the number of people applying (thereby requiring testing) for the benefits? Has there been a statistical drop that could very well be equal to the number that if they would have applied would have tested positive? Where are those stats please?

    Post a Reply
  88. I don't think you read that correctly. Those numbers you list would be over 45% of those required to take a -follow up- test, not 45% of those required to take the test at all. It says 69,587 applied for benefits that required taking a drug test. So 69 positives and 711 refusals comes out to 1.1%, if you're going to count all refusals as though they would've tested positive, which is hardly a sound assumption, but we'll go with it.

    Post a Reply
  89. Matt Hansen – the 69k people were subject to a drug screening questionnaire, not an actual drug test. Only those identified as problematic in the questionaire were actually required to take a drug test – and a refusal counts as a failure in every situation where a drug test is required – therefore of those who were actually required to submit a drug test, the failure rate was 45%

    Post a Reply
  90. Shane Rolf One, that's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and two, even with your flawed (at best) logic that STILL means that of 69,587 applicants only 1.1% would've tested positive, as both those who failed and those who refused to take the test are still only 1.1% of those that applied and, since the test was only given to people who, you yourself said, seemed "problematic" that means you can assume that the remainder of the 69,587 applicants did not raise any alarm for potential drug use. So it was still a waste of time and money and still means that less than 2 percent of the people who applied were potential users. Let's see you twist those facts.

    Post a Reply
  91. You're an idiot Jim… if someone was addicted to drugs, the threat of failing a drug test and losing benefits wouldn't stop them… because they would have an ADDICTION and chemical DEPENDENCY wouldn't change over the threat of lost income… if anything, it would lead those people to commit more crimes to feed their habits. The fact that so few people tested positive means that the people who apply for benefits weren't drug users to begin with. Also, you're an absolute fool if you believe the real reason for testing was to encourage people to live drug-free lives when the politicians behind such programs flat-out admit that they want testing to try to end such programs and prove that people only use them cuz they're either lazy or drug addicts… neither of which is true in most cases. And Joe, you're just a heartless asshole. Yes, people cut from programs can't afford drugs (unless they turn to crime which hurts the general populace)… know what else they cant afford? The food and shelter you jokingly reference, which leads them to being homeless and starved (which you're too heartless to care about).. which one, can cause many of them to die (which again, you're too heartless to care about) and two, could cause many of them to need to go to shelters or having more of a need for medical care that will come out of your pocket (since attacking your pocketbook is probably the only way to get you to care)… it actually costs less to leave people on welfare than it would to run the additional shelters, food pantries, ect that they would need being homeless and the additional health care costs of them being sicker and weaker… and it actually allows for them to have the chance to pull themselves out of poverty altogether.

    Post a Reply
  92. Chris Stewart doesn't support the consyitution or it's "logic". He's unAmerican as Bin Laden and a treasonist. Move to Russia. Read a book sometime. 1% of your tax dollars goes to welfare programs. You're not paying more than $300 in taxes so that $3 a week. $12 a month. $144 a year. So by your contributiob, you can either have say in one weeks worth of food or one weeks worth of rent for a single welfare recipient. Other than that, you should probably shut up because you sound like an uneducated moron.

    Post a Reply
  93. Daniel apparently like so many Democrats, facts evade you. More illegal immigrants use welfare than citizens. To the logical and mentally superior it's ridiculous that people breaking our laws and living in this country illegally as illegal invaders are allowed to collect money and benefits via welfare paid for by American citizens. Check facts before trying to spin a story.

    Post a Reply
  94. What this clearly biased report doesn't also show is that IF people collecting welfare knew or suspected they MIGHT be drug tested in order to get or keep their welfare checks….they won't use drugs!! So in effect these programs are likely keeping some of these people off drugs. If you proport that to be a ridiculous claim think of it this way….how many professional sports figures do you think would use steroids if there was ZERO drug testing in sports? Knowing they could or will be tested they don't use drugs…well except the occasional idiot who still tries to slide it by.
    Whether it $1.7 million or double that….money well spent by Arizona over a 5 year period.

    Post a Reply
  95. Michael Stumpf – Please provide a link to solid documentary evidence that "More illegal immigrants use welfare than citizens." I find the assertion highly suspect.

    BUT even if your sketchy assertion is true it is irrelevant. The Constitution says NO searches without probable cause. It doesn't limit that protection to citizens or white people or people over 6 feet tall or men… it says NO searches without probable cause.

    Post a Reply
  96. Wow, what a misleading article!!!! read the sources and they state: "Arizona was the first state to impose a testing program. In 2009, it began testing new welfare recipients when there was a "reasonable cause" to suspect illicit drug use. So how many of the 87,000 people subjected to the program have tested positive since then? The biggest reason is likely the way Arizona determines "reasonable cause." Essentially, the state asks new recipients whether they've used drugs in the past 30 days, and only those who answer yes are tested. With no penalty for lying, a couple of dozen owned up. Of those, several tested negative; the rest failed to take the test." AND: "An additional $200,000, or one-tenth of 1%, was saved when 1,633 people failed to return their drug use questionaires. "

    This is like asking new employees if they take drugs and only testing the 1% or so that say yes… of course it was a worthless program…. O.o duh

    Doesn't mean a good one could not be designed or utlized, but to draw conclusions from this is down right moronic.

    Post a Reply
  97. If you want to get rid of black-market marijuana sales, to "tax it heavily" would be counterproductive. Nobody is going to buy it legally if they can still get it on the streets for half as much. Just sayin.

    Post a Reply
  98. Money well spent. Don't be naive or stupid. No free rides to drug users and we as a society have to try to break the cycle of poverty. Don't be a stupid democrat. If you don't care about your money you give it to drug users. I give my money to people who will benefit from it.

    Post a Reply
  99. Money well spent. Don't be naive or stupid. No free rides to drug users and we as a society have to try to break the cycle of poverty. Don't be a stupid democrat. If you don't care about your money you give it to drug users. I give my money to people who will benefit from it.

    Post a Reply
  100. I think it's supposed to catch the ones selling their food stamps to buy drugs while their kids go hungry….you will be surprised how much of it happens!!! And go to food banks to feed their kids those kids are lucky to even get that …if the ju'my an their friends don't consume it It first!

    Post a Reply
  101. I used to believe it wasn't right either….seeing some of the stuff I have seen in past couple years got me to thinking maybe it is the right thing.

    Post a Reply
  102. How does this compare to general public work place screenings? It may not be efficient but they still do it

    Post a Reply
  103. I agree but i wish i could smoke marijuana and not worry about losing my paycheck (job)

    Post a Reply
  104. if i have to take a test then someone who sits on their fucking ass all day who lives in the gehtto better be drug tested its not a waste of money since they did catch someone and the facts iare mostly likely being distorted by the liberal piece of shit who wrote the article the waste is giving money to people who are fulling capbale of working but suffer from the disease known as lazyness and are minorities. now what should be done is the individual keeps all their money and the lazy fuckers who dont work well tough shit for them if they have no money then they have to get up and look for a job the welfare system is a joke and a disgrace the program was ment for short term use not long time use the only people who should have any right to the welfare system are those who have paid into their whole lives and the soliders who protect the rights and freedoms that so many American citizens take for granit if your a imigrant no rights period non negotiable and if your are a minority and since white isnt considered a color anymore that means asians spics and black people unless u have had a job proving at any time u actually worked and paid into the system along with a mandatory drug testing they shouldnt have a right to any of the welfare benefits either until they have proven they arent using drugs and have that job which armed robbery and drug dealing dont count just clarifying that for you!

    Post a Reply
  105. OR MAYBE THEY ARE MAKING APPOINTMENTS FOR IT AND PEOPLE HAVE THE TIMETO PASS THE TEST. Not to mention there are drugs you can take to pass drug tests.it must be a surprise based testing.

    Post a Reply
  106. Did I just hear a bell?… Because I think somebody just got schooled.

    Post a Reply
  107. Danielle Dubill I believe that I said that counting refusals and failures, 45% of people selected for actual drug tests would be counted as failures. If you don't think the government counts a refusal as a failed drug screen, then I hope you never get put on probation, because, trust me, refusing or failing to take the drug test has the same result as a failed drug screen. Further, most states that have these welfare/drug laws also consider a refusal to be a failed drug test. That logic is not flawed, it is, in fact, the law. I pointed out that in Missouri, as in most other states, a very high percentage of those individuals who were ACTUALLY TESTED failed or refused the drug screen. While I have no problem admitting that those numbers only represent a small fraction of those who had to submit a questionaire or some other sort of pre-screening (I can do simple math), that does not necessarily mean that the same small fraction would have been the only ones to test positive if they were all subjected to an actual drug screen. It could simply mean that the pre-screening is not particularly effective at identifying those who should be tested, or the threshold for reasonable suspicion is overly high. The CDC places illicit drug use at about 10% of the population. It is simply not reasonable to believe that the welfare population is using illegal drugs at 1/5th to 1/10th the rate of the general population, particularly considering that when they are actually required to submit to a drug screen, the failure rate is 4-5 times the usage rate of the general population. In the end, the actual usage rate obvioulsy falls somewhere in between 2% and 45%, since those selected for an actual drug test are not done so on a random basis, it cannot be broadly applied to the entire group. However, neither can the asumption be made that simply because whatever rudamentary prescreening was done did not call for a drug screen that ALL those people are neccesarily clean. However, the real answer will not be known without universal testing (or at least a truly random testing group) and the federal courts have already ruled that testing without "reasonable suspicion" is a 4th ammendment violation. So, while I did not and could not say that 45% of the TOTAL welfare population would have failed, neither can you make the broad statement that only 1.1% of the total population would have failed. Finally, my overall point was one of semantics, the headlines and tones of these articles leave one with the belief that 69K people actually submitted to real drug tests and the failure rate was miniscule, the truth is that the failure rate of those who were actually tested is quite high.

    Post a Reply
  108. The biggest drug smugglers in America are the agencies of the American government. Hypocrites.

    Post a Reply
  109. I disagree… I believe they should help the homeless and feed the hungry .. Like the Lord told us to… Be Kind… help the needy

    Post a Reply
  110. ( I think it is another pathetic waste of money. Food stamps and SSI are only 2 percent of the budget.Meanwhile 67 percent of it.. is going to government… and the military.. I believe they should be taking care of America … what they vowed to do.. Not steal LIe and distract us Send millions to countrys that hate us.. They are bold enought to announce they are selling Iraq nukes.. Does that really seem in our best interest.. since they are the enemy…. brings me to think .. Our Government is not serving us. They are selliing us out…to the highest bidder.
    .

    Post a Reply
  111. I am not a stupid democrat…but you must be a foolish republican …to believe the lies.

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *