.045%? I read about a heroin test that has about that rate (actually, I think .5% - 1%) of type I errors. Oooor, false positives. 
Thatâs my point there has to be a net benefit to society. While I think the idea has some merit you could never pass that up here. Occupational drug testing in Canada is very limited and it has to be for bona fide OHS reasonsâŚ
do the ones who fail get simply cut off or are they given a chance at rehab before that get cut off
Occupational drug testing in the US is quite widespread. Why should someone getting money from the government, who I think for the most part requires mandatory drug testing, not have to do so as well?
When did Canada become part of FL? I know things are so good up there that God spends his vacation time with you but you still try to invade our FL every winter and tell us how great it is closer to the north pole. Whats up with that?
Occupational drug testing in the US is quite widespread. Why should someone getting money from the government, who I think for the most part requires mandatory drug testing, not have to do so as well?
Then you agree with the above post that drug testing should be extended to all public sector employees, politicians, recipients of bailout money, recipients of federal grant funding, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, etc?
Why single out a particular group? I think we can both agree that their are people in the above mentioned groups who get money from the government and use drugs.
.045%?
Youâre off by a decimal point.
.
âThe real issue is cultural disdain and stereotyping of welfare recipients.â
There would probably be less disdain and stereotyping of welfare recipients if the government required recipients to preform some sort of work or service for their payment. It would likely be a less of a disservice to both recipients and taxpayers as well.
Haim
âThe real issue is cultural disdain and stereotyping of welfare recipients.â
There would probably be less disdain and stereotyping of welfare recipients if the government required recipients to preform some sort of work or service for their payment. It would likely be a less of a disservice to both recipients and taxpayers as well.
Haim
Would day care be offered at no charge so single parents could perform this work or service? And exceptions for those who are attempting to further their education or job skills, I hope, since we donât want to restrict recipients to the likely low-paying low-skill work or service careers required.
I just read an interview with the author of the book Toxic Charity, that speaks to that very point. Iâm not a big proponent of full permissiveness in transfer payment social programs by any stretch, and I think we need to move in the direction of policy that emphasizes empowerment above all else.
Urban Activist And Author Relates Problems with Charity Work
.045%?
Youâre off by a decimal point.
Actually heâs way off. I calculate 18.88% (1629 / 8629). You canât tell me that someone going down to apply for welfare refused to take the drug test because they didnât want their ârightsâ infringed upon, they didnât take it cause they knew they wouldnât pass. I bet 95% of them couldnât even tell you what the 4th amendment is (but I apply that same percentage to the entire population, not just people applying for welfare).
Would day care be offered at no charge so single parents could perform this work or service? And exceptions for those who are attempting to further their education or job skills, I hope, since we donât want to restrict recipients to the likely low-paying low-skill work or service careers required.
My sister is currently in full custody of her three kids, following the recent failure of her marriage. Their dad pays the bare minimum in support (on most occasions), and with a HS education and three young kids, she canât afford to make ends meet without government assistance. Sheâs recently enrolled in a nursing program (paid for by the Province of Ontario via taxpayer dollars), so she can get on her feet financially and off the dole.
Pretty sure indolence, drug abuse, and aversion to work have nothing to do with her situation, but then, how ever will we know unless sheâs pissing in a cup every month?
Would day care be offered at no charge so single parents could perform this work or service? And exceptions for those who are attempting to further their education or job skills, I hope, since we donât want to restrict recipients to the likely low-paying low-skill work or service careers required.
My sister is currently in full custody of her three kids, following the recent failure of her marriage. Their dad pays the bare minimum in support (on most occasions), and with a HS education and three young kids, she canât afford to make ends meet without government assistance. Sheâs recently enrolled in a nursing program (paid for by the Province of Ontario via taxpayer dollars), so she can get on her feet financially and off the dole.
Pretty sure indolence, drug abuse, and aversion to work have nothing to do with her situation, but then, how ever will we know unless sheâs pissing in a cup every month?
Does this whole thing remind you of the âWelfare Queen driving a Cadillacâ of the Reagan days? Drug-addled masses of lazy slobs who sit around playing on their XBox on a 50" plasma TV?
Yeah, how dare them sit around and play on that crappy x box. We should give them more money so they can buy a PS3âŚ
.045%?
Youâre off by a decimal point.
Actually heâs way off. I calculate 18.88% (1629 / 8629). You canât tell me that someone going down to apply for welfare refused to take the drug test because they didnât want their ârightsâ infringed upon, they didnât take it cause they knew they wouldnât pass. I bet 95% of them couldnât even tell you what the 4th amendment is (but I apply that same percentage to the entire population, not just people applying for welfare).
You canât tell me that someone going down to apply for welfare refused to take the drug test because they were guilty.
Guilty until proven innocent I see.
The calculation is actually less than .45% 32 guilty out of over 1700. The additional 1500+ are unknowns.
If you want to believe that, good for you. Keep that head in the sand and paying druggies welfare money.
âWould day care be offered at no charge so single parents could perform this work or service? And exceptions for those who are attempting to further their education or job skills, I hope, since we donât want to restrict recipients to the likely low-paying low-skill work or service careers required.â
Certainly. Day care could be one of the services provided by some welfare recipients. It seems to me that even low paying, low skill work would be a step up from a pure handout. How many recipients are able, willing, or incented to further their education or job skills under that type of program? That said, where state âWelfare to Workâ programs exist, they usually include education and job skills training.
Haim
Apparently those who were unwilling to take the drug test didnât need the money bad enough to take it. Iâm pretty sure that someone who is clean and needs the money would be willing to take a drug test.
My nephew just started a new job - because he needed the money - and he took a test. He didnât seem to have any problem with the company requiring him to take one. Funny that some here donât voice any concern about a company requiring an employee to take a test in order to receive money that they work for, yet think that someone who isnât performing work for their money shouldnât have to take one. Pretty crazy.
Yes, I was about to say something about the 1,597 people who he assumed were refusing the test just because they are all upright people who declined as a matter of principle. But I figured, what the heck, might as well give him the benefit of the doubt.
Interesting article.
Thanks.
Haim
Yeah, how dare them sit around and play on that crappy x box. We should give them more money so they can buy a PS3âŚ
Good point, the tax payers will save money by not having to pay the x box live membership
If you donât want them to be drug tested, then we shouldnât use any other micromanaging and then I think the thing to do is just cut the checks. In other words, lets get rid of the business of welfare and all the govt employees it supports. So we have shell cabinet that comprises of just a few people to administer our welfare - your tax return is the source of truth. If you qualify, the govt writes you a check - you spend it how you choose - you are responsible for being responsible with this gift. Of course we could come up with a time limit or total dollar amount per lifetime, once you use it up its gone.
Whatâs the difference between this and having to pas a drug test for employment? You donât have to take the test. You just donât get subsidized if you refuse. Just like you donât have to submit to a breathilizer (sp?), but if you refuse you lose your license.
Florida (and other states as well) has a huge meth problem.