Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

[runrunner]

You're incorrect. FedEx & UPS are limited to DOCUMENTS and such. They don't check what's in the envelope (yet, afawk), so it could be done. But they aren't allowed to set up a system to handle first-class mail (i.e. letters). Only the post orifice may do that.

I did some research and you are correct,no on is allowed to be in competition with USPS with First Class mail,but there are exceptions. I copied a few lines from one page. I did learn something though.There are other, more useful exceptions, too. You can ship a letter using a private courier like FedEx if it’s “extremely urgent” or if the rate you pay to send it is at least six times the current price of USPS first class postage. You can also carry (or have one of your employees carry) your own letters to their recipients without running afoul of the Postmaster General.

Read the full text here: Why Can't You Start a Rival Post Office? | Mental Floss
--brought to you by mental_floss! The cost has to be at least six times USPS first class rate.

 

[AMonger]

it is not stealing when given to you.

Receiving stolen property is a crime, and morally wrong regardless.
Look, if someone is starving, stealing is still wrong. We look at it differently out of compassion, but it's still wrong.
Look at two scenarios. 1) a person who's out of work, out of money, out of hope, looks like self-destruction, hungry children at home, and his family, neighbors, and church won't help him (that should be a red flag but set it aside for the sake of discussion)...he breaks into a grocery store and steals food. Necessities only, and only what he absolutely needs to get by.
2) Another guy in the same circumstance, but he steals luxury items like steak, lobster, candy, cigarettes, booze, fancy rims for his car, etc., things that a lot of people who work can't afford. In fact, the grocer is having a hard time making it himself. He has kids who need braces, a second or third-hand car that he's putting money into to keep running, and he's got to worry about saving for a rainy day and retirement.
Do you consider the two thieves equal? Do you treat them the same? Do you tell the grocer he's evil because he has no compassion if he objects to letting the second guy get away with his theft? Are you doing the second guy and his family any favors when you do?

 

[Humble2drive]

Receiving stolen property is a crime, and morally wrong regardless.
Look, if someone is starving, stealing is still wrong. We look at it differently out of compassion, but it's still wrong.
Look at two scenarios. 1) a person who's out of work, out of money, out of hope, looks like self-destruction, hungry children at home, and his family, neighbors, and church won't help him (that should be a red flag but set it aside for the sake of discussion)...he breaks into a grocery store and steals food. Necessities only, and only what he absolutely needs to get by.
2) Another guy in the same circumstance, but he steals luxury items like steak, lobster, candy, cigarettes, booze, fancy rims for his car, etc., things that a lot of people who work can't afford. In fact, the grocer is having a hard time making it himself. He has kids who need braces, a second or third-hand car that he's putting money into to keep running, and he's got to worry about saving for a rainy day and retirement.
Do you consider the two thieves equal? Do you treat them the same? Do you tell the grocer he's evil because he has no compassion if he objects to letting the second guy get away with his theft? Are you doing the second guy and his family any favors when you do?

You have reached the epitome of logical fallacies by dragging this red herring into the discussion.
Your basic premise is nonsensical and the stories that follow are completely irrelevant so any answer to your questions would have no bearing on the current topic.

 

[layoutshooter]

"A whopping 2 percent of applicants tested positive, and Florida lost money when it was forced to reimburse everyone else for the cost of the drug test, plus pay for staff and administrative costs for the program. Making matters worse, the courts have now rejected the law as blatantly unconstitutional, forcing its demise. "

My wife and I BOTH got a "random" today. I was even more lucky and got a breathalyzer test as well, "0" of course as will be both drug tests.

The entire thing got me thinking about this thread and the 2% rate that makes it not worth the effort to do. SO, I looked up the rate for truck drivers, it is less that 1/2 the rate of welfare applicants. THEREFOR, it is a was of time to drug test drivers. I wonder what the rate would be for our elected officials? Any bets it would be WAY higher? There were 466 applicants tested at a cost of $25,000. I wonder how much it cost to test the 492,000 drivers, which is a FAR better sample, to come up with half the positive rate?


"The positive rate was 0.9% for the 492,000 drivers in the 2011 sample, DOT said."

Drug News You Can Use | Positive Drug Test Levels Drop Among Truckers | Psychemedics

 

[Humble2drive]

The entire thing got me thinking about this thread and the 2% rate that makes it not worth the effort to do. SO, I looked up the rate for truck drivers, it is less that 1/2 the rate of welfare applicants. THEREFOR, it is a was of time to drug test drivers.

So as a method of prevention it seems to be working. How does that make it a waste of time???

 

[layoutshooter]

So as a method of prevention it seems to be working. How does that make it a waste of time???

The point was it was a waste of time for a 2% rate it therefor must be a bigger waste of time for less than one. ALSO, if it is considered unconstitutional for one group of people, it is for all. What proof is there that it is working? Just because positive test are dropping does not prove that it is the program that is the cause. It MAY be, but there are many other valid reasons that could account for it.

 

[Turtle]

Knowing how pervasive amphetamines and other drugs were in the trucking industry back in the day, I would say it's safe to assume that the drug testing is what caused the reduction in drug and alcohol use amongst truckers. If testing were to stop, the reasoning is that truckers would go back to using drugs, accidents would increase, people would die (think if the chiiiillllldren!). But that's short-sighted, since the retarded HoS rules make using amphetamines even more retarded, since being all hopped up on speed won't get you any more miles, anyway. But if testing were stopped, all it would take is for one driver under the influence to kill someone and we'd have testing all over again.

 

[layoutshooter]

I am not sure you can prove that cause and relationship that clearly. It could also have a lot to do with the aging of the bulk of the drivers. They are older, wiser and may not be as apt to repeat the mistakes of their youth. Many newer drivers, like my wife and myself, never did drugs so that would skew the numbers.

I forget the term used in determining cause and effect, it has slipped away. I believe it could be as much coinecedental as cause and effect. Do you understand what I am driving at? I know I am not explaining it right.

 

[Turtle]

I am not sure you can prove that cause and relationship that clearly. It could also have a lot to do with the aging of the bulk of the drivers. They are older, wiser and may not be as apt to repeat the mistakes of their youth. Many newer drivers, like my wife and myself, never did drugs so that would skew the numbers.

I forget the term used in determining cause and effect, it has slipped away. I believe it could be as much coinecedental as cause and effect. Do you understand what I am driving at? I know I am not explaining it right.

Yes, I do understand. The term you are looking for is illusory corollary. I agree that it's at the very least difficult to prove a direct cause and effect between drug testing and reduced drug use (which is why I made it an explicit assumption), at least by today's mindset and the current regulations. But when drug testing was first introduced, an awful lot of drivers were eliminated from the industry and there really was a direct related drop in accident rates by CMVs. And by direct related, I mean the percentage drop of accidents very closely mirrored that of the percentage of removed drivers.

But, like you, I also think that today, currently, drug testing is no longer really needed, at least not after the pre-employment screening, as it long ago accomplished it's goal. I can't imagine anyone other than a very small percentage of truckers suddenly starting to use drugs because randoms are no longer a deterrent.

 

[layoutshooter]

Yes, I do understand. The term you are looking for is illusory corollary. I agree that it's at the very least difficult to prove a direct cause and effect between drug testing and reduced drug use (which is why I made it an explicit assumption), at least by today's mindset and the current regulations. But when drug testing was first introduced, an awful lot of drivers were eliminated from the industry and there really was a direct related drop in accident rates by CMVs. And by direct related, I mean the percentage drop of accidents very closely mirrored that of the percentage of removed drivers.

But, like you, I also think that today, currently, drug testing is no longer really needed, at least not after the pre-employment screening, as it long ago accomplished it's goal. I can't imagine anyone other than a very small percentage of truckers suddenly starting to use drugs because randoms are no longer a deterrent.

Thank you. That as the term I was looking and what I was driving at. I hate it when my brain shuts down like that. Seems to happen more with each passing year.