Obama, the criminal's friend
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
Government overhead?
Because a tiny fraction of welfare recipients test positive. It's far more expensive to test than to give benefits to a few that use drugs.
There appears to be a few 'safeguards' that would help it significantly to be a 'tiny fraction'.
As stated previously, the only ones tested are those who answer affirmative to drug use within last thirty days. One could just lie on the questionnaire and they would be omitted from taking the drug test. It's also a test conducted with a specific date as opposed to a random test.
( Could expediters just take a initial drug test and not have to do random tests? Not a chance, because it keeps many them from doing drugs after they are hired) Law enforcement doesn't coordinate with DES, so there are deficiencies with that. I also question how thorough DES in identifying drug users. Maybe they are turning a blind eye because apathy or an over abundance of compassion.There is also the question of how DES handles a failed drug test. Are they allowing people to retake the test after they fail the first time, under the guise of a false positive test?The Arizona testing is a good example. Of the 'problem' tests where people had to take the drug screen again, it totaled about 40 new drug screens.
They were ALL considered false positive tests and allowed to take the test again. 16 of 19 passed the second time. Seems like a high percentage of false positive results.
Let me reiterate, I'm not for testing, but if they want to get an honest number of how many are doing drugs, they would test EVERYBODY, and then do random tests for at least a few months after that.
I know, it would be a lot of money, but at least it would be an accurate number, rather than trumpeting testing results based on heavily flawed and fraudulent testing methods.
You're a little too absolute in some of your statements. For example, they weren't considered ALL false positive tests. The failed tests were actually ALL considered positive (failed), and because of that they were asked to be retested (because it could have been a false positive). But those who refused to retest had their benefits denied.
If they didn't retest after a positive test, and just denied benefits on the basis of a singular positive test, people would claim it was a false positive.
Even in trucking, if you fail a random, you are immediately asked to be retested.
If they didn't retest after a positive test, and just denied benefits on the basis of a singular positive test, people would claim it was a false positive.
Even in trucking, if you fail a random, you are immediately asked to be retested.
That's not true. Along with an affirmative reply to the use of drugs, they must also answer whether they have lost or been denied a job due to illegal drug usage, and any legal trouble due to same. They could lie, but there will be a paper trail to contradict them, every time.
Random tests are not legal, [except for those of us who have "safety sensitive" jobs], the state must have reasonable cause to suspect drug usage.
So - lost a job for a minor drug violation, can't get hired anywhere, turned down for welfare - what do you suppose their next move is, and why should that concern us?
jujubeans
OVM Project Manager
Cheri..Since we're all responsible for our own actions (or should be) it doesn't!
I have reservations how much DES follows up on the paper trail and how much they coordinate with law enforcement.
There is also nothing in the questionnaire that says giving a false answer will disqualify them from receiving benefits. There isn't a downside in lying on the questionnaire other than merely having to eventually take a drug test.
The questions are also fashioned with the language--in the past 30 days. They would only have to not be arrested or denied/lost a job because of drug use within the previous month. There are a lot of drug users that could clear those two hurdles. Many drug users don't get arrested within that specific 30 day time period.
They also could easily lie about losing a job/denied because it would be difficult to find out about someone working or applying for a particular job unless they specify.
I'm not arguing whether random drug screens are legal or not. I mentioned them because they would be more useful in detecting drug users than by giving drug tests with a set date based largely on a questionnaire that is open to fraud, if the goal is to more accurately detect drug users.
I'm not even arguing that they should do drug testing. Just pointing out the flaws in a drug testing process that some are trumpeting as proof that recipients drug use is minuscule.
The current testing process isn't providing an accurate result, IMO .
Last edited:
That is incorrect. I said if they really wanted a much more accurate testing result, test them all and then do random for at least a few months. It would provide a much more accurate picture. But again, I said I wasn't necessarily for testing in the first place. Merely commenting on the flawed testing process that some use as proof that the drug use is minuscule.
But they weren't ultimately viewed as a positive test in the final statistic of failed tests, except for the three, because they were allowed to take a second test and failed. The others decided not to redo the test, but were not put in the fail column. Apparently because they weren't ultimately considered failed drug tests, but possible false positives.
With employment testing if you fail the original test. The original test is separated with two vials. One is tested. If it comes back positive, the other vial can be used for additional test purposes to confirm it.
It would be a much more accurate way of finding drug users, but yes,there are constitutional issues.
However, employers are allowed to screen all applicants with drug tests and they require employees to do random tests or they are let go.
Hence the questioning of your use of the word "all."
All of them weren't considered failed drug tests, ( in the failed category) except for the three. The three took a second test and failed. The others retook the test, which allowed the drugs to dissipate. That and the poppy seeds.
Depends on the state, but I don't know of any state that allows the screening of all applicants (other than a handful of states which have no employer drug laws). Most states allow drug testing of applicants, but only allow the testing to occur after a conditional job offer is made as a final condition of the employment. They can't make submitting to a drug test no different than submitting your name, address and work history. So the use of "all" as with "... allowed to screen all applicants' isn't entirely correct. It's only all applicants who have received job offers. They're are, however, a handful of states (4, I think it is) with virtually no laws regarding drug testing, so employers in those states can do pretty much whatever they want.
You stated they were ALL considered to be false-positives, which is incorrect.All of them weren't considered failed drug tests, ( in the failed category) except for the three. The three took a second test and failed. The others retook the test, which allowed the drugs to dissipate. That and the poppy seeds.
I don't do drugs, but I dont see the moral dilemma in casual drug use. Yes, a few may buy drugs with money saved from welfare. Should all welfare recipients be punished for the actions of a few?
After all, asking for help (by applying for welfare) isn't evil. It's not a sin. Yet some treat them like lepers.
After all, asking for help (by applying for welfare) isn't evil. It's not a sin. Yet some treat them like lepers.
They were treated as such. ALL were allowed to take another test. Not categorized as a failed test in the final numbers even after failing the first time. The others that failed didn't retake the test. They weren't categorized as a failed test in the final numbers either.
If a test is considered a false-positive, then the positive result is summarily discarded, and the test is considered to be a negative result. That's what false-positive means. If it's a false-positive, it's negative, and you don't ask someone to retest after a negative result. So no, they weren't ALL considered false-positive results.
The ones asked to retest were asked because of the possibility of a false-positive result.
The ones asked to retest were asked because of the possibility of a false-positive result.
Drug testing is required before a person is even offered a job.
The USPS does this. A passed drug screen is required before an offer of employment is made.
All applicants in a particular job such as driving, for example, are required to pass a drug screen before they can work for a company. One can't refuse to take a drug test at a driving job and the company still hires you to drive. All drivers at the company I work for are required to take a drug screen before they can drive, and submit to random drug screens after that. If you don't comply, they won't keep you on with their company.