I know there was some talk about this recently, so I wanted to share this from today's news: http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/ ... -ar-252458

2% of welfare recipients tested positive, or 20 out of 1000.

Over the course of a year, Florida could save as much as... $60,000. And that's assuming legal challenges don't eat that up.

And how does that 2% compare to the population as a whole? Are those welfarees really the bunch of dope smoking slackers they're being made out to be?Doesn't look like it. Even if you assume the other 2% that didn't take the test for whatever reason are all druggies.

Assuming this program does actually save a few bucks, I rate it a D. It works in that it saves the state some money, but so that the opportunity cost probably isn't worthwhile.

Good find. Reminds me of a similar study conducted recently in New York that found no correlation between being poor and committing crimes.

I thought the general consensus was that there's more alcohol abuse among poor people, not drugs. I'd like to see the studies on that instead =p It's definitely a waste of money, if for no other reason than it ignores the main charge!

I could care less whether these people use drugs or alcohol, though. The bottom line is that they need help, and not just 5 bucks tossed out the car window to make the driver feel good. While I don't support laziness in general, I do think people are born into many of these situations without a fighting chance. If no one in a person's life is able to give them a proper mindset to be focused and determined, the outlook is often pretty grim from what I've seen.

It was me, thanks Leo

I believe it was a study consisting of two subjects, Billy Ray Valentine, and Louis Winthorp III wasn't it?

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

So why not make them work to get their money instead? There are lots of streets and highways that need cleaned up. Think community service type projects in order to get your welfare money.

Picking up trash on the side of the road as "work" is really no better than the drug testing though. It's not going to really save any money, it'll probably end up costing even more money once logistics are taken into account. All it really does it make people who aren't on Welfare feel better because "those moochers" are doing something.

There are also companies who do that already, are you going to put people out of a job in order to let people get their welfare check?

Sort of working at cross purposes, no?

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

That was Phildelphia

_________________

The reason it's not done is the same reason prisoner labor was limited. Businesses complained they could not compete with the wages. That doesn't mean there is not a way to do it. They could, for instance, start with cleaning up in low income neighborhoods.

[quote="Leolan"]2% of welfare recipients tested positive, or 20 out of 1000.quote]

The population of Welfare reciepiants is a bit different today as it was 10 years ago. I assume that 2% was more like 10% 10 yers ago. The recession added a lot more non-users to the roster.

good find Leo. Something to think about.

The only question I have about the Florida plan is since the person receiving welfare is to pay for their own test, would a person that is knowingly taking drugs even take the test? What were the number of people getting a check the month prior to the law being enacted and the months after? How many "unclaimed checks" were there?

I am not automatically assuming that the test results would be much higher, but those numbers would help to understand the full picture.

Krby: I can't answer those questions, but I can tell you the report said that in addition to the 2% who tested positive, another 2% didn't take the test -- it just didn't include reasons, but I think it'd be fair to assume that at least part of that additional 2% didn't take it because they knew the result would be positive.

Garborg: While it's true that the recession added a lot more people to the jobless rolls, I don't think we can legitimately form any conclusions based on that alone.

Since the test in this example is given to every applicant when they apply, I imagine there is a contingent that simply did not apply knowing they would fail. This is in excess of the 2% that applied and did not take the test.

I don't believe welfare reciepiants would be higher or lower in average drug use, at least not by a large margin either way. I believe the national average is much higher than 2%, but I'm just going off memory.

I believe welfare recipients would be higher in average drug use. I don't have any figures either, but I am just going off memory.

Either way it'll certainly be nice to get some more conclusive results! I've been chomping at the bit to eliminate this massive possibility, as opposed to alcoholism.

Next up: Study declares that my opening an umbrella indoors was NOT the cause of my clumsy slip on the stairway this morning.

While we're at it let's rule out that the planet Nibiru was the cause of the Virginia earthquake.

My first instinct is to expect that drug use isn't any more common among welfare recipients than it is among those who can afford nicer drugs, but the whole thing is meaningless if we can't find out which specific drugs the test is trying to detect, and by what method(s).