They Forced All Welfare Recipients To Get Drug Tested In North Carolina. Here Are The Results…

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Apr 19, 2016.

  1. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,628
    Likes Received:
    158
    Another Republican myth destroyed by reality.

    From: http://awm.com/they-forced-all-welf...ted-in-north-carolina-here-are-the-results-2/

    After the Republican North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory vetoed a bill to test welfare recipientsfor drug abuse, the state legislature overruled his veto. The law went into effect.

    On February 9, North Carolina released the results from their first round of drug testing.

    More than 7,600 people applied for the Work First program. But only 89 of them were tested for drugs. Out of those tested 21 were found to have illegal drugs in their system. That means only 0.3 percent of the total participant pool used drugs.

    The state and national average for drug use is around 8 percent.

    Non-welfare recipients are 26 times more like to abuse illegal drugs than North Carolina’s welfare recipients, according to North Carolina’s findings.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  2. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    266
    23% of the people tested failed the urinalysis. Are you seriously assuming that the every single one of the other 7500 people would have passed if tested?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Internet Theologian

    Internet Theologian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    986
    [ edited ] He has found yet another which proves that being controlled by the government is good for us. And is Christian. And is what the Gospel is all about: The Gospel is a Social Gospel. Let's all go get on welfare. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  4. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,900
    Likes Received:
    295
    One of the most idiotic posts I have ever seen. CTB has topped himself.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,216
    Likes Received:
    612
    Yes, 21 out of 89 people tested positive.

    No, because only 89 people were in the drug test participant pool, not 7,600. If 0.3 percent of the participant pool were to test positive that would be 0.267 of a person.

    That's what he wrote. That's the only way to interpret what he said.

    CTB, you may now retract your ridiculous statement...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,900
    Likes Received:
    295
    It's not really his conclusion or statement. It's a direct quote from the article. But typical of CTB, whatever his leftist source says is the truth. He never checks. He never questions it.

    The title is an outright lie. The conclusion drawn is patently ridiculous.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,216
    Likes Received:
    612
    Wow. You're right. I thought the math part was a comment by CTB.


    Which is ironic for a self-described "I love to read guy" and who regularly posts the books he is reading.
     
  8. Kevin

    Kevin
    Expand Collapse
    Inactive Users
    Inactive User

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2010
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    75
    It must be that "New Math" that we don't know about. My old math says that if everyone had been tested and the failure percentage stayed the same, about 1800 would have tested positive.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    104
    So, I used my first ever "dumb" rating in this thread. Let's look at this from a statistics standpoint. As a dual Physics/Math major, I feel I can comment on the absurdity of the claim.

    The fallacy obviously comes from using the number of people out of a sample, and assuming there would have been no positives in the population. This is not just bad math, it is downright stupid.

    Let's take a look at the null hypothesis. H0: 0.3% of the population on welfare use drugs. Now, we take our alternate hypothesis. H1: >0.3% of the population on welfare us drugs.

    So, we take a sample size of 89. 21 tested positive, or ~23.6%. Since this is not a normative curve type of situation, we can't use bell curve hypothesis testing against a standard deviation. So, to test the null hypothesis, we'll compare the claimed percentage (0.3) against the observed percentage (23.6), and find that the claimed percentage is only 1.3% the size of the claimed percentage. Using a 5% confidence level, we can see that the claimed percentage falls well below the 2.5% mark (using a two tailed test). So, we can say with 95% certainty that their claim of 0.3% is incorrect.

    Result: Reject the null hypothesis.

    In plain English: They're stupid.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,628
    Likes Received:
    158
    Your responses only show you do not understand how the drug test works. The statement is not very clear. The total number was 7600

    Out of about 7,600 cases reviewed from August to December, about 89 met the criteria to require a drug test and only 21 failed the test. So it is 21 out of 7600. Of course you can use various statistical methods and come up with different answers. But the 21 out of 89 calculation by some on the board is correct. But, that is a false reading for the total number applying for welfare. Not understanding the program some on the board ended up comparing apples and rocks.

    The article is about the number who ended up testing positive compared to the total number that applied for benefits.

    Tennessee has a much wider gap between those who applied and those who ended up testing positive.

    From:

    In July, Tennessee began a drug testing program for applicants to the state’s welfare program. Since then, just one person has tested positive out of more than 800.

    In the month since it began, six people submitted to a drug test and just one tested positive out of the 812 people who applied. Four were turned down for benefits because they refused to participate in drug screening. That means a positive rate of 0.12 percent for those who took part in the screening. That compares to the 8 percent of state residents generally who use illegal drugs.

    Despite stereotypes that the poor people who need welfare assistance use drugs at a high rate, other states have had similar results. In Utah, just 12 people tested positive in a year of drug testing applicants. In Florida, 2 percent of applicants failed the tests in 2011 but the state has an 8 percent rate of illegal drug use.

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/08/07/3468610/tennessee-welfare-drug-test-positive/
     
  11. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    266
    Wait, in Tennessee the drug test was voluntary?

    Lol...
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Kevin

    Kevin
    Expand Collapse
    Inactive Users
    Inactive User

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2010
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    75
    If they didn't actually test a person they did not pass the drug test. Claiming they would have all tested clean if they had actually been tested is just ****
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,114
    Likes Received:
    220
    Could be that when free-loaders found out they might be tested - they started to come clean......
     
  14. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,547
    Likes Received:
    212
    GAH!!!!!

    6 people submitted to the drug test, and one tested positive; that's NOT 1 out of 812. That's 1 out of 6. At that rate, all things being equal, you'd have 135 people test positive out of 812.

    Seriously, CTB, you play chess, you read, you talk about finances; and you can't see the error of the math being presented? And yet, you want to complain when the republicans do weird math tricks regarding the budget and economy?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. SovereignGrace

    SovereignGrace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    2,781
    Likes Received:
    493
    Ppl have ways of skewing those tests. Trust me. I'm a lab tech and have found condoms in bathrooms where they carried urine in them to pour into the cup. It depends on what cups are used. Some have strips on the bottom that have a temp guage to know if it is warm...body temp. If it is not, then the testing is not done. Sadly, some do not require using those cups.
     
  16. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,185
    Likes Received:
    370
    No - it's 21 out of 89. You can't even begin to remotely put it at 21 out of 7600. That would be like saying 7600 people were screened for cancer. 89 of them were tested and 21 of them showed positive test results for cancer. So 21 of 7600 people had cancer. But you can't say that because of the other 7511 people, you have NO idea whether or not they are truly negative until you test them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    104
    If we look at the thread, even the title is a lie. They didn't force ALL welfare recipients to take a test. They made a small percentage take a test.

    Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk
     
  18. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,628
    Likes Received:
    158
    Y'all are still missing the point. Out of 7600 who applied only 89 were required to take the drug test as they failed the preliminary requirements.

    So, let's look at it this way. If 7600 non-applicants from the general population were screened then, of the number who failed the initial screening were tested and if the 8% of the general public failed the test, as we know that at least 8% of the general public used drugs, then 806 of that 7600 would fail the drug test. 806 is a whole lot more than 21 as in the welfare applicants.

    Yes of the 81 tested 21 failed. No one is disputing that. But it was only 21 out of 7600 applicants where as in the general population about 1075 would have failed the first step and 806 of the general population that failed the drug test.
     
    #18 Crabtownboy, Apr 20, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2016
  19. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    104
    The screen meant nothing. You answer some questions correctly, and you don't take the test. Anyone who knows it's coming can clean up for a few days. I had a soldier who smoked marijuana for years, and never got caught. Even with random drug screenings, he got away with it. Another fellow Sergeant got caught after three years of crack. No one suspected anything until he got caught.

    21 out of 89 is indicative of the whole.

    Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk
     
    #19 Sapper Woody, Apr 20, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Jeremy Seth

    Jeremy Seth
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    13
    Do we have information on the screening process, and did a statistician make a report?
    I would be more tempted to consider the conclusions if the report was sourced, and not hosted on a clickbait site.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Loading...