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

I have not research specifics. I expect each state has a slightly different process. Regardless, overall it seems it is a profound waste of money.

From: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/

According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.

From: http://theantimedia.org/after-7-sta...e-recipients-1-thing-became-stunningly-clear/

 

From: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/02/19/3747139/states-drug-testing-welfare-recipients/

In 2015, despite lack of evidence that programs in other states accomplished their goals, three more states have implemented similar regimes. And a ThinkProgress survey of the 10 states that now have these programs in place found that they continue to be expensive and not especially effective. All told, states spent another $850,909.25 on the testing regimes in 2015 to uncover just 321 positive tests — in more than one state, none at all.

 

The OP is about total people applying for welfare. You are limiting it to only those tested. The 0.3 is correct when you are honest and apply it to all who applied. We know from studies that if this were done for the general population the percentage found to use drugs would be much higher. Of course if you make enough that you do not qualify for welfare you have more money which translates into more people in that group using drugs. So your conclusion on percentages is not an accurate one and is a fallacy.

To be honest, divide the number found to be using drugs by the entire group who applied for welfare. As you can see in Arizona over 5600 people applied and no one was found to be using drugs. In Maine just over 1800 people applied for welfare and only two people did not qualify for help because of drugs. Now, according to the way you want to think that would mean 100% were guilty of using drugs. That is true for the two who were tested and the same two found to use drugs. But your method takes no notice of the 1800 who were approved.

 

Blame the title writer, not me.

The title is and is not true depending on how you look at it. It is true that not all applicants were given a urine test. But all had to answer questions, so all were given written tests. Is the written test a good way to check. I do not know what is on the test. Anyway, as it stands it is true that far fewer welfare
applicants are shown to use drugs than in the general public.

Perhaps if the same type of test was used for a drivers license we would have some interesting comparisons.

 

Hmmm, several years ago I was criticized severely for putting my own title on a thread and not copying and pasting the article as it appeared online. Now I am being criticized for not making up my own title. It seems more honest, to me, to post the title as it appears in the original article. Oh well ...

 

Have you noticed another active thread where the person used his own creative talent and created an inflammatory OP title instead of simply copying and pasting the title of the article cited. Guess it is a Catch-22. Roflmao

 

It would be expensive!

But it would be an interesting set of data to examine. Maybe some bright Ph.D student could come up with a way of compiling date on this topic for their thesis.