These are the only numbers I found. There is no evidence to the contrary, just wild speculation.

If the numbers go the other way in another state, can I just say that we should discount that state?

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

Those welfare recipients have been living high on the hog for far too long.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

It was a waste of money in Florida, as well.

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/14/dr ... ent-abuse/


Yeah, but we need to see the numbers in a state other than Utah or Florida.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

You can.

Until there is more substantive data, eveything is just speculation.

I'm not in favor of drug testing for anyone.

_________________

Using Florida initially would've been better than using Utah.

Jerk.

_________________

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

The first story I linked was in my twitter timeline. A 5 second google search gave me the FL info.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

Yeah well I hope you golf poorly on Sunday.

_________________

I'm sure your wish will be granted.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

Praise be to Allah.

_________________

:/ i suppose. for one though, its not like theyre rich. two, if put in the workforce, will they really do much? the problem is they are dumb and lazy, not sure if thats who we want working.

the way i see it, its inevitable that we have a partially subsidized society. technology is going to force it, because there simply wont be that much to do in the future. not for everyone, anyway. the simple tasks that welfare people COULD do will be regulated to robots, that do it better and faster.

that makes me think about limiting welfare to only small families, however america is clearly not in the business of promoting small families. we want as many people as we can get, because at some point we have to fight china.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.

My post should have been read in the most sarcastic tone. I agree with you.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/repul ... des-harass


Scorehead approves of this message.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

At the same time, this douche refuses to take a drug test himself. He's taking much more money from the state in a salary than a welfare recipient.

_________________

Drug testing welfare recipients has been a colossal waste of money, in every state where it has been implemented.

Wisconsin is 50th in job growth in the country. He is putting people on welfare, and then wants to drug test them, with the taxpayers of Wisconsin footing the bill, while one of his cronies gets rich. Priceless.

Scorehead approves of this message.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

Seriously, there is no way a program like that is a net gain financially for the state.


I can see arguing over abortion and the death penalty, even certain unknowns about climate change.

But this is just basic math, isnt it?


This guy is going to run for President

What's the price of a drug test these days?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

your soul

So one drug test for a person on welfare would be the same cost as keeping someone on welfare for say 2 years?

_________________

Read the first few pages of the thread. Testing every welfare recipient ends up costing the state more money, even after catching those evil drug users, which are an incredibly small percentage of those tested. This has been the case in every state where it has been implemented.

It's just a pathetic attempt by some Republican governors, to score points with their base, by doing what they do best, demonizing the poor.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

So is it wrong that my place of employment requires me to take a drug test to be employed there and I'm subjected to random drug tests twice a year or so? I'm a CDL driver that drives a truck hauling 80,000 lbs Should I be able to smoke weed whenever I want?

I just cant understand how you can say you shouldnt be required to take a drug test and still collect money from the government. There's so many more useless things the government spends their money on than drug testing. How about building a complete off ramp to 294 from I 57 when there's one less than 5 miles away on I 80. I'm more pissed about wasting millions of dollars on this than drug testing welfare recipients.

_________________

Not only wrong, but unconstitutional.

Your employer should have nothing to say about what you do off the clock.


If there was a test that showed you were drunk or high during work, that would be reasonable. There is currently no test like that for weed.


So no, I dont think a guy who gets rear ended by a texting driver should lose his job because he smoked a joint two weeks earlier.


The reason I started this thread was to say that people who are against drug testing are usually against ALL drug testing. No one says "Dont drug test welfare people, but DO drug test people for work"

exactly. and just because most employers test their workers doesnt mean we need to double down on prohibition and fuck over those who really need it.

we should be talking about the effects drug testing has on the workforce and how the insurance companies are the ones banking ungodly sums because of it- they are the real winners while both the workers and the 'job creators' are the ones screwed.

if you show up to work fucked up, its hard to hide. but what you do on your own time is what you do on your own time, it should be nobodys business because its not business its your life.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.

but there are tests like that for alcohol and we dont breathalyze everyone when they get to work in the morning. the whole thing is absurdly hypocritical and counterproductive.

the highest earning companies i have worked for don't test their employees because they have better things to worry about... like if you are actually producing and doing a good job. they also screen their new hires through background checks and INTERVIEWS. if youre hiring a guy or gal, giving them the OK after one interview is ridiculous. bring them in a few times, call them on the phone in the evening randomly. it wont take long to spot the ones who are on drugs.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.

I was thinking of situations where there is an accident. A lot of companies automatically test if you get in a car accident in a work truck. If they want to breathalyze people in that situation, I understand it.

Yes, and you should seek employment elsewhere.


As long as you are not intoxicated while on the clock, why should your employer care?

_________________

Problem is in a case like Chris, if he's hauling stuff and plows into Ike South and the requisite drug test is administered and he comes up hot, you Ike
South are going to sue the fuck out of Chris and his employer even though that joint Chris smoked 2 weeks earlier had nothing to do with the accident

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

Chus, conservatives are not trying to save the taxpayers money. You should try voting for the Dems.

_________________

I'm asking for employment from my company. They ask me to not commit crimes and don't use drugs. I can get black out drunk but make sure I have no alcohol in my system when I start work. They are not forcing me to work there either. I could leave tomorrow if I chose to. It's not unconstitutional, otherwise every single union that has this same policy would have taken these big companies to task about it. I don't get why it's ok for someone on welfare to ask for money from their government but be unwilling to take take the same drug test I have to take.

Save the there is no real gain from this. There's millions of dollars spent foolishly on other things than drug testing welfare recipients. This would be a drop in the bucket compared to everything else.

_________________

Are you purposely misunderstanding what Im saying?

Drug testing is not ok for you or them. That is the whole point of the thread.

And it's absolutely unconstitutional. That is a fact. Not up for debate.




There is no gain. If there were a net monetary gain to the state, you could make the case it's a good idea

So you're essentially arguing "they waste a ton of money, why not keep wasting it?"