Only 12 in Utah out of 4730

[One Brow]

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=26559995&n...re-drug-screening&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-11

Drug use among welfare recipients was 0.25% of the tested. Once again, it seems it costs more to test welfare recipients for drugs than you save.

 

[Stoked]

How is this conducted? Random on the spot testing or are they given advance notice? Regardless, if I have to be tested for a job they should be tested to be on public support.

 

[Stoked]

The fact that similar laws are being struck down as unconstitutional and upheld for employment is asinine at best.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

The data from August 2012 through July 2013 indicates the state spent almost $6,000 to give 4,730 applicants a written test. After 466 showed a likelihood of drug use, they were given drug tests at a total cost of more than $25,000, according to the Utah Department of Workforce Services, which administers welfare benefits and the tests.

So what is a written test like for that? You have to be brain dead not to pass it? That's a pretty big portion that gets cut out from the actual drug testing. 12/466 is still only 2.5% though even if that held true for all 4,730.

 

[Nate505]

How is this conducted? Random on the spot testing or are they given advance notice? Regardless, if I have to be tested for a job they should be tested to be on public support.

Not all private employment requires a drug test. I've never taken one in my life, and refuse to work for a place that does.

 

[One Brow]

The fact that similar laws are being struck down as unconstitutional and upheld for employment is asinine at best.

There are many other differences between welfare and being employed.

Do you support spending more money on drug tests that you wind up saving in welfare benefits, for a population that uses drugs are far below the average rate (generally in the 8% area for the general population)?

 

[The Black Swordsman]

What if the purpose wasn't necessarily to save money but to save peoples lives and get less people to use drugs?

 

[Stoked]

Not all private employment requires a drug test. I've never taken one in my life, and refuse to work for a place that does.

True but when challeneged in court it is not struck down. So why should public assistance be any different? T ruth be told I think it should be the reverse. No drug test to work (minus jobs like paramedic, police...) and drug screening for public assistance.

 

[Stoked]

There are many other differences between welfare and being employed.

Do you support spending more money on drug tests that you wind up saving in welfare benefits, for a population that uses drugs are far below the average rate (generally in the 8% area for the general population)?

I support an honest effort to ensure that our publicly funded assistance is not spent on drugs.

 

[♪alt13]

I support an honest effort to ensure that our publicly funded assistance is not spent on drugs.

This is like securing the border, it is a waste of time to try.

 

[Stoked]

This is like securing the border, it is a waste of time to try.

So because you cannot do something perfectly you should not try?

 

[♪alt13]

When you cannot achieve an objective and your efforts are likely to have negative consequences, yes.

"securing the border" won't keep illegals out. It will however drive them to more drastic measures and increase the payday for coyotes(people smugglers)

likewise

Drug testing recipients of gov aide won't slow drug use. It may lead to children of drug addicts getting fed less, or peeing in a cup for daddy.

Good intentions don't necessarily create good results.