Republicans Doing It Right.

[BTL FED]

Lawmaker: Let’s drug test people receiving unemployment benefits

March 15, 2010 at 5:23 pm by Thomas Wheatley in News

State Rep. Michael Harden would like every man and woman who’s out there looking for a job to please stop by the Department of Human Services once a year and pee in a cup.

The first-term Republican lawmaker from Toccoa has introduced a bill that would require Georgians who receive unemployment benefits, state assistance or “state-administered federal assistance” to undergo random drug testing at least once a year.

According to the legislation, a person who fails a drug test would lose his or her benefits. To become eligible once again, he or she would have to wait two years and then pass another drug test. The results would remain confidential.

Harden is scheduled to give a press conference tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. to give more details about the proposal. We’re interested in hearing what other types of assistance would fall under this legislation. Something tells us this might cause a little bit of controversy.

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/freshloaf/2010/03/15/lawmaker-lets-drug-test-people-receiving-unemployment-benefits/

[Xnex]

Lawmaker: Let’s drug test people receiving unemployment benefits

March 15, 2010 at 5:23 pm by Thomas Wheatley in News

State Rep. Michael Harden would like every man and woman who’s out there looking for a job to please stop by the Department of Human Services once a year and pee in a cup.

The first-term Republican lawmaker from Toccoa has introduced a bill that would require Georgians who receive unemployment benefits, state assistance or “state-administered federal assistance” to undergo random drug testing at least once a year.

According to the legislation, a person who fails a drug test would lose his or her benefits. To become eligible once again, he or she would have to wait two years and then pass another drug test. The results would remain confidential.

Harden is scheduled to give a press conference tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. to give more details about the proposal. We’re interested in hearing what other types of assistance would fall under this legislation. Something tells us this might cause a little bit of controversy.

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/freshloaf/2010/03/15/lawmaker-lets-drug-test-people-receiving-unemployment-benefits/

A better idea......... let the little bit*h that came up with this idea and all of HIS coworkers take drug tests as well. Bet he wouldn't be too happy about that. But since he's paid much more than people who receive unemployment, and he too is being paid on the "public dime" let's ask him to do it too. I'm sure he and his fellow congresspeople would find some reason not to agree to that.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, or so I've been told.

[BTL FED]

A better idea......... let the little bit*h that came up with this idea and all of HIS coworkers take drug tests as well. Bet he wouldn't be too happy about that. But since he's paid much more than people who receive unemployment, and he too is being paid on the "public dime" let's ask him to do it too. I'm sure he and his fellow congresspeople would find some reason not to agree to that.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, or so I've been told.

I agree 100%.

[ConnFalcon]

I love the idea. Should have done this a long time ago.

[The Monarch]

A better idea......... let the little bit*h that came up with this idea and all of HIS coworkers take drug tests as well. Bet he wouldn't be too happy about that. But since he's paid much more than people who receive unemployment, and he too is being paid on the "public dime" let's ask him to do it too. I'm sure he and his fellow congresspeople would find some reason not to agree to that.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, or so I've been told.

That's a great idea. ******* politicians. I've got an even better better idea though. Let's not drug test the Monarch!

"Yeah!" "He's right!" "Great idea!"

:unsure:

Edited May 13, 2010 by The Monarch

[Peyton]

It's a good idea, but I don't know what good once a year would do. Make them do it every month.

[Julian St.Clor]

Where does it stop?

If people have the right to now say they do not want people who take drugs living off their tax dollars cant another person say they wouldnt like women,blacks,cripples,fat...ect living off their tax dollars?

What makes discrimination based off of one thing ok...but not based off another?

[ConnFalcon]

Where does it stop?

If people have the right to now say they do not want people who take drugs living off their tax dollars cant another person say they wouldnt like women,blacks,cripples,fat...ect living off their tax dollars?

What makes discrimination based off of one thing ok...but not based off another?

U-S-A

U-S-A

U-S-A

[Julian St.Clor]

U-S-A

U-S-A

U-S-A

Thats nice.

[Peyton]

Where does it stop?

If people have the right to now say they do not want people who take drugs living off their tax dollars cant another person say they wouldnt like women,blacks,cripples,fat...ect living off their tax dollars?

What makes discrimination based off of one thing ok...but not based off another?

This post is meant as a joke right? Seriously, it has to be. You aren't seriously comparing being a woman or being black to being a junkie.

[The Great American]

How long can you receive unemployment checks? Just drop by once a year? :blink:

[ConnFalcon]

Thats nice.

You are correct.

[ConnFalcon]

This post is meant as a joke right? Seriously, it has to be. You aren't seriously comparing being a woman or being black to being a junkie.

Or comparing eating to drugs. Yea, Julian IS a joke.

[Xnex]

Where does it stop?

If people have the right to now say they do not want people who take drugs living off their tax dollars cant another person say they wouldnt like women,blacks,cripples,fat...ect living off their tax dollars?

What makes discrimination based off of one thing ok...but not based off another?

The legality of the thing which is being used to "screen" people is what makes it ok.

I'm not a big fan of testing those who are receiving unemployment benefits, but I don't disagree on a moral principle with testing those who receive welfare. The reason I disagree with the testing at all, is because it could be very expensive. And if you're forcing those who are being tested to cover the costs, that's not a great idea because they are not really receiving enough money to provide for themselves as it is.

I also question the value of doing this because when they take the funds away from those who receive the money it could have a huge effect on the children of those people. I think there could be some really terrible consequences handed out to the helpless victims of this system. And that is what really bothers me about a system like this. I can't handle the idea of more children "going without", being hungry, having no decent clothes, and being almost lead down a path to becoming a terrible citizen in their later years.

[eatcorn]

This idea is so incredibly stupid.

And haven't we covered this a dozen times?

[Leon Troutsky]

This idea is so incredibly stupid.

And haven't we covered this a dozen times?

Yes it is, and yes we have.

The strongest reason for why this is an incredibly stupid idea comes to us from Bayesian statistics and basic probability theory. When the number of users is a small percent of a very large population (e.g., 5% of a population of millions), you have a situation where half or more of those who test positive are NOT drug users. IOW, the number of false positive (non-user testing positive) can be equal or greater than the number of true positives (users who test positive). Here's an explanation of the math:

http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/jerryj/NNN/MedicalTesting.pdf

So not only would these tests cost people money if forced to pay for it themselves, which takes money away from their families, but you can also have a huge number of people being kicked off of welfare even though they have done nothing wrong.

As you said, it's an incredibly stupid idea, which explains why politicians continue to push it.

[Porkins]

Yes it is, and yes we have.

The strongest reason for why this is an incredibly stupid idea comes to us from Bayesian statistics and basic probability theory. When the number of users is a small percent of a very large population (e.g., 5% of a population of millions), you have a situation where half or more of those who test positive are NOT drug users. IOW, the number of false positive (non-user testing positive) can be equal or greater than the number of true positives (users who test positive). Here's an explanation of the math:

http://wolfweb.unr.e...icalTesting.pdf

So not only would these tests cost people money if forced to pay for it themselves, which takes money away from their families, but you can also have a huge number of people being kicked off of welfare even though they have done nothing wrong.

As you said, it's an incredibly stupid idea, which explains why politicians continue to push it.

I didn't read the original article, but I wonder who would paying for all of the drug screenings. Nevermind, I know who would be paying for them. Sounds to me like we'd be spending more money on testing then we'd in all likelihood save from non-payments to users.

[BTL FED]

U-S-A

U-S-A

U-S-A

[Leon Troutsky]

I didn't read the original article, but I wonder who would paying for all of the drug screenings. Nevermind, I know who would be paying for them. Sounds to me like we'd be spending more money on testing then we'd in all likelihood save from non-payments to users.

Very likely, and throwing a lot of innocent people (and their kids) off of welfare. That also begs another question--do we let children starve and go hungry because of the mistakes made by their parents?

One possibility would be to put those children in foster homes by claiming that drug abuse is tantamount to child abuse. But that brings the false positives back into the picture--are we okay taking a lot of kids away from their parents even though their parents are innocent?

This is one of those ideas that "sounds good" until you start thinking about it. Then the implications blow the idea right out of the water.

Edited May 13, 2010 by AcworthFalcFan

[Peyton]

Yes it is, and yes we have.

The strongest reason for why this is an incredibly stupid idea comes to us from Bayesian statistics and basic probability theory. When the number of users is a small percent of a very large population (e.g., 5% of a population of millions), you have a situation where half or more of those who test positive are NOT drug users. IOW, the number of false positive (non-user testing positive) can be equal or greater than the number of true positives (users who test positive). Here's an explanation of the math:

http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/jerryj/NNN/MedicalTesting.pdf

So not only would these tests cost people money if forced to pay for it themselves, which takes money away from their families, but you can also have a huge number of people being kicked off of welfare even though they have done nothing wrong.

As you said, it's an incredibly stupid idea, which explains why politicians continue to push it.

Your example only works if you assume that a drug test has a false positive rate of at least 5%. That is quite an assumption.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Peyton

[Rodak]

Your example only workse if you assume that a drug test has a false positive rate of at least 5%. That is quite an assumption.

Word.

[Leon Troutsky]

Your example only workse if you assume that a drug test has a false positive rate of at least 5%. That is quite an assumption.

Actually, it's not. Estimates of false positives vary dramatically, but rates around 5% are not at all unusual depending on the lab doing the urine testing.

Also, even if they are 99% accurate (e.g., 1% chance of false positive), then we're still talking about a third of people testing positive being completely innocent:

http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/BadTestResults.html

Nearly a third is a huge number of innocent people getting thrown off of welfare.

Edited May 13, 2010 by AcworthFalcFan

[Peyton]

Actually, it's not. Estimates of false positives vary dramatically, but rates around 5% are not at all unusual depending on the lab doing the urine testing.

Also, even if they are 99% accurate (e.g., 1% chance of false positive), then we're still talking about a third of people testing positive being completely innocent:

http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/BadTestResults.html

Nearly a third is a huge number of innocent people getting thrown off of welfare.

At 1 percent, since only 1 to 2 people out of 100 would actually test positive, simply retest them. It's not that expensive.

The military kicks guys out all the time based on these tests. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for people collecting unemployment.

[Rodak]

At 1 percent, since only 1 to 2 people out of 100 would actually test positive, simply retest them. It's not that expensive.

The military kicks guys out all the time based on these tests. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for people collecting unemployment.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And they have to pee hot more than once.

[Leon Troutsky]

At 1 percent, since only 1 to 2 people out of 100 would actually test positive, simply retest them. It's not that expensive.

The military kicks guys out all the time based on these tests. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for people collecting unemployment.

First, you are compounding one expense with another. "It's not that expensive", except that we're talking about potentially millions of people out of the 31 million receiving foodstamps (or more if we include other benefits).

Second, there is still a probability of having two consecutive false positives, and while the number would be reduced you're still talking in the tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent people losing benefits.

Finally, you still haven't addressed the problem of the children. Do you let the children starve (cut their foodstamps and benefits) because of their parents' mistakes, or do you take the children from tens to hundreds of thousands of perfectly innocent parents?

Edit: Fourth, the military may use that to discharge soldiers, but that doesn't mean that there are not a lot of innocent people falsely accused and kicked out of the army. Also, the number of active and inactive personnel in the military is only a few million, compared to the 31 million or more on welfare.

Edited May 13, 2010 by AcworthFalcFan