It's about time!!!!

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

Right, but the cost v benefit that Richard was mentioning is what I'm talking about. One of the articles Richard posted suggested $20,000 per year per tested individual. Presumably many will pass the test. So you've paid for the test and then the benefits.

Some won't. But you've still paid at least 20k for that person. If you hadn't tested that person, and just given him benefits -- would it be less or more than the 20k?

I think that would be a gross exaggeration of the expenses involved. Of course, the government bureaucracy of administering a program adds significantly to even simple program costs.

Frankly, I would rather put people back on the track to responsible behavior, like being drug free, than to spend the money rewarding poor decisions and encouraging misconduct.

Judging from the misogynistic lyrics of popular hip-hop tunes, impregnating as many different women as possible and siring progeny across the community while abandoning those children and ducking any significant support or parenting is a laudable goal.

Fifty years ago, black and white families had roughly similar percentages of married couples, cohabitating was unheard of, and children out of wedlock were a humiliation, not a goal. Can anyone look at today's society and say that what we have is an improvement?

If I wanted to destroy a culture and their family units, and doom their children to an endless cycle of addiction, impoverishment, and incarceration, this would be a excellent plan to do so. And they are doing it to themselves, with the support of a few public figures and politicians.

Requiring recipients of public assistance to be drug free? What is next, making people further their education and get jobs?

TR

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Dusty

"I'll piss in 9 jars if that's what them shoe clerks wanna do this mornin', but PT's gonna get extended. I'll guarantee you that."

SGM Billy Lee, 1/7 SFG(A), upon learning of a BN urinalysis.

Billy was the CO SGM of A-2-7 when I knew him, but that does sound like him and The Plantation.

TR

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I think that would be a gross exaggeration of the expenses involved. Of course, the government bureaucracy of administering a program adds significantly to even simple program costs.

It never ceases to amaze me how much cost is tacked on for bureaucracy. Performing the tests would be relatively cheap after an up front cost to purchase the appropriate equipment. Of course, you need people to review these results and then they need to be sent to the local unemployment office. Someone needs to receive the records which will need to be verified then filed and maintained. The positive test needs to be reported to the individual, who will undoubtedly cry, "false positive test, I want a retest" and the cycle starts all over again.

Frankly, I would rather put people back on the track to responsible behavior, like being drug free, than to spend the money rewarding poor decisions and encouraging misconduct...

...If you require recipients of public assistance to be drug free, what is next, making people further their education and get jobs?

Careful - you'll upset the ACLU talking like that. What about their inalienable right to "pursuit of happiness"?

Common sense and personal accountability are no longer expected and seem to be tolerated less and less.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

C-1/7th SFG.

Richard

I think C Co. SGM was Ducky Wilson at that time. The Reaper's right; Billy Lee was A.

Heard it was a blast working for him down in Tegu 'round about then. Spend all day at the beer tent, then go to the ville.

[tonyz]

In the end, personally, I am not altogether concerned whether the answer to the simple - but tough - question whether drug testing is a valid condition precedent for welfare payments be answered. As to the costs of testing - some might say we can't afford not to test - the current way of doing things hasn't worked out too well.

But, I am thoroughly convinced that - currently - the question should, no, must be asked.

And, for a variety of reasons it must to be asked without the inquirer being labeled a racist or nut job, either.

After all, drug testing certainly seems universally unpopular. Google something about drug testing in the workplace and there are literally hundreds of articles (on one search I got something like 38 million hits) and dozens of bureaucracies (some with tax dollar support) opining, at various degrees, about the evils of drug testing.

Yet, we all know that drug testing in exchange for a paycheck does take place, today.

Why the fuss then when we ask whether current testing should be extended to the limited universe of welfare recipients?

Notwithstanding the constitutional arguments for a moment, at its essence, the question could be viewed as one of accountability (at many levels) could it not?

Well, we all know that it is much easier to yell “unconstitutional” because our very constitution was originally set up to limit government in our lives - not permit the level of intrusiveness that we all currently tolerate (sadly, that shipped has sailed). It is certainly much easier (for me and others) to consider drug testing unreasonable and hence, unconstitutional, because one can easily read all those nicely prepared arguments and studies loaded up by the ACLU, et al. Hell, they may even be correct - but IMO that is not the most important point of this discussion.

No, the ACLU does not need my help to buttress their arguments. Actually, the pendulum seems to have swung and now, it seems, that folks respectfully requesting accountability out of their government – are the ones that need the help today.

As you know, the government now controls the auto industry, mortgage lending, student loans, health-care and they are now eyeing the investment banking industry as well. There is little in our life that isn't controlled, regulated, licensed, taxed or otherwise must meet with federal government approval, much of this in just the last few years. Not to mention the state and local bureaucracies.

IMHO for far too long, we taxpayers have not asked enough tough questions nor imposed sufficient conditions on how our hard earned money has been spent by these bureaucrats - my bad.

For the most part, we taxpayers have plowed along, worked hard, did the right things, paid our fair share of taxes, scrimped and saved to put 20% or more down on our homes, paid our mortgages, paid our student loans, took care of and take care of our families – the young, the old, the aging, the terminally ill and yes, the addicted. We pissed when asked to and made little or no fuss. We see the abuse in the system and that is what frustrates us.
Quite frankly, I like many others, were asleep while the bureaucrats plundered.

So, IMHO, with respect to this issue - it is asking this tough question that is most important - raising the issue of accountability – not so much the answer. As I have said before in another comment - I have pissed, we will piss, but we are pissed (and not just in the English slang version). But, I do think that I will savor a finger or three of Glenlivet Nadurra - aged 16 years - later tonight. Cheers.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

Right, but the cost v benefit that Richard was mentioning is what I'm talking about. One of the articles Richard posted suggested $20,000 per year per tested individual.

But if one is going to look at drug tests through the lens of a cost-benefit analysis, then one could also look at welfare in like manner. Given the cost of welfare and its associated programs, what is the benefit to our nation and our society?

On the other hand, avoidance of illicit drugs seems to be a moral issue within our society. I get the impression that helping the poor is seen in a similar light. But if we're going to go down the path of moral obligation to help those less fortunate, then I don't suppose we should be surprised when a duty such as remaining drug-free is imposed on the same basis.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

If mandatory urinalysis is unconstitutional, then someone better tell the US military,TR

how was Shot? didja have a good time?

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

Malnourished, homeless and uneducated kids that become malnourished, ill, unemployed homeless adults? Yes we have that now, but how much will that increase without any public assistance whatsoever.

Only two choices?

Who really buys $20 grand annually for testing one person - a swab can't be that much to gather, test, interpret and communicate. If it really costs $20 grand to do that - we are really in more trouble than I thought.

Is it really reasonable to assume that a pre-employment screening test costs $20 grand a pop?

Here is one result of a very quick online search: price ranges between approx. $9 - $12 - results in minutes.

Saliva Oral Screen Multi Drug Test Kit (6 drugs)

Oral Screen Saliva Multi Drug Screen Test Kit (AMP/MAMP/COC/OPI/THC/PCP)

The New Saliva Oral Screen Multi Drug Test Kit (6 drugs)is a one-step chromatographic immunoassay device for the qualitative detection of Amphetamine, Opiates, Phencyclidine, THC (Marijuana), Methamphetamine, Cocaine, and their metabolites in saliva.

Testing for drug abuse in saliva is becoming more widespread all over. In addition, Saliva (Oral Fluid) Multi Drug Screen Test Kit, contrary to current popular drug tests that require the individual to donate urine, is an oral fluids (Saliva) drug test and is top of the line product, almost unbeatable for any adulterants. Oral fluids drug testing detects active drugs present in the saliva.

http://www.meditests.com/or4salmultes.html

[nmap]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

NMap has a good point, BUT are we willing to pay the price as a society that will result in NO social safety-net? Malnourished, homeless and uneducated kids that become malnourished, ill, unemployed homeless adults? Yes we have that now, but how much will that increase without any public assistance whatsoever?

(Sorry TR, I know you hate when I do that, but the Socratic method sinks into every damn pore)

Are we willing to pay that price today? Clearly not.

Can we continue to spend as we are currently - with 40% of spending representing new debt? (Please see table 1-2, page 2, at the LINK )? That seems unsustainable. More pointedly, we will hit the wall as a society.

If we continue as we are, we will see what happens with little or no social safety net. We'll have all that you mentioned, along with more crime, few police, and a medical system that is unavailable to the bottom 4 quintiles.

So...unless that's the desired future...we (as a nation and a society) might wish to think long and hard about what we gain versus what we lose. Because that 40% gap mentioned above is going to hit. I suspect sooner rather than later. When it does, the figurative knives will come out.

[Sigaba]

Which cohort costs America more--welfare scofflaws or tax scofflaws?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

I've never seen any gov bureaucracy that operated inexpensively and efficiently.

Amen.

[tonyz]

Yea, but I'm not sure we could get away with some test you can buy at any drug store for $30.

I'm pretty confident that we could.

Look at that range $9, $30, $20,000.

For a bit of realism - consider what a reasonable for-profit business (a business that would be doing thousands of tests monthly) might reasonably pay for a pre-employment screening test.

I suspect that we could get a good rate from a reputable supplier.

Now, I'm not talking about the typical bureaucrat do the bidding or negotiating -- in my fantasy, I envision a minimally competent, reasonably prudent person, who can use the telephone, and can use Google - well, since this is a fantasy - this person spends taxpayer money like it's their own and let's give this reasonable person a small dose of common sense too. I think we could procure a drug test for much less than $20,000 a pop. Somewhere between $9 and $30 a pop - I'll leave that to the experts.

There's going to need to be paperwork, and record keeping and doctors and labs and all the money, employment benefits for all the people involved in the testing process.

Are there appeals processes? Administrative law judges?

Right, 'cause there's no paperwork now...maybe we should unionize 'em or (gasp) heaven forbid come up with a lower cost solution -I'm sure there's no waste there now. We've already seen that we can probably drop that $20,000 per test figure quite a bit. But, you've got to want to do it.

I've never seen any gov bureaucracy that operated inexpensively and efficiently.

True that - it's probably past time to operate differently. We can do better - I'm just not so sure that big government and their ilk will.

[Richard]

Gotta makes sure I save enough from my govt gimme to have a cleansing kit handy or to buy a bottle of clean urine from the kid next door for the next time I have to get tested down at the local HHS or post office 'cause nobody in there ever wants to watch me pee in that bottle.

http://www.drugtest.org/

And so it goes...

Richard

[tonyz]

Damn, where's Billy Mays (of OxicotinClean fame) when you need him - NutraCleanse !

And here I was anticipating positive results coming from those drug tests - and there's the kryptonite - one of 38 million hits on Google.

Why, do I suspect that this kit won't cost $20 grand, either.

No doubt, if society doesn't want to change, there are dozens of reasons not to try a new approach.

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

So we take a woman who is otherwise qualified to receive $4800 per year in food stamps and we spend another $20,000 per year testing her once a year.

I get them often (not for drug use, medical reasons)and they are not that expensive. When I was hired I did take a drug test, IIRC it was a few hundred dollars. A once per year blood test will not cost $20K.

Even if the government administers it.