SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the politicians-wasting-money-to-show-they're-tough-dept dept.
AlterNet reports
The state is using its already-tight welfare budget to administer the expensive tests.
Tennessee is all set to deny welfare benefits to poor residents based solely on the fact that they'd used drugs. In July they rolled out a program to drug test welfare applicants, which would create even worse health issues for already-struggling addicts. However, the first month's tests proved that most welfare applicants weren't using drugs in the first place: of more than 800 applicants, the state caught only one person using drugs.
The testing program was popularised and enacted, no doubt, in response to the stereotype that poor people who use government assistance programs tend to be drug users. But it appears that the stereotype is baseless. Just 12 people in Utah's similar drug testing program came up positive for drugs in an entire year of testing, and just two percent of applicants failed Florida's 2011 welfare drug tests.
In Tennessee the drug testing program applies to the state's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Applicants, mainly struggling parents, are now required to answer three questions asking about potential drug use. Any "yes" answers automatically require applicants to undergo urine testing for drugs. Any demonstrated drug use disqualifies them for benefits.
As Think Progress reported on Tennessee's results:
In the month since it began, six people submitted to a drug test and just one tested positive out of the 812 people who applied. Four were turned down for benefits because they refused to participate in drug screening. That means a positive rate of 0.12 percent for those who took part in the screening. That compares to the 8 percent of state residents generally who use illegal drugs.
The state is using a portion of the already-tight welfare budget to administer the expensive drug tests, which are quickly proving to be a statistically worthless investment. As Think Progress reported, "Utah spent more than $30,000 in the year that turned up just 12 drug users. The purported savings in Florida's program will be negligible after administrative costs and reimbursements for the drug tests are taken into account. The $1.5 million price tag with just $229,000 in savings for a proposed program in Virginia prompted lawmakers to reject it."
Despite the fact that drug testing the needy repeatedly proves unnecessary, it's becoming a trend. Eleven states already have new drug testing programs in their welfare offices, and others are looking to add them.
(Score: 2) by broken on Tuesday August 12 2014, @12:01AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 12 2014, @04:31AM
Because being anti-drug-war is a relatively common trait among geeks so examples of drug-war stupidity are newsworthy to the community. Soylent news is people.
(Score: 2) by broken on Tuesday August 12 2014, @08:57PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 12 2014, @09:32PM
> This has nothing to do with the war on drugs.
Sez you. Like so many geeks you've got that myopic black and white thinking going on it.
Like nearly everything in life, it is about more than one thing simultaneously.
(Score: 2) by broken on Wednesday August 13 2014, @01:08AM
Please cease with the ad hominems. I have no "black and white thinking going on". I explained why this is not part of the drug war: The purpose of these rules is not to reduce illegal drug use. Can you at least try to refute that? Since you seem a little slow, let me give it to you step by step:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:01AM
> The purpose of these rules is not to reduce illegal drug use.
Of course it is - the reasoning is to make people choose between food and drugs with the goal being to make them choose food.
Just because you don't believe that's the goal does not make it untrue. So yeah, you are black-and-whiting it. Not an ad-hominem, it's an accurate description of your myopia. Just because you are too myopic to see it doesn't make it any less factual
(Score: 2) by broken on Thursday August 14 2014, @08:53AM
Just because you do believe that's the goal does not make it true.
And again your post is empty of any argument. You find a tiny sliver of a possibility that some tiny fraction of people will reduce their drug use and your black and white thinking leads you to make this a part of the war on drugs.
I could easily present more arguments supporting my position, but feel I would just be wasting my time. You're so sure of yourself despite your reasoning being extremely flimsy that I think you are taking an emotional stance and not a rational one.