Urinalysis for Welfare Checks. picture says it all. Shoulda" 1' Otd havre In 115: -‘ma zeal a , l harp In p. 155 nipp. in culur it (or 1' oul?. They did in Florida and it cost them more than it saved, and only like 2% of recipients failed the test. Rant: Every time welfare or any other similar program c Poster
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #23 - cancerousiguana (08/12/2012) [-]
They did in Florida and it cost them more than it saved, and only like 2% of recipients failed the test.
Every time welfare or any other similar program comes up, everybody jumps all over it and talks about how lazy everybody on it is and we need to get rid of it, or talks about how we need to take people off of it for whatever reason. I get really sick of people demonizing anybody who receives government money and assumes they must be sitting at home doing nothing with their lives. There are people like that in the system, and I agree there needs to be some kind of reform to prevent abusing the system (I knew a woman who had a kid every 5 years for the sole purpose of remaining on welfare), but there are a lot of people who need some help and are using it properly.
#29 to #23 - anon (08/12/2012) [-]
thats not the point. the point is that the 2% they found on drugs got taken off of welfare. even if it costs the state more money they should keep doing this randomly, just to weed out the few that are taking advantage of a needed system that helps those who actually deserve it.
User avatar #33 to #29 - lemonsixx (08/12/2012) [-]
but youre still spending more money than youre saving. its still out of tax payer money. so wtf is the point?
#34 to #23 - anon (08/12/2012) [-]
40% of the people canceled the tests without taking them?,guess why.
if I were a junkie living on welfare I wouldnt also let the government know Im a drug user and im using their money to buy drugs
#40 to #23 - anon (08/12/2012) [-]
I'm one of the Anons from below. Thanks for posting this, I knew it was done and I knew it did nothing, I couldn't remember exactly WHERE though.
User avatar #17 - GodofTV (08/12/2012) [-]
If people at my job had to take urine tests we'd all be fired...
User avatar #1 - sparkyoneonetwo (08/11/2012) [-]
I've had all kinds of jobs... only ever had to take a drug test when I was working at a Target... seems like the most useless job to nee to pass a drug test fur...
#2 to #1 - munchito (08/11/2012) [-]
I spent plenty of time pissing in cups while I was in the military. I once asked if they'd like a stool sample, that didn't go over too well.
User avatar #3 to #2 - sparkyoneonetwo (08/11/2012) [-]
I've work 4 jobs in security 2 printing press working a woodshop now, a steel mill once, 3 food places an target only place to ever want my piss was target.
User avatar #24 to #3 - sloar ONLINE (08/12/2012) [-]
Maybe your boss is just a kinky bastard and likes collecting pee?
User avatar #31 to #24 - sparkyoneonetwo (08/12/2012) [-]
well i mean if he just wanted my piss I would have just given it to him.
#7 to #1 - lefish (08/12/2012) [-]
hey bro, they got a point, what if you shelved the diet coke on the shelf where the regular pepsi goes? Everybody would lose their minds. There would be riots.
User avatar #26 - mrgoodbunny (08/12/2012) [-]
You do have to pass one.
In florida, they made the argument that people were using it to buy drugs, where in fact when they instigated the check, only 2% of people failed.

I'm sure if you scroll down you can read all about it.
User avatar #13 - winsauceiswin (08/12/2012) [-]
in no way is the coming statement supposed to be a political plug or start a **** storm but Romney wants to do that with welfare. im saying this simply as a fact and nothing else
User avatar #12 - JHoYouKnow (08/12/2012) [-]
It would hold a lot more weight if the politicians agreed to one themselves first. Since "everyone receiving the government's money should have to prove they're clean."
#6 - anon (08/12/2012) [-]
They actually tried this.

The state ended up spending all sorts of money on urine test kits and the manpower to process all that pee, and at the end of the day found all of TWO people who failed it canceling their benefits saving the state like $60,000 but spending millions in the implementation.

Sometimes your faith in humanity is rewarded. Not often, but sometimes.
User avatar #8 to #6 - fuzzyballs (08/12/2012) [-]
millions? seems like an overstatement to me
#9 to #6 - anon (08/12/2012) [-]
This means either there are waaaay more people without a job then with a job, which is why its so much more expensive to test everyone with wellfare.

Or the drug use among people with a job is much higher, obviously they arent very happy and need narcotics to drown out there dull and dreary misery.

So.... get a job kids... You'll be happy...
User avatar #18 to #9 - yeagabombs (08/12/2012) [-]
yeah everyone that has a job needs to do drugs so they can handle it, too bad people that win the lottery get depressed because they're not working or earning their own money
#15 to #6 - captnpl ONLINE (08/12/2012) [-]
Think of it this way:

1. People that are on welfare usually stay on welfare. We didn't save $60,000, we saved $60,000 per year for 1-5 years in most states, but in New York they can collect for the rest of their lives.

2. It makes desk jobs with low education requirements. You know who could use jobs like that? People who are on welfare for honest reasons. They're still being paid by the government, but they'll save us more money than they'll take.

3. If people stop getting paid to **** around all day, the schools won't be flooded with so many kids raised without a work ethic.
User avatar #22 to #15 - sloar ONLINE (08/12/2012) [-]
I don't think your first point holds up. If the simple math showed a net gain in money for the state, the cost / benefit analysis would have been justification to keep doing it. Even if on top of making the extra jobs for people to introduce and maintain that system was putting the state in the financial red, then it can't have been an effective system.

Somewhat related: the case is annecdotal, pics or it didn't happen
#39 to #22 - captnpl ONLINE (08/12/2012) [-]
Depends on which states do it. Some states automatically kick you out of welfare after a year, they don't need regulation. People that plan on abusing the system move to states like New York, which lets people stay on welfare indefinitely. Every stoner bum NY screened out of the system could save the state several hundred thousand dollars over the course of 10-20 years.
User avatar #19 to #15 - therealpokemon (08/12/2012) [-]
All of my YES
#25 - anon (08/12/2012) [-]
Welfare is for honest people who spend it on things they NEED. If they fail a drug test it is far more likely that they will spend money collected from hardworking taxpayers on already illegal substances. Besides they don't get in trouble for the drug test if they fail, which is already paid for by the gov. They just are not eligible for welfare. Its practical and is based on principle for everyone to be clean if they want to receive free money from the government.
#10 - anon (08/12/2012) [-]
No. Drug testing is unconstitutional.
#38 - steavo (08/12/2012) [-]
It's a good idea, because I don't want to pay taxes for a crack addict to get his next fix...but I also don't want to pay taxes for crack addicts to get their piss tested.
#30 - sovietsammich (08/12/2012) [-]
How about we just stop giving out welfare? It was originally started by the churches in Europe to care for the elderly and sick, now it's just overused and abused by lazy people.
#37 to #30 - steavo (08/12/2012) [-]
It's abused by crack addicts who can't get a job.
User avatar #20 - sloar ONLINE (08/12/2012) [-]
Depends on your job mate. If you're operating heavy machinery or somethin you'd damn well better be drug free. Some slack ass wastin their life on a couch smokin dope isn't gonna crush someone.
User avatar #16 - swittig (08/12/2012) [-]
Or get rid of welfare altogether and replace it with workfare, run at the state level
User avatar #11 - fireiskey (08/12/2012) [-]
**** Urine tests. That's like getting fired for being drunk on your day off three weeks ago.
#14 to #11 - captnpl ONLINE (08/12/2012) [-]
On a related note, truck drivers can be fired if they fail a random urine test after getting drunk on there day off.
User avatar #21 to #11 - sloar ONLINE (08/12/2012) [-]
You don't seem to understand the facts of drug use - acid flashbacks and dumbasses like you are a good exmaple of why these tests exists
User avatar #28 to #21 - fireiskey (08/12/2012) [-]
I say this in reference to weed alone, as I seem to be under the false impression that the vast majority of drugs are undetectable in urinalysis after a very short amount of time. Is it false?
#4 - shadowrated has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)