Gravitymaster 0 #51 February 28, 2013 Quote> However, in my mind at least, it highlights the issue of abuse in these programs. >Personally, I think more should be done for those with legitimate needs, but first real >efforts need to be made, that do not violate peoples rights, to improve the efficency of >these programs. Well, that's a good reason to NOT do drug tests. They are in general a waste of time and money. In Florida, for example, a recent round of drug testing cost the state over $100,000 - and resulted in only 2.6% positive results, of which the vast majority were marijuana and not hard drugs. The savings garnered by denying benefits for the people who test positive for pot? About $50,000. So that was a most excellent waste of $50,000. So now you are against wasteful spending? My, my, there is some hope. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #52 February 28, 2013 >So now you are against wasteful spending? Everyone is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #53 February 28, 2013 Quote>So now you are against wasteful spending? Everyone is. Great, now we are getting somewhere. Define wasteful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #54 February 28, 2013 >Great, now we are getting somewhere. Define wasteful. Are you taking lessons from RushMC? If you really don't know, try dictionary.com. If this is another semantics game, I invite you to play it with yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #55 February 28, 2013 Quote>Great, now we are getting somewhere. Define wasteful. Are you taking lessons from RushMC? If you really don't know, try dictionary.com. If this is another semantics game, I invite you to play it with yourself. Nope, just years of watching you weasel and come up with your own definitions. Can we agree that wasteful is an expenditure of money, time and/or energy, which does not result in a productive result? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #56 March 1, 2013 QuoteI wonder if the whole issue can be re-worked. No more welfare. You just work for the government instead. That would make the testing easy enough. You still get the check, it's just not welfare anymore. Maybe you spend 20hrs per week cleaning a public building or something? The rate would have to be something below minimum wage to encourage a return to the private sector. The hours could only be part time to provide time to look for employment. There shouldn't be any benefits. I don't know. Just a thought. OMG where have you been. They're already doing that. Come to DC... you'll see. I went through Charlotte NC airport a few weeks back and via a long walk there was DHS sitting at each corner via isolated hallways. I counted 9 people sitting. They could have been knitting but instead they just were staring into space... Look, its about them.... that's what this administration is about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #57 March 1, 2013 Not QUITE what I had in mind, but I take your point.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #58 May 28, 2013 ManagingPrime Care to take a guess as to how many people in that 4, 000 actually did have "hot" urine? I get the influence that labs have on drug policies. I'm not advocating for Florida's system or any other for that matter. But, presuming the actual intent is to give people a little dose of "tough love" and save tax payer dollars, I'm all about that general idea. Saving taxpayer $$ - that's funny. See attachment. Arithmetic clearly has a liberal bias.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #59 May 28, 2013 kallend*** Saving taxpayer $$ - that's funny. See attachment. Arithmetic clearly has a liberal bias. What is the source for that graphic?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #60 May 29, 2013 kallend *** Care to take a guess as to how many people in that 4, 000 actually did have "hot" urine? I get the influence that labs have on drug policies. I'm not advocating for Florida's system or any other for that matter. But, presuming the actual intent is to give people a little dose of "tough love" and save tax payer dollars, I'm all about that general idea. Saving taxpayer $$ - that's funny. See attachment. Arithmetic clearly has a liberal bias. I guess they should have taken blood samples. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 891 #61 May 29, 2013 I've known of several small "Drug Free Workplace" businesses that quickly and quietly abandoned their drug testing. Administration of the testing cost more than the insurance savings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites