care to elaborate?(contextualize) couldn't resist
Florida to drug test Welfare recipiients.
- Thread starter trichrider
- Start date
oh my freaking god?
sorry, I'd have to fathom this context to stick with it
sorry, I'd have to fathom this context to stick with it
How is me having had weed before i get laid off, taking from those who need it more? Why should I have to reveal by peeing in a cup that I smoked pot while I had a job, and why should that cause me to lose unemployment compensation benefits I am due?
Why do you suppose that someone who smokes pot isn't really looking for a job?
Seems to me I can get that from any reefer madness believer out there.
Ok, did you just change the subject? Do you believe that smoking pot 'impairs' you? Then perhaps you should not smoke it.
Are you suggesting that smoking pot before work is like driving drunk? Not that I said anything about being high at work in my posts.
I have worked around drunks and stoners and those who would never ever even think of doing 'drugs.' A drunk is dangerous and annoying. I've never felt endangered from someone who was 'high' on pot, no matter the job. Whether doing dangerous work or complex work, the stoners always do just fine. Can't always say the same for the "I would never crowd". Some people don't need drugs to make their eyes glaze over.
You're ignoring that we pay into our "handouts". That effectively illuminates your intellectual dishonesty.
Ground control to Major Shroom...
so what are we to take from that?
Oh, I get it. State workers don't just pose economic risks to Florida. They kill people too.
Ground control to Major Shroom...
You two are off your rocker... where did i say pot was 'so dangerous'? (Plz dont answer this. I didnt say it, and im sure any response will only be a twisting of my words. Feel free to read everything ive wrote in this thread.)
-
My 'intellectual dishonesty'? LOL. You enjoy your fucked up air traffic controllers, surgeons, heavy machinery operators, chemical/nuclear engineers, Id prefer to avoid them.
My intellectual HONESTY lets me see that some occupations need over site, and many do not.
-
My 'intellectual dishonesty'? LOL. You enjoy your fucked up air traffic controllers, surgeons, heavy machinery operators, chemical/nuclear engineers, Id prefer to avoid them.
My intellectual HONESTY lets me see that some occupations need over site, and many do not.
Cojito
Active member
you keep saying that. but there are strings. and NO ONE here is arguing there shouldn't be conditions, limits, and hoops to jump through. but to say that gov benefits should come with drug testing means that none of us (Cannabis smokers) will be able to collect SSI, unemployment, etc., homeless veterans won't get helped, seniors who smoke up will lose medicare etc. why would anyone on a Cannabis site argue for this? why are you trying to stigmatize us and make our lives harder than they already are?
i've been self employed most of my adult life. never collected unemployment, welfare or taken gov assistance (except financial aid for college which i paid back). when i had no work i did without and lived off my savings. and i feel great pride about that. still, i would really really really like to collect social securtiy in 20 years. and if i was still in school, i wouldn't want to lose my financial aid. we all pay taxes for these programs. and the world is already hard enough for pot smokers. surely your animus for the poor is not a sufficient reason to make the lives of Cannabis smokers harder.
Cojito
Active member
perhaps, but pissing in a cup IS an intrusion and a form of self incrimination.
Very true - you are correct.
But the challenge is that the scope of this drug testing debate extends beyond cannabis users, .. And the fact remains, if you're not able to afford your daily necessities and are therefore relying on the taxpayers to float you, then I'm not sure how you justify affording LOTS of things - not just dope.
LOTS of things = booze, tobacco, coke, other drugs, jewelry, new nails, hairdo's, etc.
(And, certainly, it's damn near impossible to quantify, corral, and limit ALL of those things I mentioned. I get that.)
But ultimately, I'm not sure why the taxpayers should have to foot the bill for what MOST of us would determine "extras" in life.
Disco
I think the frustration for lots of folks (myself included) is that many of us are paying into a system which we hope (and many of us EXPECT) to never draw from.
And when the folks who are drawing from that system abuse it, often flagrantly, it's tiresome to those of us who are paying into a system, not to benefit from it (god willing), but to support others, many of whom are scammers, .. Etc.
It's the same reason I get annoyed every year when I'm paying both sides of my Social Security tax. That's money that I will likely never see. Not because of fraud, but because of bureaucratic incompetence. Sometime's it's not the why, but the what.
(Don't get me started on my "I'm from the gubment, I'm here to help, here, let me save that money FOR you, I can do a better job than you at saving," rant.)
You're waffling. You made the examples for your own premise. We're pot smokers. We're applying our examples to your pretext.
This is like trying to hold jelly.
Up to now, you've only addressed a demographic. You never suggested that some state workers be subjected to tests and others not. You've basically said that they need to be tested before the fact, for targeted and general economic reasons.
It's the quantifiable aspect you're having trouble with and yes, we've turned some of your comments back toward your reasoning to discover (or attempt to) your quantifiable aspects.
A real easy answer would be to say we don't have quantifiable reasoning because this is a new law with no measurable effectiveness. But then you'd be asked how you're quantifying. IMO, it's gut reasoning with no basis for practical application.
I noticed you didn't touch the supposition that should 10 years of application prove economically nonviable, does your gut say different or the same?
the numbers have been quantified and ignored...
continuing to claim they are "unquantified" is intellectually dishonest!
the gut reactions are flying from both sides..
just filter the thread for my posts to see the cost effectiveness in universal language.
let us ALL disengage from applying the context that suits our predrawn conclusions to others statements.
again not ALL are abusers nor are ALL on straight arrows.
plenty of room for nuance herein.
the rael quantification (if we would like to have an HONEST conversation) is what percentage ARE abusers.
there is a point of diminishing returns wherein the testing pays for itself.
how many positives does it take to offset the negatives.
remove the moral indignation(emotion)on both sides and find the merits of the legislation not the merits of the gov. or the recipients.
but alas those who claim the moral high ground(on both sides)drag conversation into the gutter....
continuing to claim they are "unquantified" is intellectually dishonest!
the gut reactions are flying from both sides..
just filter the thread for my posts to see the cost effectiveness in universal language.
let us ALL disengage from applying the context that suits our predrawn conclusions to others statements.
again not ALL are abusers nor are ALL on straight arrows.
plenty of room for nuance herein.
the rael quantification (if we would like to have an HONEST conversation) is what percentage ARE abusers.
there is a point of diminishing returns wherein the testing pays for itself.
how many positives does it take to offset the negatives.
remove the moral indignation(emotion)on both sides and find the merits of the legislation not the merits of the gov. or the recipients.
but alas those who claim the moral high ground(on both sides)drag conversation into the gutter....
That's a bit like sitting on the fence. On one hand, you're contributing but not receiving, (aka you're winning) because public assistance amounts to losing. Losing a job, losing income, even though assistance provides sustenance between jobs.
Your quantification is subjective when you use words like abuse. I offer that you sir, abuse in the eyes of others. I'm not talking about assistance, I'm just talking about non-quantified judgement.
When you use words like often and flagrantly, you avoid contextualizing that often and flagrant apply to assistance recipients in general. Where's you data?
Don't just say we have fraud, we also have enforcement. It's not a question of whether we catch every fraudster (we caught Rick
the biggest crook in the nook.) It's a question of whether the law you support goes after fraud more efficiently and economically than the alternative. If the wholesale drug testing costs the state more than the status quote, there's zero economic justification to change what we're currently doing to go after fraud.
Nooooo question - if the net is a zero, well, .. It's zero. Nobody likes zero.
I'm speaking in philosophy about the why - the how is certainly a different conversation..
Edit: (I just realized that we're of course talking, at least in part, about the how. The specific mechanics, I mean, are a different conversation.. Cost, process, enforcement, benefit..)
Durrrrr
G
Guest 88950
i failed to see you show any explination or math that supports that drug testing wale fare applicants is cost effective.
i hypothetically did the numbers guessing what percentage of applicants will fail the test and i used your assumed projected cost of $10 per test. do you really think that an ACCURATE test covering ALL drugs will be sold for $10? i dont. furthermore, i dont think that your "quantified numbers" accounted for a second drug test for all applicants that will more than likely needed to ensure due process.
show me the point of diminishing returns or explain b/c i fail to see that paying to test everyone to catch a small % will eventually be revenue neutral.
if an applicant fails and that result is confirmed by a second test then is that applicant prevented from applying for assistance indefinitely or will that applicant be at liberty to apply when they know they are clean.
hypothetical example:
44,000 applicants per month
$30 per test x 2 = $60
so the state will pay for all neg drug test as well as confirming a neg test and bearing that cost.
lets say 30% of the applicants fail, then the state pays ONLY for the confirmation test.
the state will pay for 2 drug test for 70% of the applicants and 1 test for the other 30%.
70% of 44,000 is 30,800 applicants X $60(2 test) = $1,848,000.
30% of 44,000 is 13,200 applicants X $30 (1 test) = $396,000
if 30% of the 44,000 applicants fail a drug test the state still has a base cost of $2,224,000 per month and $26,928,000 annually.
I see you're not with example, dag. You simply revolve around my premise. Having fun?
I'm not gonna go looking back through that haystack of basically, "I know you are but what am I."
If it's there you'll reference and most likely be rebuked.Now you're clicking on all cylinders.
Aren't you suggesting there's a point of diminishing return where wholesale testing doesn't pay for itself?
Sounds like a recipe to go beyond testing and fudge the results to substantiate inefficiency. Otherwise, one may query statistics that either prove or disprove this option as viable.
I'm down with being respectful. But I'm sorry dag, the fact that Rick Scott is even in this equation tilts the scale toward justifiable speculation. If you wish to find the merits of the recipients, how do you justify testing them all, across the board?
..the second part of the hypothetical example should be something along the lines of:
"Once the state confirms x-% to have tested positive, the annual savings after denying welfare for that x-% is $y."
And then take $y and subtract it from your sum of $26 M
Edit: Oh. Didn't notice your last sentence, where you point out the ultimate hard cost of testing all of the negative folk.
At any rate, that may (may) be offset by the savings in eliminating positive testers from the payroll.
yup...
[REF]
see post 108 for bullshit spin..
see post 112 for a real numbers breakdown
see post 133 for another mathematical(and linked) debunking of hyperbolic numbers
the list goes on but the point remains the same there is a point where this becomes a savings(as there is a point where it is a burden)
at maximum annual benefit for this program(15k) there is a number (1500 tests @ $10) that is equilibrium for a single denied recipient.
since 4400 will be subject to testing (44k) it will take 2.93333- to reach..
these are simplified and the links to the stats that back up these numbers are here in the thread for your perusal.
i wonder if ANYONE else actually did the research to put together a cost/benefit analysis or if it's all just knee jerk?
