THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Wow, talk about a guy being plussed. He can’t even construct a coherent sentence after that. Unless he is usually like that - I don’t know…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/welfare-drug-testing-indiana_n_1244311.html

It’s a trend, apparently.

I don’t really care if lawmakers use recreational drugs any more if I care whether they drink a bit. But, seriously, is there any state congress where more than 90% of the members would pass a drug test on a regular basis? No chance. Zero. (OK, maybe Utah.) A state congress will NEVER pass a mandatory drug test. Never. Of course, if they have a voluntary one, all the people who use drugs will simply say they are opting out because it is an invasion of their privacy - which ti is of course…

I see it as a job disincentive.  Most jobs, especially the presumably entry level ones that would be applied for by many who are currently receiving state assistance require prospective hires to pass a drug test before an employment offer is finalized.  So if you prefer to continue to use drugs, you are taking yourself out of the job hunt, and yet still receive funds from the state, unfettered. 
I realize that it may be seen as an invasion of privacy, but there are many things that require private questions in order to receive something in return.  Loan applications ask may invasive questions.  Life insurance often requires not only proof of income, but blood and urine tests.  Free money without oversight, both on a small and large scale, are major problems for our government.  I admit that there are bigger fish to fry, but I am not opposed to the idea of greater oversight and restrictions to the disbursement of government funds.

Hence, applying that same logic to state employees, including the governor and legislators who write and pass those very laws.

The whole point of it is that it’s hypocritical.  That the legislators find some illogical reason to include welfare recipients and exclude themselves.

And, once the legislators include themselves, there’s no way in the world they would pass this law. 

Also note that because the state pays for the test (if the recipient passes the test), Florida ended up LOSING more money.  So, they pay 30$ for each of the 98% that pass, and then don’t pay out welfare for the 2% that don’t pass and don’t pay out for those that don’t take the test.

It doesn’t even make economic sense.

They don’t save money, they invade privacy, and they are hypocrites.  The hat-trick of government intrusion.

***

By the way, I’ve never take a drug test for a job.  I’ve never heard of a friend take a drug test for a job.  I have no idea where you got your “most” figure. 

I either live a weird business life, or you are just making something up.

i took a drug test for my first job. haven’t had to take one since, but i remember it being a pretty common thing for my peers coming out of college.

also, living in dc, i know a lot of people that work for the government and they have random drug tests.

i saw this on the daily show tho and it was great. the idea of the law, and most uses of drug testing , is stupid. the fact that you can be an alcoholic off the clock but you can’t ever spark a doobie is just silly. why would any employer care if someone smokes pot on the weekends? its literally the most harmless activity i can imagine.

@5
In response to the second part, I doubt you have had many of the types of jobs that most of those on state assistance would be applying for.  As Kendynamo states, it is not uncommon to have drug tests mandated for jobs.  If you are a bit out of touch on the hiring practices of minimum wage jobs, that is understandable.  Either way, people will always find a way around any attempts to mandate responsibility.  Big picture, its a waste of time, though I don’t feel that the concept is a bad thing.  I also think that the parallel with legislators is quite perfect.  Those legislatures are selected by the people, after going through a public vetting process, and work for those people.  Marion Berry was reelected after being arrested for crack.  There is already a system set up for those elected officials to have a level of oversight, through elections and ethics committees.  They are not perfect systems, but the practice in question, the state assistance, currently has no oversight.  I

6/ken: I could see, perhaps, the rationale for a pre-employment drug screen.  For all I know it could be a reasonably good predictor of erratic performance.

But the random tests on the job are just weird.  If you’re performing at an acceptable level, why should they care if you’re on drugs?  Would they fire you for getting a traffic violation, a DUI, or even something like a manslaughter charge resulting from a traffic accident?  No way!  They’re all illegal, and the DUI indicates that you used a “performance-reducing drug” at some time.  But only failing a drug screen will get you fired.

I worked for a government contractor that operated a federally funded Job Corps center, an education and job training program for at-risk youth.  I had to take a drug test due to federal regulations before I could be hired.  In addition, if an employee had any kind of accident on the job, no matter how minor, the employee had to immediately get drug tested.  We lost our best counselor one time, because he scrapped a government vehicle on a rock in the parking lot and got a positive drug test back due to his use of marijuana the weekend before.

What’s really stupid about the Flordia law is that the welfare recipient has to pony up the $30 in advance.  That’s probably the biggest disincentive about the whole process—not the drug testing itself.

I hate drugs of all kinds—legal and illegal.  However, didn’t this country learn in the 20’s that Prohibition just doesn’t work?

Tangotiger - “By the way, I’ve never take a drug test for a job.  I’ve never heard of a friend take a drug test for a job.  I have no idea where you got your “most” figure.

I either live a weird business life, or you are just making something up.”

Unfortunately you’re showing yourself to be just about as clueless of the general public as, well, a politician. Over 50% percent of employers drug-test. That doesn’t mean over 50% of employees are but low-level physical jobs are certainly drug-tested more and those are exactly the type of jobs that most welfare recipients would be taking.

http://workrights.us/?products=drug-testing-in-the-workplace
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1211429,00.html

As to the -$200,000 “savings” I’m curious if they at all accounted for all of the people who chose not to drug test since they knew they would fail anyway. Certainly that is large cost saving to the state and would also explain why only 2% failed the test.

Why is it any of the states business if a welfare applicant or recipient uses drugs? How about an alcohol test, reading test, healthy food consumption test, exercise test, etc. All of those things potentially impact job performance, quality of life etc.  I don’t get our society’s hang up with drugs. How about a lie detector test?

When I first learned about this issue last fall, I tweeted the following:

“There’s a Facebook poll going around asking how people feel about drug testing for welfare recipients. How about for TARP recipients?”

I just don’t get the nexus.  If I am an employer I might drug test (since I am a private entity, there are very few privacy concerns, as long as there is notice and consent of course) if I thought there was a significant correlation between drug use and job performance.

But where is that connection for welfare recipients? Significant connection, that is, to make up for the cost and privacy issues…

Everyone knows employment drug testing is stupid, right?

Cocaine, Crack, heroin, PCP, Meth, Oxy, etc...are detectable in the system for two days or less. (Don’t quote me on that.) Pot is detectable for up to six weeks.

So the most-commonly used and most benign of that group is the bulk of what you pick up.  The dangerous stuff, almost no chance.

In terms of costs to the employer, a smoker or alcoholic would cost a lot more in health insurance premiums or lost productivity than a typical pot user.

Requiring Floridians to take drug tests might have something to do with Florida’s governor owning a chain of drug testing centers…

Requiring Floridians to take drug tests might have something to do with Florida’s governor owning a chain of drug testing centers…

Wow, that’s amazing!  Why has that not been in the news?  Our society is hung up (twisted morality) on two things - drugs and sex.  What’s next?  Rock and roll?

I guess I thought this was common knowledge at this point:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicion-1350922.html

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/rick-scott-florida-medicaid-solantic

etc…

Hmmmm. That is a pretty obvious conflict of interest.  Then again…

How much does he really stand to make from this? He already is apparently very rich.

His executive order only applies to certain state employees. Surely, he is not going to make much money just from that. The welfare recipient drug testing bill was in the legislature and has nothing to do with Scott other than he supported it and has to sign the bill of course.

As one of the articles above suggests he could have somehow excluded his company in his order, but that seems kind of weird since he won’t be governor forever.

I don’t know the right answer. He could have kept quite on the bill I suppose, citing a conflict of interest and not issued the executive order. Then again, if he truly believes in this, what is he supposed to do? Divest from the company?

Sorry, MGL, but putting a piece of legislation that even a positive article on it describes as something done “at Scott’s urging” solely on the legislature is drinking the wrong kind of Kool-Aid. 

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

You say, “Sorry, MGL,” as if I think it is OK for him to “urge the legislature” to pass the bill.

Nowhere did I say or imply that, and the idea that I (or anyone else) would think that that is OK is ridiculous.

So, thanks for the link and the fact that he “urged the legislature” to pass the bill, but please don’t put words into my mouth or my posts…

Good article, BTW.

Some relevant and interesting points from the article:

The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings…

More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Basically, this appears to be an epic fail for the program, as far as I can tell, not even considering the privacy issues, which I think are substantial and important.

One more thing. When you calculate the “cost of a program” to a society (in this case, the State of Florida, more or less) you don’t take the $30 it cost for a test and consider that to be “the cost.”

Part of that $30 goes toward the economy in Florida in terms of jobs, tax revenue, etc.

On the flip side, denying benefits to people who fail the test is not necessarily a “savings.” Someone still has to take care of these people, although presumably some of them will get a job that they would not have gotten had they not been denies assistance.

Also, while I am firmly against this program, there are other benefits to it. It encourages people not to spend what little resources they have on recreational drugs. It may even encourage people with drug addiction problems to get help.

You can’t compare the 2% positive rate, which is measuring drug use in the immediate past, and the national drug use rates, which as cited are a “past month” self-reported measurements. The relevant population rate is probably 6.3% (12 year olds aren’t getting welfare, I assume). The majority of drug users are not constant users, not the addicts who would be showing positive tests constantly. Many drugs leave the system within a week, if that long.

I’m not saying 2% is high, mind you, but I don’t think it’s amazingly low either, for tests people knew were coming (I’d compare it to the MLB drug-testing results right after they started testing - they caught, what, 5% of them despite advance warning?). Now if you really want to have a lot of positive test results, how about testing students at state colleges/universities? The drug testing is a terrible idea for a lot of reasons already covered.

for those that are still interested, here is the daily show clip:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/poor-pee-ple

it is just over 6 minutes long and well worth the watch, i think. 

-----
to throw my experiences into the discussion and comment on 5/6...i am currently 25 years old, and i am on my 4th job in my field. my college required me to do over a year of interships/co-ops to graduate, and i split that over 3 different jobs.  as a short term employee, i was hired via a temp agency each time and each of those times the company hiring me required me to get a drug test.

i then found it amusing that i did not get tested when i was hired for my current full time job. though my responsibility and salary have increased exponentially, apparently a drug test was not deemed necessary.

i think the general theme of not wanting to waste government money is great. but in this case the implementation of that theme is dreadful.  and really, if wasting government money is such a big concern i think we have a few other glaring cases we could focus on instead.

I think the intent is in the right direction but the application is erroneous.

We all know the welfare & free lunch programs are screwed. They do not work as intended.

While existing to aid families in times of unemployment to provide shelter, food, and living expenses for families, far too frequently welfare money is used for “luxuries”. Luxuries like alcohol, cigarettes, scratch lottery tickets, internet service, cell phones, etc.

Families that cannot afford the $2/day school lunches are able to find the means for $5 cigarettes/day. Families that cannot afford food and clothing find a way to afford cable and internet and even SUV’s in some situations.

It’s a common criticism among schools. Families that cannot afford basic necessities find money to order plenty of trinkets and junk that schools sell via fundraisers. It creates quite a situation.

As others have pointed out, the testing for drugs, when a decent amount goes for legal drugs like alcohol and smokes is the mistake.

Food cards intended to spent at the grocery store are often used for monster drinks and beef jerky at the gas station.

It’s not limited to just those on welfare, but many of “us” that live beyond their means to have the things we don;t really need. Many states are simply in the situation where health and human services spending is creating deficits, and “working” is starting to be viewed by some as being “for chumps”, or having a situation where once transportation and child care is factored in so that working actually causes a low-income family to “lose money” when compared to receiving welfare and not working.

The whole system is screwed, and most know it ... but attacking the drug testing aspect seemingly plays on stereotypes and inaccurate information to play for public support. Real solutions are far more complicated, and I’m not sure I have an answer.

I freely admit that working among/for low income families has completely destroyed my perception of them and their situations. Simply put my empathy and sympathy have all but been used up from one negative experience after another. I could go on and on and sleep all day, party all night families where kids are basically on their own to get up in the morning and get to school and things of that nature, but it’s a lost cause. Unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally) we’ve created a system and a class of people that are entirely dependent on the government for survivial. Some would cll it a well designed system to maintain power and job security.

I think the founding fathers were accurate when they stated that a democracy only works until the people discover they can vote in whatever politician promises them the most free stuff (paraphrased).

I’m a state employee. I’d be willing to take a drug test if it was deemed necessary. I think I could argue that it’s more important for me to be drug free than it is for an unemployed person, given the nature of my responsibilities.

I’m not a founding father, and I actually never said that (click my name for more detail).  But I appreciate your sentiment and hearing about your experiences in this area.

- You’re right that Tyler was not a founding father and that the quotes are often attributed to him or one of three guys (all Scotsmen). FF have repeated similar sentiments and the flaws and drawbacks of democracies are not a secret and are generally obvious, so whoever gets credit for the ideas are really less important than the ideas themselves.

A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse
due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship

Although it’s often attributed to Tyler, I’m not really wanting to argue who said what, only the realities of democracies.

The general pattern of democracies: (Again, may or may not have been written/stated by Tyler)

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependency back into bondage.”

--------------------------------

It’s always possible that I am missing something. I thought that the [1] quote of democracy, and [2] pattern of democracy were written by different individuals, with numerous people having quotes of their own variation.