Luiz 4,253 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 RALEIGH, N.C. — The N.C. Senate approved a bill Wednesday that would require people applying for public assistance to pass a drug test and would require local Department of Social Service offices to conduct criminal background checks on applicants, according to WRAL. The drug test requirement calls for applicants to pay for the test and bans anyone with a positive test from receiving benefits for a year, unless they can show they have completed a substance abuse treatment program and can pass a subsequent test. Under current law, DSS offices may ask someone if they’re a fugitive or conduct a criminal background check, but they are not allowed to share that information with local sheriffs or other law enforcement agencies. According to WRAL, the House version of the bill called for social service workers to call law enforcement if someone applying for Food and Nutrition Assistance, what many people call food stamps, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which are cash payments, is found to have an outstanding warrant. The Senate version says the Social Services Commission will draft rules for what information will be shared with law enforcement. http://myfox8.com/2013/07/10/nc-senate-approves-drug-testing-for-welfare/ I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Should be a national policy imo.. Seriously, welfare and aid are for people who 'can't' get work or have some hinderence preventing them from working....not just cause they wanna get loaded and relax or whatever. like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMKKARDASHiAN 8,570 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Good. This should have happened years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJH219 4,448 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Finally something good from the wack jobs in Raleigh! It is unfortunate it had to come to this, but there are way too many people who abuse this system. Hopefully now the system will actually help those who truly need it 'All our dreams can come true IF we have the courage to pursue them'-Walt Disney Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJHolland 12,725 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 THANK YOU! It makes me so happy to see people on a liberal site like this actually have a positive reaction to this. It should really be pushed on a national level, it's extremely common sense public policy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luiz 4,253 Posted December 30, 2015 Author Share Posted December 30, 2015 http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/ just reading his it seems very costly the people who are drug addicts likely arent even going in and trying to get welfare which is why the amount that test positive is so low. they're not just going to wither away and die of starvation either, they're going to do other things for their money now found this article too. http://www.snopes.com/should-we-drug-test-welfare-recipients/ <full Although numerous articles have addressed the issue of whether drug testing of welfare applicants/recipients is a cost-effective use of taxpayer money and whether the results of such programs have actually been effective, many such analyses fail to consider some important factors on both sides of the equation. Most states that conduct welfare drug testing combine paper questionnaires followed by physical drug testing if an applicant's answers on the questionnaire indicate a strong probability that the applicant is a substance abuser. Based upon the figures shown below, several states count only the money spent on actual drug testing in the cost of their programs. However, there is a very real cost associated with the personnel time required to administer and interpret those questionnaires, to administer the contract with the testing company, and to follow up with the individuals referred for drug testing. Therefore, the cost of such maintaining such programs can be significantly underestimated. Many of the news articles that have been written about welfare drug testing have cited extremely low rates of positive test results as evidence showing the ineffectiveness of drug testing programs. However, those articles typically arrived at their figures by counting all of the individuals who went through the paper screening process rather than the number who actually took drug tests. If we look at the number of positive test results as a percentage of people who actually take drug tests, the percentage of positive tests results increases substantially. But drug testing might nonetheless be considered ineffective for other reasons, chief among them that there are numerous ways applicants can game the system. They can lie on their questionnaires about previous drug use, for example. Or they can simply refrain from using drugs for a few days before their scheduled test dates (since these are not randomly-administered surprise tests) by which time most drugs will have cleared out of their systems enough for them to pass urine-based tests. (Alcohol, amphetamines, and barbiturates all clear out of a person's urine after four days or so. Marijuana lingers longest, for roughly 30 days. Hair testing, which is rarely used, would show drug use within the last 90 days.) The main premise behind drug testing of welfare applicants is that the state will save money by kicking drug addicts off of welfare and thereby denying them benefits (which they will presumably waste on little more than supporting their drug habits.) In addition, there's a moral aspect to drug testing: some states have explicitly said that they don't want welfare dollars to be used to facilitate substance-abusing lifestyles. Only Arizona and Utah have published any figures on welfare cost savings associated with denying benefits to those who test positive, the former showing a net savings of a mere $3,500 for 26 individuals who either tested positive or failed to show up for their drug testing appointments, for an overall saving of less than $135 per person. Although Arizona’s TANF benefits are estimated to be only between $2 and $3 per person per day (don't expect to get rich off of welfare!), this amounts to little more than two months' worth of savings even at the low end of the range. According to Arizona's Department of Economic Security, the average adult receives TANF benefits for approximately 14 months. Utah claims to have saved $350,000 during their first year of drug testing. Although only 12 individuals in that state tested positive, an additional 250 were barred from receiving benefits for three months and would have received an estimated $350,000 in welfare if drug testing had not been in place. Seven states thus far have active drug testing programs (others are in the process of being implemented or have been suspended due to court rulings questioning their constitutionality): I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlopSlut 1,190 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 GOOD lol Flopenstein Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiphEret 1,320 Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Lame Sur le sable sur la neige, Sur les images dorées,Sur le front de mes amis, J’écris ton nom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJH219 4,448 Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 14 minutes ago, TiphEret said: Lame Just like the people who use welfare for the wrong reasons. Try again sweetie 'All our dreams can come true IF we have the courage to pursue them'-Walt Disney Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 17 hours ago, Luiz said: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/ just reading his it seems very costly the people who are drug addicts likely arent even going in and trying to get welfare which is why the amount that test positive is so low. they're not just going to wither away and die of starvation either, they're going to do other things for their money now found this article too. http://www.snopes.com/should-we-drug-test-welfare-recipients/ <full Although numerous articles have addressed the issue of whether drug testing of welfare applicants/recipients is a cost-effective use of taxpayer money and whether the results of such programs have actually been effective, many such analyses fail to consider some important factors on both sides of the equation. Most states that conduct welfare drug testing combine paper questionnaires followed by physical drug testing if an applicant's answers on the questionnaire indicate a strong probability that the applicant is a substance abuser. Based upon the figures shown below, several states count only the money spent on actual drug testing in the cost of their programs. However, there is a very real cost associated with the personnel time required to administer and interpret those questionnaires, to administer the contract with the testing company, and to follow up with the individuals referred for drug testing. Therefore, the cost of such maintaining such programs can be significantly underestimated. Many of the news articles that have been written about welfare drug testing have cited extremely low rates of positive test results as evidence showing the ineffectiveness of drug testing programs. However, those articles typically arrived at their figures by counting all of the individuals who went through the paper screening process rather than the number who actually took drug tests. If we look at the number of positive test results as a percentage of people who actually take drug tests, the percentage of positive tests results increases substantially. But drug testing might nonetheless be considered ineffective for other reasons, chief among them that there are numerous ways applicants can game the system. They can lie on their questionnaires about previous drug use, for example. Or they can simply refrain from using drugs for a few days before their scheduled test dates (since these are not randomly-administered surprise tests) by which time most drugs will have cleared out of their systems enough for them to pass urine-based tests. (Alcohol, amphetamines, and barbiturates all clear out of a person's urine after four days or so. Marijuana lingers longest, for roughly 30 days. Hair testing, which is rarely used, would show drug use within the last 90 days.) The main premise behind drug testing of welfare applicants is that the state will save money by kicking drug addicts off of welfare and thereby denying them benefits (which they will presumably waste on little more than supporting their drug habits.) In addition, there's a moral aspect to drug testing: some states have explicitly said that they don't want welfare dollars to be used to facilitate substance-abusing lifestyles. Only Arizona and Utah have published any figures on welfare cost savings associated with denying benefits to those who test positive, the former showing a net savings of a mere $3,500 for 26 individuals who either tested positive or failed to show up for their drug testing appointments, for an overall saving of less than $135 per person. Although Arizona’s TANF benefits are estimated to be only between $2 and $3 per person per day (don't expect to get rich off of welfare!), this amounts to little more than two months' worth of savings even at the low end of the range. According to Arizona's Department of Economic Security, the average adult receives TANF benefits for approximately 14 months. Utah claims to have saved $350,000 during their first year of drug testing. Although only 12 individuals in that state tested positive, an additional 250 were barred from receiving benefits for three months and would have received an estimated $350,000 in welfare if drug testing had not been in place. Seven states thus far have active drug testing programs (others are in the process of being implemented or have been suspended due to court rulings questioning their constitutionality): Interesting points. No system is perfect. Those who are 'qualified' drug addicts due to previous medical problems should be able to qualify for assistance. Beating the testing system is surely one of the ways unlawlful minded individuals will seeks to make illbegotten income. Insurance fraud and false identification along with fake citizenship documents are also a problem for the system. All of which cost honest taxpayers and hurt those who 'truely' need the help that the system was meant for. like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spooky 501 Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 The drug testing is kind of a grey area for me (a lot of people don't take into account the reasons why others use drugs), but the background check is absolutely absurd. I really don't think those with a criminal history should be denied public assistance, especially if they've done their time. like a ghost, i vanish into you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,888 Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I think this is a great idea. How they implement it is the key here, and I hope they can implement it with limited cost and hopefully they make it tight enough that it can't be circumvented and abused. (like someone else taking the test for you) This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.