States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Well this is startling, and hopefully has no connection to this proposed policy, but I came across this article on the front page of bluelight.ru:

...as scientists and researchers sponsored by the Marijuana Policy Project gave a startling demonstration of false positive drug test results obtained using some of the most widely used field testing kits employed by law enforcement to detect the presence of marijuana and other drugs.

"While testing the specificity of the KN Reagent test kits with 42 non-marijuana substances, I observed that 70% of these tests rendered a false positive,"

Imagine being on welfare, and having to submit to this test, and due to a false positive losing your benefits! Even if you are able to fight it and eventually have it corrected, what happens for the weeks/months that you're fighting this? Quite a scary prospect for those who'd be facing this.

Kampia told the press conference. "Natural soap, chocolate and newspaper, among other household items, all will test positive for marijuana and other drugs such as GHB, yet these kits continue to be used in both arrests and prosecutions nationwide. In our society we have the principle that you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. These tests turn that on its head."

This is horrifying on so many levels! The researchers even took a sample of the air/atmosphere, and it turned up a positive for coc aine!

Mintwood Media's Adam Eidinger produced a positive test result for coc aine with another kit simply by exposing it to the atmosphere. "This is just air," Eidinger said, opening up a test and waving it as the reagent turned orange, indicating a positive result.

*Note: the above quote was taken from the link which referenced the article, and is located here

Here's the link to the article:
Startling Research on False-Positive Drug Tests

Originally posted by Highground
To whoever posted that "study" that claimed there was no more drug use among the welfare society than in "standard" society:

That study was conducted almost 17 years ago. There's going to be social changes. This study from 9 years ago states that drug use is 50% more common among welfare families than non-welfare families:

This study examined the prevalence of drug use in a nationally representative sample of 1989 recipients and 6840 nonrecipients of four welfare programs. Data from the 1995 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) were analyzed using the conditional form of multiple logistic regression with matching of respondents on neighborhood of residence. Weighted proportions and variances accounting for the complex sample design of the NHSDA survey were estimated using the Taylor series linearization method, The results indicate that drug use is 50% more common in households with welfare recipients than in nonwelfare households. Programs making welfare eligibility contingent on the recipient working toward a drug-free lifestyle are worth examining, although a vigilant eye must be kept on the potential unintended consequences.

cat.inist.fr...

If you're referring to the study I sourced, you are mistaken. The study was conducted in 1996. 12, maybe 13 years ago. I don't think the 3 to 4-year gap would account for any significant "societal changes" you allude to. Really, it's "your" study versus "mine". Mine was conducted by the National Institutes of Health. Yours was conducted by the National Survey on Drug Use & Health. I suppose one can pick their poison. When I have more time on my hands, I'll compare the methodologies and comment on that.

Just for the sake of communal education on the subject, here is a case where damning statistics are bandied about by an organization formed to "study" substance abuse which have not been subjected to peer review and are generally considered suspect by experts who do submit their work for peer review:

The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse: A Center for Alcohol Statistics Abuse?

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim

Originally posted by Highground
To whoever posted that "study" that claimed there was no more drug use among the welfare society than in "standard" society:

That study was conducted almost 17 years ago. There's going to be social changes. This study from 9 years ago states that drug use is 50% more common among welfare families than non-welfare families:

This study examined the prevalence of drug use in a nationally representative sample of 1989 recipients and 6840 nonrecipients of four welfare programs. Data from the 1995 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) were analyzed using the conditional form of multiple logistic regression with matching of respondents on neighborhood of residence. Weighted proportions and variances accounting for the complex sample design of the NHSDA survey were estimated using the Taylor series linearization method, The results indicate that drug use is 50% more common in households with welfare recipients than in nonwelfare households. Programs making welfare eligibility contingent on the recipient working toward a drug-free lifestyle are worth examining, although a vigilant eye must be kept on the potential unintended consequences.

cat.inist.fr...

If you're referring to the study I sourced, you are mistaken. The study was conducted in 1996. 12, maybe 13 years ago. I don't think the 3 to 4-year gap would account for any significant "societal changes" you allude to. Really, it's "your" study versus "mine". Mine was conducted by the National Institutes of Health. Yours was conducted by the National Survey on Drug Use & Health. I suppose one can pick their poison. When I have more time on my hands, I'll compare the methodologies and comment on that.

To add briefly to this reply, the study which you've cited is based on data collected in 1995 -- 13-14 years old.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by JohnnyElohim]

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
I can honeslty say, after stepping away from this thread for a few days that the only people I see defending not being held to a drug test, are people who think that smoking marijuana is ok, and should not be questioned.

Hmm. Later in your post, you insinuate that the only people who disagree with you are nasty druggies - bad form. But listen: you might be partially right. I imagine a lot of people who find this whole thing to be such an insidious and upsetting prospect do think that prohibition is an absurd, puritan notion that does more harm than good (with the exception of the DEA's budget). A lot of people around here talk about the importance of shrinking government, but it seems that many of them don't see the irony in the fact that their support for criminalizing victimless activities robs money from taxpayers to pay for gun-toting LEA employees to enforce their moralist, ascetic leanings. Just saying.

reply to post by Blanca Rose


It's nice to see that you are open minded enough to generalize and categorize the posters that oppose this legislation as drinkers and druggies.

Drinking and drugging do not go hand in hand, there are many who smoke weed and do not drink alcohol, and many who drink alcohol that do not smoke weed. Also, and i could be wrong here, i believe the alcohol comes before the weed.

Yes rehabilitation is the key for people who abuse, but not everyone who drinks, or does drugs is abusing it. Just because someone can't pass a pee test doesn't mean that they are abusing drugs, for example someone can smoke a joint and the traces of it stays in their system for 28 days.

Just how much does a person have to drink in order to have their children taken away from them? Would you take their children away if they have two beers everyday, or a glass of wine everyday to unwind after work ?

Yes it's nice to believe in that fantasy world that the many people that can't have children would take these kids in a moment, but take a look in the real world and see just how many of these children are sitting in foster care (where they are quite often made to endure worse) waiting endlessly for these loving people that you speak of to come and take them.

To those of you looking down your sanctimonious noses at ppl on benefits;
Some of the recipients are disabled persons. Ppl that have worked most of their lives and paid into the system, so that they would have insurance of still being able to exist.
As for the recipients being drug-tested; I believe that the guv has it's nose in enough of ppl's biz.

The deep entrenchment of myths and fears about "illegal drugs" in the U.S. and some other countries is as good an example of government brainwashing as there is anywhere. In the U.S. they have been particularly successful in leading a huge part of the population to believe that something is what it is not.

I can understand people not wanting their money (in the form of taxes) to be used for something they don't believe in, but its unavoidable. Our governments spend all kinds of money on things we don't like - like war, for example, or propping up loser banks.

I would suggest those are greater sins to be worried about than some guy whose life is crap to start with, and who has a serious addiction to boot. Its pretty narrow minded to start with. Easier to kick a guy when he's down than tackle the bully who is really making your life harder.

Originally posted by wayno
Easier to kick a guy when he's down than tackle the bully who is really making your life harder.

Exactly! Its a case of those who are now in fear of their economic lives taking their frustration out on an easy target

this is the most idiotic crap i have heard of in along time if you wanna stop drugs you invade columbia and knock out the farms. if you spent half the money you spend a day in iraq on drug war problem would disappear. why penalize the poorest people in the country while giving the wealthiest tarp payments. if you are running out of money for these programs cut off all the illegal aliens getting public assistance period. next the rich s.o.b.s in p[ower will be cutting out all the poor people from getting booze. why cutting off people that test positive then you will be making crime shoot through rafters.

I agree that we should ensure those who are milking the government teet are not using illegal substances while being subsidized with taxpayer dollars.

However, when comparing drug testing of welfare recipients and drug testing of employees, has anyone pointed out that one very important reason for testing employees is because of the impairments that come with drug use and the safety issues in the workplace?

Those work safety issues don't necessarily apply to welfare recipients.

In the end I'm totally against restricting one's ability to earn a living as a means to dictate social policy.

I am also totally against government funded welfare.

reply to post by aLiiEn


Hurrah a voice of truth. If it is wrong to drug test without probable cause and in violation of the 4th amendment, letting them expand it does not make it right.
I stand on the Constitution for every man, women and child in America. I stand for what's right, not what is politically correct.

reply to post by skeptic1


First of all...you are HOT!!! I love redheads...mmmmm

Second: Better late that never. This whole drug testing welfare recipients has been a hotspot for me for several years! I personally feel the only people that would oppose this would be folks on welfare that CANNOT pass a randomly administered drug test. Why do not the folks on welfare have to give an itemized list of properties, possessions, incomes(of everyone in the household), etc. If I apply for a business loan, personal loan, assistance, bankruptcy, etc. I have to submit this information.

Very few things irk me as much as waiting in line for someone to spend hundreds of dollars on groceries...that I cannot afford...to watch them walk out and put it all into an Escalade...or they have to search through their stack of credit cards to find their access card...or while having 5 kids in tow, pregnant, jawing on the cell phone, chewing on a McDonalds burger, bitching about the lack of free services/items at the state funded FREE childcare/after school programs, while I don't get # for free...because I make to much money to qualify.

I have 3 little ones at home. I am the only working adult. I don't ask for help, but my wife did look into food assistance, I make too much for ANY kind of assistance!

I can be randomly drug tested...it is my money being used for these folks...why can/should they not be?

reply to post by chise61

Yes rehabilitation is the key for people who abuse, but not everyone who drinks, or does drugs is abusing it. Just because someone can't pass a pee test doesn't mean that they are abusing drugs, for example someone can smoke a joint and the traces of it stays in their system for 28 days.

Well...they cannot get a job either! Why should I not be upset that if an individual cannot get a job due to drug use, he should be entitled to any monies from the state. I am fully aware that just because you use does not mean abuse...I smoke pot(not advocating it Mods)...however I do not do it at my job...or anywhere that it can affect my family. I don't deal, I don't smoke while driving, I don't give my teenage son any...etc. However I do feel that since I do work a fulltime job, feed my children, pay my bills, keep my wife smiling, etc. that if I want to, I will! I don't get any help from the state, or government either.

Like it or not, this is my standpoint!

reply to post by sizzle

It is true that many of these people are on disability. My wife is one of them. But the only drugs she takes are those prescribed by her doctor. As I have stated before, I see patients who are on welfare and medicare who test positive for cannabis and coc aine. (We also test for opiates and amphetimenes but those may be prescribed. I won't include those in the argument.
But what do you do for those who abuse the system?

so what happens when an addict on welfare can no longer get food or drugs? that would be a tsunami of a crime wave.

I've been back n forth on this

but i say "HEY LETS DRUG TEST THE ENTIRE NATION"
see how people react
i'm alright jack i don't even drink hehehe
maybe i shouldn't even get a say