It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by NOTurTypical
You said that it's not a bad thing for welfare folks to be drug free or something along those lines.
Since when it is your (or anyone else's) business what they do while they're on welfare? If they are doing something illegal, it will eventually catch up to them.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by NOTurTypical
That's nice, I am not sure why you replied to me when I replied to your detractor showing him why you were right and he was not right.
ETA: I can only assume you are used to people responding to you without being on your side, in this case I am not on anyones side, but logically your stance is the correct one.edit on 19-8-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)
Proportions of welfare recipients using, abusing, or dependent on alcohol or illicit drugs are consistent with proportions of both the adult U.S. population and adults who do not receive welfare, report National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism researchers in the November American Journal of Public Health.
the proportion of welfare recipients who use other drugs (3.8 to 9.8 across programs) was comparable to 5.0 in the general population.
they were drug free already and passed because of that fact.
One thing that has been missing from this argument is proof that "98% of welfare users are on drugs", etc.
Originally posted by doobydoll
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by Vrill
www.nytimes.com...
They completely failed. 98% of those on welfare passed them. The state spent more testing everyone than it saved in weeding marijuana use out from 2% of welfare recipients.
The only winner of the program was the states governor who owned the medical company doing the tests.
What is unknown is the number of people who stayed drug-free because of the law. How can you quantify that number? If 98% were drug free it seems like the law had outstanding effect.
Why do you object so much that poor people on welfare are taking from the system, but don't bat an eyelid about the fact that, although they don't need it, the rich gov and his wife are taking far more from the same system?