North Carolina has taken a common sense approach to weed out those people taking advantage of the state’s welfare system.
The state wanted to test 159 people, which was 2% of total welfare applicants, for the presence of drugs. We assume these people were screened based on factors like previous drug convictions.
Of those 159 slated for screening, roughly half showed up, and 89 were tested. The other 70 welfare applicants inexplicably chose to skip the drug test.
Of the 89 who were checked, 21 were discovered to have the presence of drugs in their system.
This amounts to almost a quarter of all of those tested to be found with illegal substances in their system. These applicants were asked to repay the state the $55 testing fee.
Liberals might look at 23.5% and suggest that the number is not as bad as people make it sound, but they would be forgetting that 70 people did not show up to be tested when they were asked to.
While we don’t have the reasons for their absences, common sense might indicate that they were worried about the results of the tests.
If that was the case, and if they had tested positive, it would have propelled the first round of testing from 23.5% to well over 50%.
Some liberals are arguing that only .3 tested positive under the bizarre math that everyone that was not tested would have had a negative result and so they should just add those people to the math. And to make this math more bizarre is assumes that people selected who didn’t show up for the test, that potentially lost benefits by not showing up, all were drug free as well.
But even accepting the logic the pre screening is 100% effective is still not a good argument against this program. This program targeted likely drug users. And therefore it seems fairly effective considering the high rate of people either failing the test or now showing up for the test (which again many of the people that failed to show up likely realized they would fail the test). For the population tested the test resulted in 25% positive screenings. This means that a simple $55 likely results in tax payer savings (Or instead of savings that money could be used to fund scholarships for low income high school students). And the people that didn’t show up the cost of the test was $0 and also resulted in savings.
So in summary here is what we know and don’t know.
1) In the test 159 people were selected to be likely drug users 44% of the people (70) failed to show up for the test. Of those that showed up for the test 23.5% of them failed the test. So if all 159 people were tested the percent that would have tested positive would have been between 21 (13.2%) and 91 (57.2%). My guess is that number would be closer to 57% than 13%. But without hard data we don’t know either way.
2) We don’t know what the results would be if everyone in the entire population was tested. Its highly doubtful it would be .3 percent. But that said my guess is that it would be far lower than the percent that tested positive in the test sample. So without actual data its hard to know if testing everyone would be cost effective.
My guess is that testing everyone screened as a likely drug user would be effective since it was effective in this case. And then doing 2% random testing would be effective in the sense that people using money for drugs would be less likely to sign up for welfare. The reason this seems true is because in this test 44% of the people flagged failed to show up for the test. That way you are testing and screening people most likely to be active drug users that would use welfare to buy drugs. And you are potentially deterring other people from applying since they would be worried about being randomly selected if they are active drug users.
The idea behind the drug testing is pretty simple.
The tax payers work hard for their money, and their occupations vary. Many of those people paying taxes are forced to take drug tests for their jobs.
The State, gets to tax those wages to do things to benefit the collective.
One of those things that the government has chosen to handle is the caring for of those who can not seemingly make enough money to care for themselves.
The government provides for these less fortunates with the money that it has collected from the tax payers.
If those seeking welfare are in fact using their own money to buy illegal drugs, then they are abusing the system by using it as a supplement to their personal income.
In addition, if someone is an active drug user it makes little sense to give them money that could be used to buy additional drugs. In short giving active drug users money is bad for tax payers and could also be bad for the drug users.
They should be using their money to get themselves back on their feet, and to buy their household’s food, but they are clearly not doing so if they are purchasing drugs.
Why should the tax payers be burdened with taking care of someone who wants to sit at home and smoke weed?
What do you think about the drug testing of welfare applicants? Is it fair, or asking too much of applicants?
Source: US Herald
There was a picture previously in this article. It was a typical photo of a welfare office. The article is about North Carolina. The previous picture was from New Jersey. It was the building door for 50 South Clinton Street, East Orange, NJ at the Essex County Welfare building and Unemployment Office.
Although the picture was of a welfare office it was of a welfare office in another state therefore the picture has been removed.
We want to thank a reader for sending us this information.
Also we want to note that the article has been updated to reflect that the people tested were chosen based on the fact they had previous drug convictions.