Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room The Factor

I was watching Bill ORielly on the Factor the other evening and the topic of the show was pending litigation that would require anyone asking for public assistance to submit to a drug screening.

As I watched this show I became aware of the unfair discrimination that is permeating our society.

Any opinions?

lb

What would be the purpose of the drug screening?

To make sure they're not using the welfare money on drugs? That's what I'm presuming anyhow.

Unfortunately, there is too much discrimination in many parts of society. (whether it's based on race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, income, political affiliation.) I work for a mental health provider and many of our clients are on welfare. I've heard a lot of people say mean things about them, basing their opinions on assumptions. (they think the clients are crazy, druggies, lazy) I can see how the testing would be useful in weeding out those who abuse the system, but it's not fair to the majority who don't.

LadyElton

Just a minor quibble with word usage. There is absolutely nothing wrong with discrimination. Discrimination is what keeps us from wearing brown socks with a blue suit. It's what helps us to eat chocolate rather than mud pies.

On the other hand, unfair discrimination is wrong.

The difference between discrimination and unfair discrimination is the difference between water and poisoned water.

If this is the reason for it, is there a basis to assume that a high percentage of welfare recipients are using welfare money for drugs? A high enough percentage to require all of them to be drug tested?

This would be a major cost in terms of cash to the government to pay for millions of drug tests as well as a major cost in terms of personal privacy rights. Not something I would want to see unless it could be shown that there is documentation (not speculation) that a high enough percentage (I would say approaching 50% or more is high enough for me)are using their welfare money for drugs. Just too damned expensive. I'd rather put the money into buying textbooks or reopening libraries.

Now, if there is another reason it has been proposed, I would like to hear that reason before I accept or reject the idea.

The unfair discrimination I was refering to was not toward the welfare recipients, but toward the people that pay the welfare, the people that work and pay taxes.

It is a common practice today, in order to get and hold a job, you have to submit to drug screening. If you are expected to get screened for drugs to earn money, what is wrong with screening to get money for nothing?

The ACLU claims that this legislation is discriminatory. Could some learned liberal explain this to me.

LP, you would have to do the test to get the documentation wouldn't you?

lb

No, you would not have to do the tests. One could simply match records of those in government sponsored/paid for rehab programs to whether they are receiving welfare.

Boys, and girls,

Drug testing need not be expensive. My cost for producing an 8 test UDA reportable result is 0.88 cents. That is a NIDA certified result, one you can take to court, complete with chain-of-custody documentation.

Test 'em, and whack 'em. Poor people shouldn't be bothered with the pariahs of the drug culture anymore than anyone else.

Maybe it need not be, but it is. The professional association I am affiliated with has a contract with the largest drug testing group in the US to get special group member rates and the cost depending on the tests conducted was in the neighborhood of 9 to 15 dollars.

Remember those thousand dollar hammers the government bought? No telling how much the tests would cost. The cost could very well exceed savings in a case like this.

What would they do with the results? Deny them welfare? Or, put them in drug rehab which would cost even more than the welfare?

This is one of those bright ideas that just wouldn't work, IMHO.

I post awhile back that I thought our society was reaching the point of being incapable of rational thinking.

The idea of allowing someone to commit fraud, as well as break other laws, and not take any action because the cost is higher to stop it than the crime cost is an example of irrational thinking.

What next, do we stop arresting armed robbers that stole less than the cost of prosecuting. There is no difference.

Was Lacy Peterson really worth the cost of the investigation and trial. Look how much we would save if we just drop the whole thing.

lb

If in fact you are using the largest lab, the testing is EMIT based, and the analyzers are supplied by Olympus.

I used to have their productivity studies laying around somewhere in my jumbled office.

Their raw cost is not very much more than mine.

Well said lb.

It seems to me, lb, that it is very logical to ask 1) what is the problem we are going to solve? 2) how extensive is that problem? and 3) what is the cost for solving it?

This is known as a cost benefit analysis.

I think you are jumping to conclusions in assuming that anyone had yet disagreed with the drug testing. Questions have been raised which include possible problems -- cost being one. But at this point, many of us are simply trying to gather information.

But I have yet to figure out what the problem is. The two answers I have seen were a guess that the purpose would be to make sure people do not spend welfare money on drugs and your assertion that welfare is disciiminatory against those not on welfare.

I can only assume that if Mr. O'reilly was advocating one position on this or the other that he was dong so based on a set of assumptions or facts. What were they and where did he get them.

It may be a good dea, it may not be. But until I know the extent of the problem (a basic definition of the problem Mr. O'Reilly had would be a nice start), the purpose and potential for success of the proposed solution and the cost for implementing this solution versus the benefits that would be achieved, I can't agree or disagree.

No: rationally spoken. (OR rather REASONABLY spoken, RATIONALITY is really another topic.)

Yes: morally spoken.

Personally, I would like us to be a moral nation. I'd like this country to be more specific about who we are rather than what we do.

LP

I really can’t say what O’reilly’s position was, or what assumptions and facts he was working from, nor is that important.

The point is that working people are required, by some assumption or fact that indicates a demonstrable percent of these people are substance abusers, to submit for substance abuse screening in order to obtain and to keep a job. The idea that these same assumptions or facts cannot be applied to the people on public assistance is discriminatory against every worker in the U.S.

The opponents of this legislation admitted that drug abuse among this group of people was wide spread, but to punish them was discriminatory and their state in life was punishment enough.

The idea of using a cost benefit analysis to justify something like this is ludicrous. Like I said, costs benefit Lacy Peterson, or the compensation to the 9/11 families, or the whole welfare system, and every social program in existence.

The concept of allowing anyone to commit fraud and break the law because the cost benefit ratio dictates it would cost more to prosecute, is a perfect example of today’s society not being capable of rational thinking.

lb

TomK

I would prefer the term moral also, but this is to subjective for most people today.

lb

lb

You can't complain that the society is incapable of rational thinking and then get upset when people try to look at things rationally.

From what you have said, it sounds as if Mr. O'Reilly simply wants to level the playing field. If people who apply for jobs have to take drug tests, then people who apply for welfare should have to take drug tests. Since you did not say what would be done with people who test positively, I have to assume that this is simply a fairness issue -- applicants for welfare should have to meet the same crieria on drug testing as applicants for jobs. I can only go on the information you have given us since I did not see the show.

It seems to me to be a bit ludicrous to test just to test so that we can say no one is being discriminated against, but if this is what the government wants to spend its money on, I could go for it.

My stepson (now 28) has chosen to use heroin for the past 5 years. He has been jailed, hospitalized, in 5 recovery houses and on skid row. It has been partially paid by me but mostly on the publics $. He has had seizures that have left him almost unemployable. He collects $208 a month plus foodstamps via the general relief program. He has made unsuccesful efforts at getting sober. He is not the victim of any crime, he has no congenital deficency either mental or physical. He is purely a victim of his own poor choices.

Should society give him a hand in training and food and lodging if he is clean and working at fixing his life ? In my opinion yes, despite the fact that his problems are self inflicted. Should he be drug tested to see that he is indeed clean, while getting that relief ? Absolutly, and relief should be withheld in the event of a positive test.

Steve

Yup..Steve's stepson's an A**hole, but there but for the grace of God...

"Help him." Me (or you): in slightly altered circumstances, "Help me."

LP

Lets hypothetically quantify this. Assuming that workers are required to be screened because of a substantial number of abuses, what would that number be? You earlier said that you thought 50% should trigger some kind of action.

Lets be conservative, if that term doesn’t make you choke, and say 30%.

Lets assume that this percentage is the same for people requesting public. Now reality says that it will be higher because all the rejects from the job screening will be applying for public assistance, but we will ignore this and stay with the 30%.

We have had 2 estimates on the cost of testing from people that are involved in doing this. The higher of these estimates was $18.00. so the cost of testing 100 people would be $1800.00 right.

The opponents of the legislation on the factor said that the average paid to a person on public assistance was $370.00 per month.

If the testing caught 30% and they were denied benefits we would save $11,100.00
Gross and $9,300.00 net.

Not a bad cost benefit ratio is it, and we were using very conservative numbers.

I won’t even include the moral benefits gained.

lb