States want to start drug testing welfare recipients

Cuba

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
756
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
PA
Visit site
Finally some common sense coming from the government, not the federal government of course, but the states. Several states are moving to enact drug testing policies for welfare and unemployment recipients, but I'll bet you $787 billion or so that Congress will attack them and attempt to stop this. What argument could you make that this is somehow unreasonable or unfair? You need to get tested for most jobs these days, but it's okay to sit at home getting high all day while on welfare and unemployment? How do they plan on getting a job when they wouldn't pass a drug test? I know plenty of potheads on unemployment that wouldn't be relaxing and not worried about finding a new job if they were getting drug tests as a result of the benefits. As soon as Obama announced his endless unemployment policy two people that I know STOPPED looking for work. These programs are not a lifestyle choice, they are not meant to make you comfortable, they are not there so you can take a federally funded vacation. They are meant to keep you alive while you find work. We need to support this initiative!!



CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site — notwithmytaxdollars.com — that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.

A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.

In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.

Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.

"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."

Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.

Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.

In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.

The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.

But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

At least six states — Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia — tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.

They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.
 

champion221elite

Super Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
1,116
Reaction score
11
Points
0
Location
Boyne City, Mi
Visit site
It's about darned time if this legislation is true! My employer has a drug testing policy for pre-employment screening, random screening, and critical event screening. Basically, it means they can test me whenever they feel like it. I'm sure some folks will claim it's a violation of their civil rights, and an embarassment, but they need to remember who's putting food on their table everyday.

I believe that welfare does serve a much needed purpose in our society. However, I see that our current welfare system is broken and needs a serious overhaul. Hopefully this drug testing will be a step in the right direction.
 

Red Wazp

Super Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
2,518
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Location
Peardale, Ca
Visit site
I'm an employer and I do have a drug testing policy in place. It is simple, don't give me a reason to test you and I won't.
 

DaveOTZ

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
397
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Location
Astoria, NY
Visit site
Finally some common sense coming from the government, not the federal government of course, but the states. Several states are moving to enact drug testing policies for welfare and unemployment recipients, but I'll bet you $787 billion or so that Congress will attack them and attempt to stop this. What argument could you make that this is somehow unreasonable or unfair? You need to get tested for most jobs these days, but it's okay to sit at home getting high all day while on welfare and unemployment? How do they plan on getting a job when they wouldn't pass a drug test? I know plenty of potheads on unemployment that wouldn't be relaxing and not worried about finding a new job if they were getting drug tests as a result of the benefits. As soon as Obama announced his endless unemployment policy two people that I know STOPPED looking for work. These programs are not a lifestyle choice, they are not meant to make you comfortable, they are not there so you can take a federally funded vacation. They are meant to keep you alive while you find work. We need to support this initiative!!

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site — notwithmytaxdollars.com — that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

I know I will probably get crap for this, but really it is definitely this black and white... This is the same class warfare that Obama has waged against the richest in the country...
So we as a country have been taking more and more steps to create laws that affect less and less people at a clip... This slope was started with the schiavo case and is jut normal practice... nobody wants big government but its less scary than a LOT of little government (read micromanaging small populations)
There will always be people on all points of the socio-economic spectrum looking to exploit the system... Welfare recipients taking advantage of the system, blue-collar workers exploiting disability insurance, or millionaire tycoons going bankrupt multiple times over to shirk on their fiduciary responsibilities.
Welfare recipients smoking pot are not great investments, but neither are millionaire execs that are making multi-million dollar salaries, for failing at their jobs while doing lines of coke.
Im not saying anyone is wrong but we need to look at this thing globally.
I have personally worked with so many people that would put in 50 hour weeks and actually harm a companies bottom line putting people out of work. (while doing drugs or not) Ive also worked with single (disabled) moms that are transitioning off of TANF and smoking a 5 dollar joint on the weekend because they are forgoing their PAXIL until their health insurance kicks in.
The whole system is screwed and subjucating those that have screwed up priorities only serves to give them another way to support their existence that will inevitably result in us the taxpayers taking on more of their burden.

So you smoke pot while on TANF they pull TANF, so they get desperate rob some middle class family that is skirting poverty right now, that family is now on TANF and the guy who smoked the pot is living off tax dollars in a prison...
People in this country need to remember our roots of humility and humbleness... The richest man needs to recognize that he is only a room away from welfare... Sorry I couldn't hold back... I just wanna ride my bike
 

dako81

FZ Rider
Elite Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
9
Points
38
Location
St.Joe/Kalamazoo Michigan
Visit site
I think this is actually a good idea. These recipients are getting taxpayer money to help them out. Drugs are not something that taxpayer money should pay for, now yes I know you can't cash out your food stamps for a quarter pound, but if they have cash to buy drugs, they should be using that for food. If they're just living off the tax money and spending the money they earn on other things like using it as bonus money, they shouldn't get tax money.

Now, I think people should be able to buy drugs and use them if they want, it's their choice, but when they're being subsidized by tax money, they should be held accountable for that and the help should be taken away.

It's time that the money given out starts getting managed similarly to what charities do. Charities check up on you if they're helping you out and if you don't improve, they stop giving you money.

Welfare shouldn't be a means to sustain yourself, but something to help you out when you need it the most. Buying drugs is wasting money that should be used to get off of welfare.
 

oldfast007

Thread Killer
Elite Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
23
Points
0
Location
NH
Visit site
Spekaing from expirence:(years ago...If you need assistance of any kind and you have hit the "skids" enough to swallow your pride(that alomost kills you) and ask for help and have tried desperately to keep things afloat for your family but couldn't. You deserve the help !! If you seek it for any other reason you need to QUALIFY! period, help should never be a generational entitlement !!

Just my 2...
 

FZ6771

Junior Member
Joined
May 12, 2008
Messages
294
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Austin, Texas
Visit site
They tried to do this in my home state of Louisiana back in 1989 but the dems voted it down. I think Obama and his supporters will be against this too, they want their votes. I can't tell a welfare mother that she has got to act morally responsible and stop doing drugs and having illegitimate kids but, DON'T TELL ME I GOT TO PAY FOR IT ! I'm sick of lazy 400 pound crack smokin welfare bums having crack babies that cost tax payers billions of $$$$ and women who have 8 kids by 8 different men . WE don't need any more gang members , its time to end the cycle. when you drop out of school and start smoking crack and having babies when you're only 15 years old you will be poor and on welfare. I'm all for legalizing marijuana but these people have big problems and giving them more money is not the answer.
 
Last edited:

Kilbane83

Member With Members
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
351
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Location
San Antonio, TX
Visit site
I'm all for it. I think that drug use, even recreational has become almost socially acceptable in this country. I agree it's their choice and they can do whatever they want with their money.. but it doesn't make it legal or right.

Now when on welfare, it simply isn't thier money. I don't know too many crack heads that would make good parents anyway. It may sound cruel and messed up, but honestly our country can do w/o people that don't even try to offer anything to society. I don't buy the whole "oh they need help to get out" speech. They dug the hole in the first place, and most of them use the "help" to get comfortable down there. I don't mind helping someone through rehab, because yeah, people make bad choices and do stupid things sometimes, but at least that's an attempt to better themselves. Most addicts on welfare or unemployment don't want to try at all. They line up and say give me my money for nothing so I can buy drugs for free, because we deserve it for having 9 kids that I can't take care of, or getting fired for being lazy. The logic of welfare is beyond me.
 

Fred

M em b er e d
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
63
Points
0
Location
Austin, TX
www.robietech.com
How about we legalize marijuana at the same time? Then you're just left testing people for steroid, meth, heroin, and cocaine use. You know, the bad drugs.

Pot is no worse than alcohol. And unless you're willing to test welfare recipients to see if they've been drinking, you are playing favorites with drugs.

When you talk about welfare recipients sitting around getting high, I have different priorities.

I don't care about them getting high. They are on welfare! Their lives suck! Getting high is the only vacation they're going to get for the next few years.

What I care about is that they're sitting around. I believe that when you apply for welfare, you should have to meet with a career counselor who will see what job skills you have and what you're good at. And then that counselor points you to some job training schools.

The goal of welfare is to keep you alive so you can find work again. Let's embrace that concept fully and say that the goal is to HELP you get a job again, by giving you new skills. After 6 months on welfare, you know how to operate a lathe, or repair radios, or anything that is taught in trade schools.

And, if you want to keep these welfare checks coming, show us good report cards. A's and B's my friend, or we stop paying your tuition and cut you off.

Let's pay more on welfare and pay tuition for the majority of welfare recipients who want off of welfare. Get em trained and get em working. I'm against handouts. I'm all for investing in people.

Rant off.
 
Last edited:

boo68

I'm a girl dammit!
Premium Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
732
Reaction score
13
Points
0
Location
Cape Cod
Visit site
I am for it as well. If you are doing drugs for recreational purpose, or self medication, you can get prescriptions. I do believe that the healthcare is immediate with the assistance application process, it is on a temporary basis and if they qualify they go to permanent. I have been drug tested for jobs before, and have no problem with it. These firms need to know if they have responsible employees running their businesses with them. Also, there are many women who have their illegitimate spawn's donor living with them while they are collecting welfare, getting their rent paid for and free health insurance.. while this guy is out working and making plenty of money for their nice vehicles etc.. I am not saying everyone is guilty of this, there are wonderful people (men & women)out there who have been deserted, or lost jobs and need the help to get on their feet, with training for new jobs etc. People should not be objecting to this testing if they want to receive help from the taxpayers. :scared: ready for flaming
 

Crotalus

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Peach Creek, WV USA
Visit site
I have to do random drug testing from the state....because I work for the West Virginia National Guard!! I have no patience for people complaining about testing. You want taxpayer money?? Obey the law. It's that simple.
 

champion221elite

Super Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
1,116
Reaction score
11
Points
0
Location
Boyne City, Mi
Visit site
From a law enforcement standpoint, I have seen welfare and drug use go hand in hand. Just this past week, a local woman was arrested for selling/trading her prescription pain killers.

This woman lives in subsidized low income apartments (taxpayers foot the bill)
She claims to be disabled from a drunk driving accident where her BAC was .270%:eek: She is on Medicaid and is known to many local doctors and hospitals as a "seeker" (person who constantly wants narcotic pain killers). An undercover dope sting caught her repeatedly selling her pain killers for $80 per pill, or exchanging her pain meds for Heroin or Meth.

This woman is able to keep her income artificially low because she deals in cash transactions. I'm fine with people who need public assistance because they're disabled, or fell upon hard times. I understand that stuff happens, and folks might need a hand to get back on their feet.

Welfare, and subsidized housing should not be a means for a person to sit on their butts all day long doing nothing to further themselves or society. If they're disabled and need the pain medications so badly, why are they selling them at a huge profit while taxpayers are stuck funding their lifestyle.

I welcome the drug testing for welfare, hopefully it will help eliminate some of the leeches that are bleeding our society dry.
 

Cuba

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
756
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
PA
Visit site
How about we legalize marijuana at the same time? Then you're just left testing people for steroid, meth, heroin, and cocaine use. You know, the bad drugs.

Pot is no worse than alcohol. And unless you're willing to test welfare recipients to see if they've been drinking, you are playing favorites with drugs.

When you talk about welfare recipients sitting around getting high, I have different priorities.

I don't care about them getting high. They are on welfare! Their lives suck! Getting high is the only vacation they're going to get for the next few years.

What I care about is that they're sitting around. I believe that when you apply for welfare, you should have to meet with a career counselor who will see what job skills you have and what you're good at. And then that counselor points you to some job training schools.

The goal of welfare is to keep you alive so you can find work again. Let's embrace that concept fully and say that the goal is to HELP you get a job again, by giving you new skills. After 6 months on welfare, you know how to operate a lathe, or repair radios, or anything that is taught in trade schools.

And, if you want to keep these welfare checks coming, show us good report cards. A's and B's my friend, or we stop paying your tuition and cut you off.

Let's pay more on welfare and pay tuition for the majority of welfare recipients who want off of welfare. Get em trained and get em working. I'm against handouts. I'm all for investing in people.

Rant off.

Fred I agree with most of what you're saying here. It should be a program, not a handout. I do have a problem welfare/unemployed getting high though, for several reasons. #1 is they are spending my money on illegal drugs for themselves. #2 is that if they are full of THC they won't be eligible for most jobs. #3 is that they should be actively searching for work every day of the week, not taking weed naps and partying it up every 1st and 15th of the month (I'm not making empty accusations- this happens a lot in this country, I've seen it first hand) #4 is that they are supporting an illegal enterprise that spreads violence, murder, theft, and destroys lives through addiction (I'm speaking more towards coke and heroin there) and #5 is that personally, if I were to take a major hit and end up on unemployment, the last thing that would help is getting high and feeling okay with the situation. You shouldn't feel okay on welfare, you should feel constant pressure to get back in the game.

I agree that weed is not in the same realm as hard drugs and shouldn't be treated as such, however it is the very feeling of safety that makes it a problem IMO. If you were getting drunk all day everyday you would know that you have a VERY serious problem, so would everyone around you, and you would not be a functional member of society. On the other hand if you're getting high all day it is far more accepted, some people think it's funny, some don't care, some think it's stupid, but it certainly doesn't cause the same reaction and a hard core alcoholic. Sure it's safer, it wont destroy your liver, you won't OD, you won't get violent, but it allows you to forget your worries. Instead of worrying about your future, your job prospects, your finances, you just worry about having enough weed. It allows you to escape the reality that being an unemployed pothead is not okay. It shouldn't be comfortable, it shouldn't be a lifestyle that you can deal with because you can just get high. You should really, really want to get a job. If you have a job and are responsible then I don't care if you smoke, but if your a damn bum and I'm the one supporting you then that's not okay. I have a lot of experiance with this subject, I've seen it over and over and over again, I'm watching it happen to two acquaintances right now, and IMO if they were getting regular drug tests in order to get those checks they both would have jobs by now. They're comfortable on unemployment plain and simple, and that's a huge problem.
 
W

wrightme43

100% behind the legalization of marijuana.
100% behind the death penalty for manufacturing meth or selling meth, or heroin.

Wipe out the profit in drugs. Wipe out the drug gangs.

The way around the problem with random testing being unfair, test all applicants. No unemployment if you use any drug other than marijauna or alchohol.

Harsh yep. I dont dig meth heads.
 

Hellgate

Moto Demi-God
Moderator
Elite Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
6,929
Reaction score
85
Points
48
Location
AUSTX
Visit site
Okay, so how often will they be tested, each month? If so who validates the tests and what is the appeals process? How big will the Piss Test Police be 500 State employees per state? This is madness and more big government.

In the Army there is a very formal process and it must be administered to a tee. As a First Sergeant one of my responsibilities was making sure piss tests were done correctly each month. If a Soldier did piss "hot" that kick off a whole set of process to revalidate the test. If a Soldier appealed the finding it could drag out for a year.

Trust me, we do not want the government conducing or managing anything because they can't.

For injuries from the war I go to the VA for care and the care is great but it takes FOREVER to get anything done, trip after trip, after trip. We do not need more government.

If find it so ironic that Obama hated everything that the previous administration did and his answer is more and more layers of crap that YOU and ME, the taxpayer has to pay for, and pay for, and pay for.
 

Hellgate

Moto Demi-God
Moderator
Elite Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
6,929
Reaction score
85
Points
48
Location
AUSTX
Visit site
Welfare and Unemployment Insurance are two totally different things. UI has a cap. In Texas it is $10,000 and this is it, you are SOL! The max you can get is $394 (varies by state) before taxes and if you earn any money on a W2 or 1099 in that period you do not collect UI. If you cheat the IRS will find out.

Welfare is just that, welfare, a hand out. Unemployment Insurance is partially paid for by your former employer, I'm pretty sure it is 50%.

UI is very important to keeping families in their homes, without UI we are really F'd as a country.

Welfare, well they are getting food stamps, CHIP and other stuff.

If both workers in the family are laid off they earn too much money on UI to get food stamps or CHIP.

The folks on welfare tend to stay on welfare, folks on UI will come off of it once the economy pick up.
 

abraxas

Biker
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
652
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
South Africa
www.thinkbike.co.za
Lagalize marijuana <-- that's my opinion.

As to drug testing? Who cares what some guy does at home?

What you wanna test him to check he's not gay too? (just in case) :cheer:
 

Cuba

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
756
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
PA
Visit site
Okay, so how often will they be tested, each month? If so who validates the tests and what is the appeals process? How big will the Piss Test Police be 500 State employees per state? This is madness and more big government.

In the Army there is a very formal process and it must be administered to a tee. As a First Sergeant one of my responsibilities was making sure piss tests were done correctly each month. If a Soldier did piss "hot" that kick off a whole set of process to revalidate the test. If a Soldier appealed the finding it could drag out for a year.

Trust me, we do not want the government conducing or managing anything because they can't.

For injuries from the war I go to the VA for care and the care is great but it takes FOREVER to get anything done, trip after trip, after trip. We do not need more government.

If find it so ironic that Obama hated everything that the previous administration did and his answer is more and more layers of crap that YOU and ME, the taxpayer has to pay for, and pay for, and pay for.

There have been huge advances in the drug testing industry in the past few years, tests now take hours for verified results, instead of weeks. This obviously slashes the cost. These 500 workers you describe already exist, they are the state welfare and unemployment office workers. The offices exist, the workers exist, the new testing that is cheaper, faster, and more accurate exist. We both know it isn't that simple but the basic framework already is in place. This would need oversight but it would be guaranteed to reduce the cost of "entitlement". This program could potentially save billions of dollars, not only from cancelling payments to drug users but by getting people off the couch and back to work faster. These programs are not mandatory, if you don't like the idea of the government drug testing you then you do not have to participate. And again, you aren't supposed to like it! You're supposed to be motivated to become self sufficient!
 

keira

Mrs. Reiobard
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
24
Points
0
Location
Hillsboro, NH
Visit site
Lagalize marijuana <-- that's my opinion.

As to drug testing? Who cares what some guy does at home?

What you wanna test him to check he's not gay too? (just in case) :cheer:

Being gay doesn't cost money, buying pot does. I am for this legislation, but then again, I also don't think people should be able to buy cigarettes or alcohol if they are on unemployment. I can afford a week's groceries for me and Rob for close tot he same amount as a carton of Marlboros (and I live in NH, where they aren't quite as expensive as many other places). I don't think welfare or UI should be done away with, but there needs to be some form of standard that forces people to rethink what they are doing and not be so comfortable. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that UI or welfare is enough for a comfortable lifestyle, but they shouldn't be able to keep up their vices too.
 

Hellgate

Moto Demi-God
Moderator
Elite Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
6,929
Reaction score
85
Points
48
Location
AUSTX
Visit site
There have been huge advances in the drug testing industry in the past few years, tests now take hours for verified results, instead of weeks. This obviously slashes the cost. These 500 workers you describe already exist, they are the state welfare and unemployment office workers. The offices exist, the workers exist, the new testing that is cheaper, faster, and more accurate exist. We both know it isn't that simple but the basic framework already is in place. This would need oversight but it would be guaranteed to reduce the cost of "entitlement". This program could potentially save billions of dollars, not only from cancelling payments to drug users but by getting people off the couch and back to work faster. These programs are not mandatory, if you don't like the idea of the government drug testing you then you do not have to participate. And again, you aren't supposed to like it! You're supposed to be motivated to become self sufficient!

I disagree. Most state welfare offices are too busy to administer a drug test. Think about it, EACH community would have to set up a physical place to administer the test. I have no idea how many places that would be in Texas, probably 1,000+. Or another option is to outsource the testing to a place that prescreens for employers. I have no idea the cost but I bet it would be at least $100 to $150 per test. If 300,000 people are on welfare and they have 1 test a month, that is 3,600,000 tests in a year. Assume $100 a test and that is $360,000,000 million a year!!!! Now that that number an multiply it by 20 or more. Please tell me how spending that kind of money get people off of welfare? I would rather you just give them the money. It is a waste of time and money.
 
Last edited:
Top