Applying for jobless benefits? Here, pee in a cup!!!!!

Amen!!! Someone finally trying to do something!!

Story Here
West Virginia bill would require drug testing for government assistance
Those benefits include welfare, unemployment and food stamps
The plan: If someone fails, they get 60 days -- with benefits -- to clean up
If they fail the next test, they lose benefits for two years

(CNN) -- If Craig Blair gets his way, anyone filing for unemployment or food stamps must show that they are drug-free. He's a state lawmaker in West Virginia who has introduced a bill to require random drug testing for benefits and lays out his case on a Web site called notwithmytaxdollars.com.
Blair and his supporters say drug use is rampant and taxpayers are growing alarmed with how the government is spending their money.

"The message that we're trying to send is, first of all, we need to respect taxpayers and how their monies are spent," the Republican said. "And drug addiction is in epidemic proportions, and not only in West Virginia but throughout the United States."

His bill would require random drug testing for any government assistance: welfare, jobless benefits or food stamps.

Someone who failed the drug test would get the benefits and 60 days to clean up. If he failed the next test, he would lose benefits for two years.

An interesting idea... The only issue I would see with it would be if someone lost benefits and had kids to support etc, we would be punishing the children for their parent's mistakes... I'm not sure that is a bad idea either.

Anyone else notice the use of "He" vs. "They" in the article?

CNN Article wrote:Someone who failed the drug test would get the benefits and 60 days to clean up. If he failed the next test, he would lose benefits for two years.

Interesting...

I wonder how the percentages of male vs. female in the use of public assistance breaks down...

meta4 wrote:Anyone else notice the use of "He" vs. "They" in the article?

CNN Article wrote:Someone who failed the drug test would get the benefits and 60 days to clean up. If he failed the next test, he would lose benefits for two years.

Interesting...

I wonder how the percentages of male vs. female in the use of public assistance breaks down...

Way back when I was in school, we were always taught to use the masculine form of pronouns when the text was not gender-specific. A little sexist maybe, but certainly less bulky than "he or she". I'm guessing whoever wrote the piece just uses that same standard rule.

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:Anyone else notice the use of "He" vs. "They" in the article?

CNN Article wrote:Someone who failed the drug test would get the benefits and 60 days to clean up. If he failed the next test, he would lose benefits for two years.

Interesting...

I wonder how the percentages of male vs. female in the use of public assistance breaks down...

Way back when I was in school, we were always taught to use the masculine form of pronouns when the text was not gender-specific. A little sexist maybe, but certainly less bulky than "he or she". I'm guessing whoever wrote the piece just uses that same standard rule.

I agree, but nowadays, God forbid if you are not "politically correct" EVERYWHERE.

Markwes wrote:

meta4 wrote:Anyone else notice the use of "He" vs. "They" in the article?

CNN Article wrote:Someone who failed the drug test would get the benefits and 60 days to clean up. If he failed the next test, he would lose benefits for two years.

Interesting...

I wonder how the percentages of male vs. female in the use of public assistance breaks down...

Way back when I was in school, we were always taught to use the masculine form of pronouns when the text was not gender-specific. A little sexist maybe, but certainly less bulky than "he or she". I'm guessing whoever wrote the piece just uses that same standard rule.

Wild. I was taught that spanish does favor masculine and feminine forms of words. I can't recall ever being instructed in English to prefer either form unless you were specifically referring to the masculine or feminine. When in doubt - they, them, those, etc.

Next up... math test

meta4 wrote:next up... math test

Square root of pie (3.14) is?
LOL, don't ask me the answer, I do not even know what "square root" means....

Definitely a good thing. I just have to wonder why only one state is doing this and not more. Definitely something the federal gov't should be requiring....guess the only drug use they care about is baseball players.

Scooby01_98 wrote:Definitely a good thing. I just have to wonder why only one state is doing this and not more. Definitely something the federal gov't should be requiring....guess the only drug use they care about is baseball players.

Because urine tests are not accurate and the manufacturers of these tests will not disclose the fallibility rates.

This has been an issue for 25 or more years in the drug war. This shall not pass.

iberlingirl wrote:

meta4 wrote:next up... math test

Square root of pie (3.14) is?
LOL, don't ask me the answer, I do not even know what "square root" means....

It depends on what your definition of "is" is. Pi is an irrational number which means it's value cannot be expressed in fractional notation. It can be most accurately expressed in decimal notation. It never repeats, and never ends. It's trancendental!

I'm not a Holy man, but it won't be the spooks in black helicopters I'd be worried about if rooted Pi.

meta4 wrote:

iberlingirl wrote:

meta4 wrote:next up... math test

Square root of pie (3.14) is?
LOL, don't ask me the answer, I do not even know what "square root" means....

It depends on what your definition of "is" is. Pi is an irrational number which means it's value cannot be expressed in fractional notation. It can be most accurately expressed in decimal notation. It never repeats, and never ends. It's trancendental!

I'm not a Holy man, but it won't be the spooks in black helicopters I'd be worried about if rooted Pi.

pi can be expressed as a fraction... 22/7 (almost), or 355/133, or most cleverly, pi/1.

meta4 wrote:It depends on what your definition of "is" is. Pi is an irrational number which means it's value cannot be expressed in fractional notation. It can be most accurately expressed in decimal notation. It never repeats, and never ends. It's trancendental!

I'm not a Holy man, but it won't be the spooks in black helicopters I'd be worried about if rooted Pi.

Good One!!!

Here you go, just barely over a 50% accuracy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/989579?dopt=Abstract

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3562082

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=775287

I made no mistake when I used the symbolism of Balrog. Science says accurate drug testing is a myth. Yet, few but the most brave acknowledge such. The wise know the difference between truth and myth.

Pez wrote:

meta4 wrote:

iberlingirl wrote:

meta4 wrote:next up... math test

Square root of pie (3.14) is?
LOL, don't ask me the answer, I do not even know what "square root" means....

It depends on what your definition of "is" is. Pi is an irrational number which means it's value cannot be expressed in fractional notation. It can be most accurately expressed in decimal notation. It never repeats, and never ends. It's trancendental!

I'm not a Holy man, but it won't be the spooks in black helicopters I'd be worried about if rooted Pi.

pi can be expressed as a fraction... 22/7 (almost), or 355/133, or most cleverly, pi/1.

Indulge me. Google 355/133 and tell me the difference between that number and Pi...

355 / 133 = 2.66917293
Windows calc says: 2.6691729323308270676691729323308...

Perfect discussion to be having in this thread as it relates to accuracy!

( P ) ( E ) ( R ) ( F ) ( E ) ( C ) ( T )

meta4 wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:Definitely a good thing. I just have to wonder why only one state is doing this and not more. Definitely something the federal gov't should be requiring....guess the only drug use they care about is baseball players.

Because urine tests are not accurate and the manufacturers of these tests will not disclose the fallibility rates.

This has been an issue for 25 or more years in the drug war. This shall not pass.

I am willing to go with hair and blood samples which are much more accurate. They just cost more.

meta4 wrote:Next up... math test

If a Reds pitcher gives up 4 runs in 7 innings, but only 2 of the runs are earned, what is his Earned Run Average for that game?

ERA is kind of the opposite of a weighted average.... I get 2.6... and I'm no baseball fan...

Scooby01_98 wrote:

I am willing to go with hair and blood samples which are much more accurate. They just cost more.

When you calculate the costs for the more expensive tests over 1.5 million tests, knowing that you may find 30% that would not be able to collect because they're "dirty", weighed against the tests fallibility rates, would the costs to test be higher than paying the unemployment benefits when weighted over the entire program?

That is the 8.3 million dollar question. Are taxpayers willing to throw money at tests, knowing that for every dollar they spend loses 14% of it's value before it even has a chance to determine whether the subject is positive OR negative.

Calculators: ready... set.... on the count of three...

meta4 wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:

I am willing to go with hair and blood samples which are much more accurate. They just cost more.

When you calculate the costs for the more expensive tests over 1.5 million tests, knowing that you may find 30% that would not be able to collect because they're "dirty", weighed against the tests fallibility rates, would the costs to test be higher than paying the unemployment benefits when weighted over the entire program?

That is the 8.3 million dollar question. Are taxpayers willing to throw money at tests, knowing that for every dollar they spend loses 14% of it's value before it even has a chance to determine whether the subject is positive OR negative.

Calculators: ready... set.... on the count of three...

I would just consider it part of the stimulus plan....look at all the lab workers jobs we would be saving/creating.

If Indiana has about 11.5 million people, and 5% are unemployed and seeking Aid (that's a low estimate). 575,000 drug tests by hair sample, the MFG claims would be "accurate" for 60 days prior to the test. The MFG does not officially publish nor assert any level of accuracy, failure rates, etc. These tests cost (in volume, not including "collection" by trained technician) about $120 each.

Ready for the "bottom line"?

$69,000,000 - just for the tests - for 575,000 people. Assume that 75% pass and 25% fail, you've SAVED ($unknown) paying unemployment benefits for 143,750. However, you spent $17.25M for tests for those people who failed. Actually, you would have to spend the $69 Million to even find the 143K people who would fail. You'd spend $51,750,000 to test people who weren't using illegal drugs!

Any way you look at it, this method of legislating control over what chemicals a person can have present in their body is astronomically expensive for the financial savings impact it aims to acquire.

You might as well just go out and find 144,000 people who use drugs and give them $500

Meta you seem to be just worried about the unemployment benefits. The law covers all gov't aid....food stamps, welfare etc. The latter 2 being more long term in dollar drain than unemployment benefits.

Every job I have had; I had to do a drug test and have continued drug test to get my paycheck. I see nothing wrong with people getting free money having to do the same.

Also meta unlike other things we have to pay for with our tax dollars ....this IMO would be money well spent even if they didn't catch anyone.

I don't want to speak for Meta, but I think he was referring to the cost of a hair sample test. And I can't argue with the logic of "why spend $10 to avoid giving away $5". That brings us back to urine testing. Here's a thought. How about going with the hair sample test only if the urinalyis comes back positive? Sure, you will miss the error of a passed urine test that should have failed, but just like our justice system (or at least the idea of our justice system), you have to be proven guilty beyond doubt.

Scooby and Markwes.

I'm not intending to focus in on unemployment but my focus and point is that this is a supremely foolish attempt to deal with a perceived problem. Testing just doesn't make sense. To "solve" this perceived problem. It doesn't matter if you calc the costs for the Hair at $130 and the urine at $50... neither pay off in the long run.

No more "Mission Unaccomplished" programs, please!

Far too much focus is placed on (IMO, and others) the myth that the drug "war" can be "won". IMO, this is not the real problem. Perhaps the lack of a good job is the problem. That's certainly tougher to solve. Perhaps it's a lack of education or training needed to get a good job. Perhaps it's mental illness issues, etc.

We just can't go blindly charging in with our wallets, tweezers, and urine cups thinking this is doing some "good".

If I had to spend 69 million dollars, I can think of at least 10 better things to spend it on.

Scooby01_98 wrote:Also meta unlike other things we have to pay for with our tax dollars ....this IMO would be money well spent even if they didn't catch anyone.

Ok, scooby I bit the hook. I totally understand the "horizon" you're looking at - and perhaps it exists. However, what do you think it would cost, and do you think it would be effective? Just "how" would we quantify "effective"? If you can get Hoosiers to OK another tax hike to get that program started, go with it. That isn't going to happen any time soon. If you could take the funds from some other program, which one?