The Fallacy of Welfare Drug Testing Opposition

By 174 Comments 11,592 views

I've followed with great interest the debate raging in Florida over the new law signed by Governor Rick Scott that mandates drug testing for welfare recipients. The ACLU is, of course, challenging this law because according to the ACLU welfare babies should get anything and everything they want without strings attached! They also make several strawman arguments in opposition to the law:

* “Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.” This isn't the point. If even ONE person is receiving public aid and using that aid to purchase drugs, it's one person too many. Taxpayer money should not go to financing destructive and irresponsible choices. The argument isn't that welfare recipients use more or less drugs, just that the state wants to ensure NO ONE does!

* “Science and medical experts overwhelmingly oppose the drug testing of welfare recipients.” So what! Science and medical experts aren't forking over the cash to pay for lazy ass freeloaders that want a free ride. This is public money and the public deserves to know that there money isn't being wasted.

* “Drug testing is expensive.” Not nearly as expensive as welfare! Florida spends over $11 billion per year on welfare alone! Nearly 2 million people receive welfare in the state, averaging $5500 per person. I think the state can afford to protect that investment with a minor $42 test (assuming that number is accurate, which I doubt). Removing just ONE druggy from the welfare roles pays for nearly 131 tests alone! So, in the end, testing will pay for itself if the ACLU is right. Using the ACLU's numbers, approximately 170,000 would pop positive for illicit drugs (citing ACLU's 10% figure). Removing those individuals from the welfare roles would save the state $935,000,000. The cost of testing EVERY recipient on welfare is $71.4 million, a total savings of over $863 million! Obviously, the ACLU flunked elementary math.

* “Mandatory drug testing is an ineffective means to uncover drug abuse.” They go on to state that a “questionnaire” is more likely to find druggies! Seriously! I'm not making that up. Just ask them, they'll be honest with you! This is so ignorant, I don't even think it really deserves an educated response.

* “Many states have rejected the random drug testing of welfare recipients as impractical and fiscally unjustifiable.” I've already gone over this, so the states can use my real numbers to see that this argument is mathematically flawed, to say the least.

* “Random drug testing of welfare recipients is likely unconstitutional under both the U.S. Constitution and some state constitutions.” I can't speak for most state constitutions, but I KNOW my U.S. Constitution and nothing in mandatory drug testing violates it. This is the one I want to spend the most time on.

The ACLU doesn't mention WHERE in the U.S. Constitution mandatory drug testing is forbidden. I'm assuming that the 4th amendment would be the one most likely cited. It reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This would be a constitutional issue if the state wanted to just randomly test any American. But, we're not talking about the state just testing anyone. We're talking about people who APPLY for welfare benefits or seek government jobs. By doing so, citizens voluntarily accept certain conditions that will apply if approved.

As a Soldier, I'm required to get drug tested whenever the military wants to test me. I can't claim 4th Amendment violations because I VOLUNTEERED for this job. No one forced me into the military, just like no one forces someone to work at Blockbuster where there is also mandatory drug testing. If I don't want to be drug tested, I can refuse and just be removed from the military. It's that simple.

Welfare recipients have the same choice. If they WANT welfare checks and privileges, the state of Florida has mandated that certain conditions be met, among those a drug-free lifestyle. The ACLU claims that requiring state employees to get drug tested is an overreach of executive power.

The ACLU is errantly claiming that the governor “is willing to use the power of government to intrude upon your rights in Florida.” There is no right to work, even though Florida is a “right to work” state. The “right to work” law deals with unions, not jobs. If there was an unfettered “right to work” no business would even be allowed to require applications. They'd just hire people because they have a right to be employed.

No one's rights are being trampled when people voluntarily seek public assistance. As long as they are told that in order to qualify for that assistance they have to pass an initial drug test and random drug tests as long as they receive that assistance, individuals make a conscious decision to accept that condition. They voluntarily surrender their rights in exchange for assistance, much the same way people do to get a job (like in the military).

A perfect example to sum up the difference for when mandatory drug testing is okay is the education system. I am adamantly opposed to mandatory drug testing in the school system. Why? Because my kids are basically forced to use it. If I choose not to send my kids to school, I get fined or charged. Since I'm forced to send my kids to public schools (unless I CHOOSE to pay for private school, which I can't afford), it would be a violation of my kids' civil rights to force them to be tested. The schools, however, have found a loophole. If a child wants to play extra-curricular sports or activities, they must submit to drug testing. So, naturally, my kids don't play sports at school. But, I would accept the condition of drug testing and waive those rights if I wanted my kids to play sports. It's no different with public assistance.


174 Responses to “The Fallacy of Welfare Drug Testing Opposition”

  1. 151


    Havaneiss Dei

    you brought many words to accuse me of fanatic or insanely passionate,,

    just because I give my opinion and decide to take side in it, that is who I am, and because you are on the opposit side, doesn’t mean it is the right one because of your comment,

    I do respect comments from other, but don’t respect other who choose to insult me or my friends,

    you where serving in the MILITARY, AS YOU MENTIONED, and that is one group which I continue to be on their side with passion,, and I will choose to protect them with my comments if the civilians come here to find faults on them, instead of praising their courage and resilience in the war, they are not allowed to win and come back after, with the admiration of the civilians so confuse they are being unable to admire valor and courage from the bravest which AMERICA FORGE FROM HER BEGINNING  TO BECOME THE PROTECTORS OF FREEDOM IN THE WORLD AND DESERVE THE RECONNAISSANCE OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY, AND YOU ARE ONE OF THEM TO BE PROUD OF DESERVING MY ADMIRATION FOR YOUR YEARS OF COURAGE,, WHERE EVER YOU SERVE,,



  2. 152


    Your post is anecdotal, which means, it’s just one story. It does nothing to prove nor disprove the state of assistance in the US. It merely says that a well-dressed woman bought a lot of food with food stamps—most of which you did not approve b/c of the sugar content. Then because she got into a big ticket SUV and you drive a heap, she does not deserve assistance. You do not know her situation at all and you’ve made a sweeping judgement not only on her, but on all so-called “welfare mothers.” How do you know where the vehicle came from and who paid for it? Maybe she’s worked hard and bought it. Maybe her parents got it for her. Maybe she has a big family and needs a big vehicle. (I’m sure you’d rather have the govt tell her which vehicle to drive, though.) Maybe it’s her husband’s, her ex husband’s vehicle. Maybe it’s her neighbor’s vehicle. What business is it of yours to look over someone’s shopping cart, check their items, look at how much they spent and with what money, then judge them for it. Then further judge her on her clothing and vehicle. If she’d been dressed poorly, I’m sure you would have called her a “crack-mother.” F You and your uniformed judgement on others.

  3. 153

    Tommy Whitley

    @anticsrocks: There is a big difference in arrogance and common sense. Common sense doesn’t say that I should be “REQUIRED” to pay for drugs for welfare druggies. It’s not, “What do we do with those who….bla, bla, bla?” They have made that individual choice themselves. Nobody made them take drugs. It was THEIR CHOICE. So THEY should pay the conquences….not the taxpayers.

  4. 154


    @Tommy Whitley: Without going through the entire thread again, let me address your necroposting from memory.

    The arrogance I was referring to was, I believe Greg’s insistence that drug testing would be cost prohibitive to the state. I pointed out that despite datat to the contrary rom others, his arrogance would not let him concede that.

    Try to be a bit more timely in your postings, huh?

  5. 155

    Havaneiss Dei

    @anticsrocks and @Tommy Whitley:

    We’re all familiar with the concepts of the metaphor and of the parable, aren’t we? In such tales, a make-believe story is fabricated to communicate a greater truth. Current broadcast television provides a useful fabric for such metaphor in the series “House” (aka: “House, M.D.”):

    The main story line goes something like this: Greg House is numbered among the most brilliant diagnostic minds in the modern world: in terms of competence, within (and occasionally without) his field of practice, he is greatly superior to “ordinary” experts, even when those ordinary experts have much greater experience and/or more specialized training in the area of needed expertise.

    It is worth noting that all these “ordinary” experts are at the top of the medical profession’s food chain; the least competent among them is more competent than the doctors and surgeons of common experience. However, the plot reinforces the notion that all doctors are by contrast against the riffraff they treat gods among insects.

    What differentiates “House” (the TV series) from the standard patter is that House (the namesake character) is a junkie addicted to anti-pain medication, which he routinely steals or otherwise obtains through illicit means — all the while maintaining the show’s contempt towards those abusers of drugs who aren’t high-functioning addicts. It’s wonderfully hypocritical!

    The premise — indeed, the series — works mainly because House ordinarily evinces the morality of a true sociopath: he has no sense of self-condemnation (his prejudice favoring each of his opinions is absolute, even when he changes his mind). Perhaps despite or because of this, House is driven by his own professional and ethical calculus; he demonstrates knowledge of laws and rules (and often refers to such in his manipulation of others), but those standards neither inform or define his own beliefs nor to any persistent degree interfere with his thoughts or actions.

    House is socially abrasive and often rude, even when dealing with other doctors (the latter point differentiating him from regular doctors, whose contempt is commonly reserved for patients and the hoi polloi); the message is that House is more genuine in his affections, and (as proved by his unfiltered honesty) more respectful towards others than they.

    Importantly, House’s morality is a function of convenience and expedience rather than of some absolute Standard (whether in faith, religion or law, or otherwise in the opinions of others) to which he holds himself accountable; in that sense, he is a sociopath. However, House is good in the sense that he is predisposed to apply his competence towards an objective (saving lives) with which we usually agree.

    By contrast, “Dexter” (a Showtime original series) glorifies the serial killer behavior of a cop (technically, a “bloodstain pattern analyst for the Miami Metro Police Department”). Dexter, of course, is “judge, jury and executioner” — but more than that, he is the modern-day face of popular law-enforcement terrorism.

    As such, Dexter is the hero of vigilantes and cops and judges who imagine their ideas of “justice” somehow inconveniently thwarted by circumstance or by law — (and) by those whose sense of justice requires the kidnapping, torture and killing of the person they believe is guilty of some “heinous” offense.

    We could argue until we’re all blue in the face as to whether all cops are sociopathic serial killers, but suffice it to say that argument in opposition to such premise has as much credibility with me as the statement that all cops are always absolutely honest. The simple, sad fact is that there are bad — very, very bad — cops who give law enforcers a bad reputation; however, they’re not the problem nearly so much as the “good cops” who tolerate the existence of “bad cops.” And so, if some who are bad succeed, then all are by the company they keep rightly judged equally as bad as the worst among them.

    So what does all this have to do with the price of tea in China? Well, it’s all about perception: Greg House is an acceptable addict because he’s a high-functioning person who contributes a net benefit to society — which makes it possible for (most) people to overlook the fact that he is a junkie and a criminal.

    Cops, of course, are blind to such distinction: they’re all too eager to toss out the baby with the bathwater. Here we see the prejudice arise. Let’s imagine that House came from a nice, middle-class home from parents who were gainfully and legally employed and who worked hard to provide for themselves — there’s nothing at all objectionable about that, right?

    If House ever attended public primary (i.e.: K-12) school, then he’s a welfare recipient. If House ever used a public library, then House has received public welfare benefits. Let’s say that House didn’t do any of that: he attended only private primary schools, and never used a public library.

    Where did House get his undergrad degree or degrees? If he attended a State-supported college or university, then he’s a beneficiary of welfare tax dollars. However, it doesn’t stop there: if House attended only private colleges, but ever borrowed money under the terms of a government-backed student loan, even if he repays that loan, he’s benefited personally from welfare.

    When should the government demand House’s blood or urine? In the story, House became addicted to pain medications after an injury to his leg. Let’s say, just for giggles, that he got that injury when he was playing some sport in elementary school (football, basketball, skiing, hockey — those details really don’t matter); should House be denied the education and credential that enabled him to rise to the top of the medical profession and save lives?

    If you believe that qualification to receive welfare benefits should be determined on the basis of whether a person passes or fails a test for the illicit use of drugs, then you would deny to House the ability to reach his potential in terms of contributing to the welfare of society.

    In fact, the OP (“CJ”) would have denied to him all credential and most educational opportunity, so that House would have from the beginning been forced to be exactly the sort of parasitic leech this thread has condemned. This message is not confined to television fantasy:

    I used to attend church with a woman that sometimes delivered freight with me; I trained her on certain routes and as we passed the miles of Interstate between exits, we had several conversations. She was married and had 3 children; her husband occasionally went dumpster-diving for things for his family, and for a short while, he worked for me. Anyway, this woman had a remarkably good knowledge of chemistry – not just the basic stuff, but serious chemistry.

    She’s the only person with whom I can independently recall having had a discussion of theoretical chemistry, and one of the very few with whom I’ve had a discussion of practical chemistry. Suffice it to say that she was among the smartest people I’ve ever met, and that’s a pretty high standard. It’s hard here to relate with specificity – those conversations happened many years ago – but she and I spoke for hours at a time about both chemistry and chemical engineering, and her knowledge was not merely confined to the mundane recitation of the material to which one gets exposed in college.

    I knew that she and her family were struggling to survive, and for her to not explore a career path that would reflect her aptitude for chemistry seemed to me awfully tragic. I asked, and she admitted that she had attended college. I then suggested that she pursue a career in pharmacy: she had the undergrad background and she had an absolutely splendid ability to describe blood and cellular chemistries and the interaction of molecular and radical (“charged particle”) forms.

    We will never know for certain, of course, but in my opinion, she could probably have developed a vaccine against cancer; at the very least, she could have greatly advanced biomedical research towards that end. We discussed various diseases, and she was on the right path concerning the development of a vaccine against HIV (commonly, “the AIDS virus”): she had identified the cholesterol bonding as the principal problem and had ideas that just months ago were by others proven successful in destroying HIV in infected animals.

    Of course, for those who believe that HIV is “God’s righteous judgment against druggies and queers,” who have no compassion for infants or for those heterosexuals who never used drugs but who were infected by transfusion following an automotive accident in which they weren’t at fault, HIV isn’t a problem: it’s a solution! Alas, to them it’s all part of their inscrutable God’s plan.

    Anyway, that woman once got busted for drugs – as I recall, she was holding for her then-boyfriend (who went to the pen before she met her husband), and that single mistake made it impossible for her to get into either the school of medicine or the school of pharmacy. Besides the policies of the schools, she couldn’t get the required insurance (a cost of education not mentioned in most advertisements).

    It may be worth mentioning that the consequence of her mistake seems to have triggered her making of additional mistakes as – hopeless and depressed – she stumbled forward and down the staircase of circumstance. It may seem like something that could never happen in your life, but that’s exactly what she thought; in fact, it’s what everyone caught in that funnel believes.

    She was blinded – by love or by lust, or by both – to her boyfriend’s failures; regardless, the forces blinding her were beyond her volition to control: one does not choose to fall in love or lust, but upon the experience thereof, merely attempts to manage his or her reaction to such overwhelming phenomenon. After all, if it isn’t overwhelming, then it isn’t either love or lust: it’s something cold and calculated, something dispassionately rational and therefore, inhuman.

    She felt that she was being unfairly punished, that the authorities had meddled where they didn’t belong, that – because no one had been hurt by either her or her boyfriend, there had been no crime. According to the law, she was wrong. Unlike those convicted of lesser offenses, she had no remaining good options going forward.

    I mentioned earlier that my (now ex-) wife was attending college when I met her; she was then a recipient of various forms of welfare not limited to the fact that the college was (and is) a state-sponsored institution: she got TANF and WIC and other forms of assistance — and she was the salutatorian of her graduating class. Her first job after college was working for a dentist; her salary was $45 per hour — which isn’t bad at all for central Mississippi.

    As far as I know, she didn’t use illicit drugs while she and I were together, but she once intimated to me that she had previously chosen to ingest some illicit substance (I don’t recall any of the details: we were simply confessing our flaws to each other, and promising each other the sins of the past wouldn’t by either of us so confessing be repeated in the present or the future — basically, it was “forgive and forget” the offense, but remember the general-principle “life lesson”).

    But let’s imagine what would have happened if she had failed an unscheduled urinalysis during her education — presto: she’s out of college, permanently, and she can’t ever get the insurance required by any professional school — so she’s basically stuck flipping burgers for minimum wage. That doesn’t just hurt her, it doesn’t just hurt her kids: it hurts society because it denies to society the benefits of someone predisposed despite arbitrary and legally-defined personal shortcomings to contribute a net benefit to society.

    It’s a different country, but nevertheless worth mentioning that JK Rowling was over 2 years entirely on the public dole in England. Never heard of her? She invented and wrote the wildly successful Harry Potter series, which has through taxes repaid the coffers of England many thousands of times the cost spent on Rowling’s welfare.

    To her credit, Rowling has not shunned mention of the fact she was entirely dependent on public support, and for the fact that she never once during that entire time had to worry about utility bills or food or rent or transportation or medical expenses or any of the myriad other things that the US welfare system effectively denies in an effort to stop losses.

    The idiocy reflected in US austerity measures stems from the fundamentally bad character of the electorate mass, which is averse to risk; however, every honest person successful in business will admit not only that reward is proportional to risk, but also that every worthwhile investment is at first all risk and no reward.

    Rowling didn’t turn around her finances in a few weeks or months; for at least those two years, she was a “dead expense” to the system supporting her, but she wasn’t pestered by constant demands that she look for a job (for which she had no aptitude). Instead, she was literally free to explore her creativity, to visit libraries and museums, to invent the vehicle that propelled her from public support (which in the USA is a condition of poverty, but in England is something at least minimally respectful of the dignity of the human creature). So, for England’s greater investment, England got a much greater reward.

    I have already shown that not every investment returns equal reward, so I won’t belabor that point: some will be net recipients, others will be neutral, and a few — given sufficient resources — will excel to become net contributors. No individual or class individually makes or breaks the system: ideally, it benefits all because (regardless its actuarial basis) it can’t predict either individual merit or the merit of individual contributions. To declare otherwise is to argue that man is — or at least that the inventions and institutions of government affecting popular welfare are — omniscient.

    The prejudices and other opinions of contributors cannot rightly be allowed to regulate contributions; else, nothing novel is produced: the system grinds to a halt as productivity stagnates behind the administrative bottleneck, which cuts contributions, which further constricts the opening.

  6. 156

    Havaneiss Dei


    The prejudices and other opinions of contributors cannot rightly be allowed to regulate contributions benefits and disbursements; else, nothing novel is produced: the system grinds to a halt as productivity stagnates behind the administrative bottleneck, which cuts contributions, which further constricts the opening.

  7. 157


    you said most people on welfare are good people, and you are right,
    they want to target the one on drugs which they are right to target,
    because ANY ILLEGAL DRUGS is not suppose to be paid by the other people who work hard and pay taxes which are use to pay welfare but not drugs, which prevent a person to try to gain learning to better their life with a job they don’t bother to search anymore while they are brainstruck by their drugs, they have lost the pride which AMERICA IS DEMANDING TO BECOME AMERICAN PURSUING THE DREAM
    OF A BETTER LIFE which welfare is not one of it,
    welfare is just for temporary help while the dream is
    to be activated.

  8. 159


    The money to drug test would be better spent testing those on Wallstreet that get billions of tax payer dollars not somebody in the lower income quintiles that’s making 1960’s wages once adjusted for inflation.

    Testing for illegal drugs is just another method of picking on the poor. Drugs are drugs, doesn’t matter if it’s alcohol, abien, Xanax, Viagra, or marijuana. Most people self medicate in one form or another some with exercise, some with religion, some like to drink, some take prescription medications, etc. For society to label certain drugs “bad” and others not simply because they have been made illegal is the epitome of hypocrisy. Anybody that thinks that one person smoking weed is any different than another taking abien, xanax, oxycotin, etc. needs a full frontal lobotomy. 50% of Americans take some kind of “drug”

    Quite obvious how Americans were lead down this neo-liberal road to destruction that we are on today, there are simply not many free thinkers left in the US. The top 11 prescribed drugs in the US are listed below:

    levothyroxine sodium
    amlodipine besylate
    omeprazole (RX)
    metformin HCL

  9. 160


    Super Tech86
    yes , your right about to much drugs on the market which are so easy prescribed by doctors,
    by the way the oxiconti has been taken out from the shelves, I heard it from FOX NEWS NOT LONG AGO,
    why any way take those drugs? people have been brainwash to take them one way legal or the other way illegal, and it’s a bad habit to start and once you start you continue for life on pills or else, it is a normal reaction to get some of it as soon as a discomfort or a disagreement or a pain even if we can bear it,
    and by being so availeble, the human take it, I just heard that the sleeping pills are reducing life
    of the person more or less depending on the consumption, all this just to say that if they want to get
    at the drug takers, it is a good thing for them saving money, and the takers saving them more health problems unless they really need it for medical problems, or after an intervention medically bringing big unbearable pains.
    but to take any as a habit is very wrong for
    the health, the brain and this in the future of the person.

  10. 161

    Havaneiss Dei


    Are you saying that public welfare benefits in the form of SNAP, TANF, WIC, etc. are being used to subsidize the abuse of illegal drugs? If so, I invite you to show the evidence of this, because there isn’t any — and there’s a good reason for that:

    In the case of WIC, benefits are provided in the form of commodities so, unless the State is handing out illegal drugs to women, infants & children, that’s impossible under WIC. I’m not completely familiar with TANF, but I do know that the program involves oversight through professional social workers at the applicant level. In the case of SNAP, benefits are restricted to food purchases and cash is not available.

    In Mississippi, the maximum monthly SNAP allowance for a single-person household is two hundred dollars ($200). The benefit period is a maximum of 6 months; each applicant has to renew and recertify his or her eligibility at the end of the third month. The applicant is ineligible for SNAP if he or she is a full-time student in either high school or college.

    Independently from income tests, eligibility is denied to every person who is either a principal or a stockholder (or both) in any business — which completely craps on the idea of encouraging welfare recipients to create jobs. Eligibility is denied to applicants who have $1,000 or more in liquid assets (cash + checking + savings), where savings includes not only deposit accounts held by a bank and denominated as savings accounts, but also retirement accounts of every description.

    If the applicant is eligible for SNAP assistance, the $200 is reduced by any household income up to $1609 (I have no idea how the State arrived at that figure); at $1609 per month, eligibility falls to zero and the beneficiary is discharged from the program. The income cap for a 2-person household is something like $2421, so having more people in the house doesn’t help.

    I live in a remote area in central Mississippi; the State has a program for granting jobs and training to the overwhelmingly black population in my area ($25/hr for a 20-year-old woman who couldn’t pass public school, but got trained to work as a nurse in an eldercare facility, not to mention that black kids are paid to go to school, in addition to the other welfare benefits they receive) — but none of this benefits whites.

    The typical white person in my area commutes more than 30 miles each way to and from work (some go much father; a handful work locally). Regular unleaded gasoline is (locally, today) about $3.60 per gallon on average; the typical poor-person’s auto burns about $11.00 per workday just commuting to and from work.

    Trips to the grocery and to the doctor and to other non-frivolous places takes that to nearly $4930 per year even without adjusting for predictable increases in fuel cost; moreover, if we accept the belief that people should properly maintain their assets (in the case of the automobile, it’s a matter of public safety), then we have to budget for that.

    POVs in Mississippi aren’t a poor man’s luxury: they’re a necessity upon which he depends for employment. This is important: only a fool assumes a vehicle will last forever; therefore, it is reasonable to depreciate a vehicle. With great care, a new vehicle might last 20 or more years; however, most used vehicles can be reasonably expected to last not more than 10 years and on average little more than 5 — which necessitates some sort of replacement budget, if we want the worker to keep his or her job.

    Commonly, the minimum operational cost of a vehicle is equal to the amount spent on fuel for that vehicle; this reasonably budgets for everything from wiper blades to oil filters — particular vehicles over the course of several years might be above or below that budgeted amount by a few dollars, but the metric holds within statistical reliability across all classes of vehicle and assumes “fair or better” mechanical condition as a basis.

    So, if a person in my area is reasonably expected to get a job, he or she must have the ability to get a vehicle, to pay for the inspection, tag and insurance on that vehicle, and the ability to pour (on average) about $10,000 per year into the operation (fuel, maintenance & repair) of that vehicle.

    For a used vehicle, add to that 60 percent of the purchase price of the vehicle, per year, for replacement (adjusts slightly for inflation). This devotes 20 percent per year to the recovery of the initial capital investment, with a small allowance for interest, and assumes the replacement vehicle will cost about half again as much as the original jalopy.

    At the extreme cheap-end, semi-reliable used automobiles are available for about $10,000 after the payment of applicable taxes and fees and allowing for the timely payment of interest on financed amounts (assuming 50 percent down-payment, above-average credit, and a 36-month finance period).

    Insurance premiums vary, but assuming above-average credit, a typical State-minimum liability policy in Mississippi will cost about $100-150 per month. I’m not saying that there aren’t better options for more affluent people: I’m saying that this is the reality for the working poor.

    So that’s $344-356 per week just for the ability to travel to and from work and other essential places.

    That doesn’t make any allowance for income taxes, for food, for rent/lease/mortgage expenses, for maintenance costs attributable to the upkeep of real property, for operational living expenses associated with the maintenance of a domicile (taxes and/or fees, utility and communications expenses, water and sewer service, etc.) — and it doesn’t make any allowance for education and certification, for the credential requisite to advance and growth.

    Meanwhile, people in the USA send money to Africa to buy notebook computers and shoes for savages too lazy to make their own shoes — and to buy food and to install wells in villages in which the local population is too lazy to use the provided training and equipment to get their own water.

    Churches and humanitarian organizations throughout the USA are still pouring money into Haiti, despite the wasteful nature of such expenditures — but when confronted with the fact that people in the USA are homeless, jobless, starving, they blame the plight of their countrymen on the exact sort of profligacy and laziness that they are paying for in other countries.

    Disgusting are both the practices and the persons of all such those imagining themselves charitable and taking umbrage against those who point out their hatred of especially the white male!

  11. 162


    @Havaneiss Dei: You said:

    Are you saying that public welfare benefits in the form of SNAP, TANF, WIC, etc. are being used to subsidize the abuse of illegal drugs? If so, I invite you to show the evidence of this, because there isn’t any — and there’s a good reason for that…

    I hope you don’t really believe that welfare isn’t sold illegally for illicit reasons. In fact, food stamps and other welfare can be and ARE sold by the beneficiaries, rather than be used properly. Of course not everyone abuses the system, but don’t think for a minute that it doesn’t occur.

    Desperate Times: Selling Food Stamps To Get By

    Last week, a woman sat outside the Food for Less supermarket in San Bernardino attempting to receive cash for her federally assisted food supplements known as food stamps.

    The US Department of Agriculture says this is an increasingly familiar sight outside many grocery and convenience stores in low income communities. – Source

    Wisconsin Food Stamps Reportedly Illegally Bought and Sold on Facebook

    A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigation into possible fraud in the state’s FoodShare benefits program found that some people are illegally buying and selling food stamps on Facebook.

    The newspaper reported Sunday that it found nine Facebook users in Milwaukee and about 70 users nationwide had posted to Facebook to either buy or sell food assistance benefits illegally — or to help others do so.

    State Department of Health Services spokeswoman Beth Kaplan acknowledges social networks could be used to scam the program. She says the department would refer suspected criminal activity to authorities. – Source

    Is Ohio replacing food stamp cards being sold or traded for drugs?

    In the last two years, nearly 51,000 electronic food stamp cards were reported stolen or lost in the Miami Valley area, reflecting a larger statewide trend of Ohio annually replacing more than 200,000 cards to recipients.
    One of the 26,224 electronic food stamp cards reported lost or stolen in the Miami Valley area last year belonged to Timothy Slusher’s sister. Slusher, 31, of Dayton, told the Dayton Daily News he illegally sold his sister’s Electronic Benefit Transfer card, or food stamp card, to a small store in exchange for $120 in cash — a common method used to defraud the assistance program.
    A Dayton Daily News analysis of police reports, court documents and investigative records found that not all of the benefits paid by the program are going to stocking the shelves of needy families with groceries.

    Some people illegally trade the benefits at grocery and convenience stores in exchange for cash, with clerks charging a fee. Some store owners and clerks will pay 50 cents for every dollar of food benefits they can deduct from the food cards.

    Drug users also trade their cards for illicit substances or for money to support their habits.Source


    Police raided an apartment and described it as the only one in the complex “fortified with bars.” Inside, officers said they found Wayne Gregory Britton lying on his bed with a .25 caliber handgun and money.

    Officers said they also recovered crack cocaine, heroin, marijuana, Oxycontin and various other medications and drug paraphernalia. The drugs were all broken down into units that appeared to be ready for distribution, officers said.

    Police said they also recovered food stamp cards inside the apartment. Investigators said they believe the cards were being exchanged for drugs.Source

    One form of food-stamp trafficking is when someone sells food stamps to another person for cash or products. When selling food stamps for cash, a beneficiary charges $40 for $65 worth of food stamps, for instance. The increments of cash and food stamps are raised and lowered to fit the needs of the buyer. The trafficking of food stamps itself is illegal, but the crime is compounded when food stamps are sold for guns and drugs. If convicted of trafficking an amount less than $100, you are subject to one year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000 for the misdemeanor. The illegal use of food stamps valued at more than a $100 is a felony. – Source

    Five arrested in food stamps for drugs scam

    A food stamp fraud investigation landed five people in Darlington and Florence counties in jail.

    Investigators in both counties as well as the US Department of Agriculture, who assisted in the case, say the operation began in December 2010 after authorities learned that EBT cards were being exchanged for drugs, cash and unauthorized non-food items.

    According to police, Rodney Douglas, 35, was operating stores out of two separate mobile home parks in the two counties were drugs, and the other items were being sold. Singlewide trailers were reportedly turned into a makeshift stores. – Source

    It is folly to believe that people are not selling their welfare assistance benefits for illegal and illicit drugs.

  12. 163

    Havaneiss Dei


    The top 11 prescribed drugs in the US are listed below:

    I’ll address these in the order you provided:

    “[H]ydrocodone/acetaminophen” is not a drug, but a combination of two drugs: hydrocodone is an orally active narcotic analgesic and antitussive; here, it is compounded (blended) with acetaminophen to limit the intake of hydrocodone by causing unpleasant and often unsafe side effects at higher-than-prescribed doses. Specifically, paracetamol acts as an analgesic/antipyretic.

    I avoid drugs like the plague: I don’t like to rely on other people, and I refuse to become dependent on a chemical I have to have a prescription to buy or possess. However, I was prescribed either oxycodone or hydrocodone (I don’t recall which, but they’re basically the same) following oral surgery; I took the tablets as prescribed and found at first they made the pain somewhat bearable.

    I was sufficiently well when the pills were gone that I didn’t need a refill, though perhaps 2 more than prescribed would have been appreciated: near the end, I had unwittingly begun convincing myself the drug was a overrated in terms of its effectiveness; I didn’t realize how much help it was giving me until I ran out.

    It isn’t that I was in profound agony, but for perhaps a day more than the surgeon had anticipated, I was still hurting badly enough to take ibuprofen at the peak rate for about a day or 2. Less than a week after the hydrocodone was gone, I was med-free and able to talk and chew normally.

    The mouth heals very quickly as contrasted against other body parts, so perhaps there is a need to rely on refillable smaller prescriptions in cases involving injury to, or surgery involving, other body parts:

    As a hypothetical example: instead of prescribing 6 months worth of pills, the doctor prescribes them on a 1-month, renewable basis for up to 6 months; if the 6th refill isn’t needed, the patient doesn’t order the refill, but if he does, it’s available without the requirement that he suffer the frivolous expense and inconvenience of a visit to the doctor every 30 days.

    At the end of that period, if the patient feels he needs more, he has to go back to the doctor, who re-evaluates the situation and determines whether the patient needs the drug for pain management or if he is just using it for candy.

    If the doctor decides to prescribe more, but determines the patient is nearing the end of his need for the drug, the doctor is likely to prescribe something like a 2-week renewable supply with a single refill; after that, it’s unlikely the patient will get more.

    The specifics in each case will be different: some people will get a 3- or 4-day supply with no refills; others who suffer from chronic pain may need the drug indefinitely until medicine (and the patient’s access to such treatment) advances to the point that it can eliminate the pain without disabling the patient.

    At least at prescribed dosages, hydrocodone won’t get anyone high or tipsy or whatever it is that junkies go for.

    Simvastatin is a hypolipidemic drug used to control hypercholesterolemia. The only other option to solve this problem is practice eugenics. Simvastatin won’t get anyone high or tipsy or whatever it is that junkies go for.

    Lisinopril is a drug of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor class that is primarily used in treatment of hypertension, congestive heart failure, and heart attacks and also in preventing renal and retinal complications of diabetes; its indications, contraindications and side effects are as those for all ACE inhibitors.

    All that could have been solved by preventing the genetic problems arising from miscegenation, but such is contrary to public will — so, until segregation prevails, the choices are fairly simple: disability and death, or the ignominy of being tethered to a lifeline drug. Lisinopril won’t get anyone high or tipsy or whatever it is that junkies go for.

    Levothyroxine sodium is a hormone replacement for patients with hypothyroidism. Look it up: it’s a disease fairly severe in terms of its effects; easily treated by providing the body with what it is missing but designed to need. Levothyroxine sodium won’t get anyone high or tipsy or whatever it is that junkies go for.

    Amlodipine besylate is a long-acting calcium channel blocker (DHP class) used as an anti-hypertensive and in the treatment of angina. This drug alleviates an otherwise-debilitating disease condition and helps to prevent damage and death arising from high blood pressure: only an idiot would thing that’s a bad thing. Amlodipine besylate won’t get anyone high or tipsy or whatever it is that junkies go for.

    Omeprazole (RX). The RX indicates “by prescription” and does not describe the drug. Omeprazole is a proton pump inhibitor used in the treatment of dyspepsia, peptic ulcer disease (PUD), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD/GERD), laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. These debilitating and deadly diseases aren’t effectively treated by reactive antacids.

    Omeprazole is one of the most widely prescribed drugs internationally and is available over the counter in some countries. Omeprazole won’t get anyone high or tipsy or whatever it is that junkies go for.

    Azithromycin is one of the world’s best-selling antibiotics; it is used to treat or prevent certain bacterial infections, most often those causing middle ear infections, strep throat, pneumonia, typhoid, and sinusitis. Azithromycin has in recent years been used primarily to prevent bacterial infections in infants and those with weaker immune systems. Azithromycin is also effective against certain sexually transmitted infections, such as nongonococcal urethritis, chlamydia, and cervicitis.

    Although recent studies have indicated azithromycin may be effective against late-onset asthma, these findings are controversial and not widely accepted. Regardless, azithromycin won’t get anyone high or tipsy or whatever it is that junkies go for.

    Amoxicillin is a moderate-spectrum antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections caused by susceptible microorganisms. Because it is better absorbed following oral administration than other antibiotics within its class, it is usually the drug preferred to treat a variety of types of infection.

    Amoxicillin is used to a treat cystic acne, to prevent bacterial endocarditis in high risk people who are having dental work done, to prevent strep pneumococus infections in those without a spleen, and for both the prevention and the treatment of anthrax. Amoxicillin is one of the most common antibiotics prescribed for children. Amoxicillin won’t get anyone high or tipsy or whatever it is that junkies go for.

    Metformin HCL is an oral antidiabetic drug, the first-line drug of choice for the treatment of type-2 diabetes in people with normal kidney function. Metformin HCL won’t get anyone high or tipsy or whatever it is that junkies go for.

    Hydrochlorothiazide is frequently used for the treatment of hypertension, congestive heart failure, symptomatic edema, diabetes insipidus, renal tubular acidosis, the prevention of kidney stones, and sometimes for hypercalciuria, Dent’s disease and Ménière’s disease. Hydrochlorothiazide won’t get anyone high or tipsy or whatever it is that junkies go for.

    Alprazolam is commonly used and FDA approved for the medical treatment of panic disorder, and anxiety disorders, such as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) or social anxiety disorder (SAD). Although alprazolam possesses anxiolytic, sedative, hypnotic, skeletal muscle relaxant, anticonvulsant, and amnestic properties, its distribution and use is highly monitored despite its potential for abuse being low.

    Now: what does any of that have to do with testing for the use or abuse of illicit drugs — or are you one of those people who thinks you have a right to judge the propriety of the things I take in? Are there people who abuse prescription drugs? Almost certainly. Is that a reasonable target for public safety?

    Well, the law-enforcement community certainly wants us to think so, but in my experience LEOs are more likely than not to lie whenever it could expand their power; I don’t trust their judgment, let alone their qualifications to make determinations of medical necessity: I’ll leave that to individuals and their respective healthcare experts. The alternative is more of the Prohibition Era renegade-executive abuses that have turned this land into a giant prison.

  13. 164

    Havaneiss Dei


    Desperate Times: Selling Food Stamps To Get By

    Last week, a woman sat outside the Food for Less supermarket in San Bernardino attempting to receive cash for her federally assisted food supplements known as food stamps.

    Attempting to do something isn’t the same as doing it. Oh, and I did read the article: “People pushing EBT benefits are willing to accept as low as half-price for goods,” said Chantal Goodwin who works at a hair salon across the street from the Food for Less. Even though the mechanism is different from what I imagined, the economics are exactly as I predicted: SNAP benefits are only worth full value to the food/seed retailer.

    The article goes on to state, “These are desperate times. You got people out here on the street everyday selling food stamps, DVDs, jewelry, purses anything to help them pay the bills,” said Goodwin. “The sad thing is they’re not buying drugs and guns, they’re using the cash to pay utilities, rent and other bills.”

    If you believe the account, then you believe the whole account; in fact, it is only in the way indicated by the article that the exchange makes any sense at all (see below) — and it technically isn’t selling the SNAP benefits: it’s reselling the product purchased using those benefits. Think of it this way:

    The Federal Reserve (indirectly) provides you with currency, which you use to buy a car. You then sell that car for a discount. You’re not selling currency: you’re simply recovering the fractional value of the car based on the prevailing economic conditions (the buyer’s desire vs. your desperation).

    Wisconsin Food Stamps Reportedly Illegally Bought and Sold on Facebook

    A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigation into possible fraud in the state’s FoodShare benefits program found that some people are illegally buying and selling food stamps on Facebook.

    The newspaper reported Sunday that it found nine Facebook users in Milwaukee and about 70 users nationwide had posted to Facebook to either buy or sell food assistance benefits illegally — or to help others do so.

    Really? 70 users nationwide? Out of all the people on facebook? Despite the fact that public libraries offer free Internet access? Wow! That should certainly be Job One for Law Enforcement, shouldn’t it? NOT! Here’s the kicker with that: people who buy food stamps have to be worse-off than the people selling them; otherwise, they would have simply got their own.

    Add to that the fact that the purchases are tracked, and that the use of the card requires the PIN at each transaction, and the other limitations on the value of the card (amount, expiry of benefits — which, in Mississippi, are provided on a “use them or lose them” basis) — and it becomes clear that these aren’t high-rollers. But let’s look closer at your premise:

    What pusher is gonna sell drugs in exchange for food stamps? That’s really how it has to work, if the exchange is being made to facilitate the purchase of drugs: otherwise, the buyer is just someone trying to get food and the seller is just someone trying to help out a person that didn’t qualify for enough help to get by. The reason for this is simple: beneficiaries have to prove they’re basically destitute in order to qualify.

    Ignoring the farcical, theoretical fringe-possibility exception of equal or greater value in the case of the card being purchased as an artifact (evidence obtained by the State, or a work of art), the only way the food-stamp dollars can be worth actual dollars is if they’re given to the pusher by the junkie quid pro quo for the drugs: otherwise, they’re discounted.

    The limited period of the benefits doesn’t work for the pusher: he or she wants repeat business. Remember: it’s the illicit trade in drugs that this whole thing is about.

    Can cash be used for drugs instead of utility payments? Yes. Would any sane pusher sell to a junkie under those circumstances? No: (a) the income source only lasts 6 months (the time limit may be different in other states); the monthly benefit for a 1-person household is $200; for a 2-person household, it’s maybe $320 … the per-person amount drops rapidly as the number in the household increases.

    I knew a guy who worked for the USPS who, many years ago, burned through a couple hundred bucks a month smoking GPCs (the cheapest cigs he could buy). Smokers are junkies for tobacco.

    Here’s why that’s a big deal: marijuana is supposedly the cheapest illicit drug, and it supposedly costs lots more than tobacco. But how much more? I could do some internet research, but I don’t think that would give me a reliable estimate of street prices for marijuana. Let’s say that a marijuana cigarette costs 5 times as much as tobacco cigarette.

    If we believe the hype about drugs, it makes people want it more than tobacco makes people want it — but let’s imagine the math gets turned around and people only use 20 percent as much marijuana as they would use tobacco — so in the end, the cost is the same. How much do they spend on their marijuana, and how much do they spend on their lights, gas, water, etc.?

    I’d be amazed if there are buyers are paying more than 70 cents on the dollar; frankly, I’m shocked that sellers are getting half price. Let’s say, though, that it’s 2/3 — and let’s say that it’s a 2-person household. They luck out and the total exactly equals the amount on their card: the plastic $320 becomes $213.33.

    That will pay an average 1-month light bill in central Mississippi. They’re frugal, you say: okay, it could perhaps pay the light bill and the water/sewer/garbage bill(s) for a single month. The article you sourced indicated SNAP is the only income for many of these people: what are they going to eat, let alone smoke? I just don’t see the surplus of money required to purchase drugs.

    Is Ohio replacing food stamp cards being sold or traded for drugs?

    The story of Ohio’s “problem” is shocking for a number of reasons unrelated to the story you’re trying to tell. It’s the same as when the credit card of a decedent is used after that person has been pronounced dead: you go to where the card was used, examine the surveillance footage and nab the suspect.

    If the lost or stolen card had a balance remaining on it when it went missing, then the replacement card has only that balance available; moreover, the old card is cancelled from the moment it is reported missing or stolen: the state should never be out more in transfer payments than the budgeted amount for the number of enrolled beneficiaries, regardless how many cards it replaces.

    Moreover, in Mississippi, it is a crime to reveal your PIN to another person, to let another person use your card (even if purchasing on your behalf), to use the card to purchase food for someone not listed on the application, etc. It’s inconceivable that a state could have the sort of problems Ohio describes, unless the State itself was complicit in the very fraud that it decries.


    I read the brief and the whole story at wlwt. Here, we don’t know either how WGB came to possess the cards or whether he, or someone acting on his behalf, used those cards. Apart from such use, their appearance at the scene should by any reasonable person be regarded as merely coincidental: it is just as plausible that they were stolen as that they were voluntarily exchanged.

    This is an exceedingly simple way to establish probable cause: when a lost/missing/stolen card is used, trace it. If you recover such a card in a drug raid, then (a few minor procedural steps later) you’ve got probable cause to get a warrant to have the card owner tested — but that’s how the law has always worked: there’s no reason to put everyone in the system through such pains.

    Any competent prosecutor will combine the instances of fraudulent use so that the accused faces typically the maximum number of felonies; if the cops want to abuse the accused person, they will consult with the prosecutor and a plea bargain will be offered; if the deal is accepted, usually the accused becomes a coded informant having whatever additional duties the cops wish to assign — to include everything from being the sexual entertainment at a group party, to being a courier for drugs, etc.

    Oddly, male or female doesn’t seem to matter, although attractive females are more likely to be offered such a “deal.” I don’t know what attracts the cop crowd to the dudes.

    Five arrested in food stamps for drugs scam

    It is folly to believe that people are not selling their welfare assistance benefits for illegal and illicit drugs.

    Fair enough, but that really wasn’t the topic, was it? At issue in the thread is whether all recipients of welfare should, as presumptive suspects, be tested for drug use/abuse; they should not.

    As I have indicated, establishing probable cause in these cases is simpler than a cakewalk, and investigations can be mostly performed at the speed of electronic communication — with little or no need for footwork or motor patrol, etc. For the most part, the evidence would simply flow to the investigators, whose job would simply be to decide how they wanted to present it to the prosecutors.

    If the State really cared about this, in a month, it could nab about 85 percent of the people doing it; if it built its cases for 2 months, it could pretty well sweep 100 percent of those thugs into the gaping maw of Justice.

    If the question is what to do with such people post-conviction, then the answer is more complex.

  14. 165


    Havaneiss Dei
    on your 161, YES I mean the drugs are so easy available from many source, to the young on or not welfare,
    don’t you see the trend is to get a pill for anything you feel negative a mild discomfort or for the young a curiosity also to try the illegal drugs coming from even incitement from their classmate for some or their parents influence if they take some, it’s all over the MEDIA advertizing, IT’S ALL OVER THE SHELVES OF DRUGSTORES LEGAL FOR THOSE, but on the street where the young spend time with their friends
    for the illegal, even those prescriptions are too easy to get, by your doctor.
    and changing subject, you all white must have a hard time to fill your car as the price is so high now
    you are the real poor out of the comfort zone of hand out, and your tax are going abroad for a big percentage which is on the excuse of compassion,yes this is bad to put the charity over the need of struggling AMERICANS, I say even it is robbing the one who are proud and try to endure to make a buck,
    that is also why the welfare recipients should not feel so outrage if they are ask to be participating
    on the project to bring down the use of drugs which is massive for many users, and it is a deterent also and put a pressure which is needed for those drug addict to get of it, I see your state are very smart and serious about the fairness they apply on the poor and should expand some appreciation to the group of the whit people who struggle also and succeeded to be free from welfare hand out, but the STATE has many opportunity to help those also if they stop to thing about who pay their living cost,
    you brought so many different point of view, and I find them very well thought, and I agree with,

  15. 166


    @Havaneiss Dei: You said:

    What pusher is gonna sell drugs in exchange for food stamps? That’s really how it has to work, if the exchange is being made to facilitate the purchase of drugs: otherwise, the buyer is just someone trying to get food and the seller is just someone trying to help out a person that didn’t qualify for enough help to get by. The reason for this is simple: beneficiaries have to prove they’re basically destitute in order to qualify.

    I don’t know if you are intentionally obfuscating this issue, or you really believe that in our society, there does not exist a black market to obtain drugs by selling welfare benefits.

    The “pusher” as you call him, doesn’t give drugs for food. The welfare recipient sells the benefits for cash and buys the drugs. If you had spent any time at all on the street, you would know this is true. Trying to say that because welfare benefits only come once a month, that the folks who sell drugs will turn away customers is beyond silly.

    In my younger days, I had a car, a job and no wife or kids. I lived at my parents house, so I had no bills to speak of. I did not then, nor have I ever participated in illegal drugs, either consumption or in trade. However, I did know and was friendly with, quite a few folks who did. Among them more than a few received welfare of some sort, and among those, more than a few sold their benefits to buy drugs. This was back in the day that food stamps were actually a book of government printed bills that resembled over sized monopoly money.

    Here is a pic –

    Folks who worked, but were still having trouble getting by would purchase the food stamps, usually at a 50% discount, and then use them to buy groceries. The people who sold the food stamps would then use the money for drugs and/or alcohol.

    This exists to this day and yet to hear you tell it, the drug “pushers” shun anyone who cannot be a repeat customer more than once a month. Are you really that naive???

    You said:

    That will pay an average 1-month light bill in central Mississippi. They’re frugal, you say: okay, it could perhaps pay the light bill and the water/sewer/garbage bill(s) for a single month. The article you sourced indicated SNAP is the only income for many of these people: what are they going to eat, let alone smoke? I just don’t see the surplus of money required to purchase drugs.

    The folks who game the system will often times have more than one welfare benefit source. It isn’t that hard in most states to get the food stamp benefits. The cash advance benefits and the medicaid (at least before Obamacare greatly expanded the roles of Medicaid recipients) require more documentation to obtain.

    Yep, gaming the system never occurs….

    Welfare fraud investigators raid $1.2 million Lake Washington home
    Seattle chiropractor, wife accused of welfare fraud

    Federal agents have raided a Seattle couple’s $1.2 million lakefront home looking for evidence that they’ve bilked the government for more than a decade.

    Filing a civil lawsuit Friday, federal prosecutors in Seattle claim Lyudmila Shimonova and her partner, chiropractor David Silverstein, sucked money out of state and federal assistance programs while living well in a Lake Washington mansion.

    Both have been accused of welfare fraud, allegedly making false claims for government assistance. Neither has been charged criminally.

    All told, authorities claim the couple received $135,000 in federal housing assistance benefits, as well as additional support through a federal program for destitute disabled Americans and state programs meant to feed families. – Source

    If this idiotic couple can game the system, then follks who have been on assistance for many years can easily learn ways to obtain more welfare than they are entitled to.

    I am not saying that all folks on welfare are drug abusers, or that all sell their benefits.What I am saying is that if you have a history of drug abuse and are on welfare, the taxpayers have the right to ask you to be tested.

  16. 167

    Jeremy Krueger

    I initially agreed with the whole drug testing thing for Foodshare applicants here in Wisconsin, because I had a job and was paying taxes. I didnt like the idea of someone seeling their Foodshare to buy crack with my tax dollars. HOWEVER..I was recently injured (hernia), and have been unable to work because of it. I just had surgery, and was told I cant return to my job for another month. I have a 3 year old I’m responsible for, and cannot get unemployment because I had a temp job. I applied for Foodshare, and was tested because of an old felony conviction. I have done ABSOLUTELY NO DRUGS, PERIOD!!!!!!! Yet I came up positive for opiates; after doing some research I found a study released by the American Psychiatric Association proving that between 5-10 percent of all tests produce false positives….So how do you feel about the children (including mine) that won’t get to eat tonight because these tests are innacurate?!? Sit up their on your high horse and think about that, cause I have been knocked off of mine!

  17. 168


    Jeremy Krueger
    I’m so sorry and very disturbed about what you gave us,
    I am appawl by this happening to non guilty people,
    do you take painkiller medicine? that must be the culprit,
    remember it stay in your body longer after ingestion,
    did you tell that? or just turn around and left,
    plus the fact you mentioned that it is not credible as a sure result,
    what a terrible blunder from the responsible to give the test,
    they have no excuses, because they suppose to know those not credible result,
    I cannot believe things like that happening in AMERICA WHICH IS THE AVANT GARD

  18. 170


    hi, you gave a very important link to the readers here,
    MY GOD , is that not enough to ban those 12thousands check up
    until there is a un equivocal certainty they work without a doubt,

  19. 171

    Jeremy Krueger

    I was not taking any painkillers at the time, and I have asked if the lab was certified and was tols I would “recieve a response by mail within 60 days”. Also, I am on probation and if I fail a test for my probation officer, I have the right to have the sample retested by a different lab or to get a blood test. At least here in Wisconsin, Foodshare refuses to retest the sample. The only recourse I had was to ask for a “fair hearing in which I can argue my case, but they will use the UA results as “evidence”. Absolutely redicilous. And I had surgery on my hernia last Thursday, so now I am taking painkillers, so although I could get retested at my expense, now they say it’s a moot point. And besides, if I could afford to get tested at my expense, I wouldn’ be asking for assistance. I am not trying to abuse the system; I am kind of ashamed of accepting help, but I need it right now!!!!

  20. 172


    Jeremy Krueger
    geez you are really on a bad luck aren’t you, I feel sorry for you, even if you put yourself in that, but it has to pass sometimes and be replace by better times for you.
    hope you can get out of that trend of negatives events,by the way are you
    keep in touch with our posts there are many more of interest to many, it pass time quickly