13% of Welfare Recipients Test Positive for Drugs (and the planet isn’t warming either)

Leave a comment

February 10, 2015 by JImbo

No, you won’t see that in the headlines.

Instead, you will see fake stories like the one below.

Tennessee’s Drug Tests Of Welfare Recipients Find 37 Drug Users

It is insulting that they think they can trick that many Americans by such lying headlines. The claim isn’t just misleading. It’s factually a LIE.

In that very article it says that:

16,000 people applied for welfare.

279 were tested for drugs.

37 tested positive.

Most normal people would say “37 out of 279 is 13 percent.”

It’s not only unethical, it’s downright a lie to include 16,000+ people you DIDN’T TEST as having taken the test. They did NOT take the test.

 

However, it gets worse. They withheld even more information from their primary source, the study itself. A truer story is found here, which they linked to in the ThinkProgress story.

Here are the raw facts:

Source: Tennessee Department of Human Services

BY THE NUMBERS

From July 1 to Dec. 31, 2014

16,017 people applied for Families First

279 drug tests were administered

37 drug tests were positive

25 were referred for a substance abuse evaluation

5 enrolled in drug treatment or support group programs

8 refused to take the questionnaire and were disqualified

81 were denied benefits because they dropped out of the application process

$4,215 spent on drug tests

 

Let’s break this down shall we?

89 people refused to complete the application. I can’t guarantee that they were using drugs, but if I refuse a DWI breathalyzer… I’m assumed guilty by the police. Common sense tells you that folks using drugs asked to take a drug test for illegal drugs by the authorities will tend to opt out rather than go to jail/rehab.

If even HALF of the 89 people were indeed using, that’s 45 people that weren’t included as “positives” before the test even began.

Now, we know 13% of a random sample of 279 tested positive. We can therefore guess that 13% out of any other random sample will be also positive (unless they happened to “randomly” get all the drug users in that one first random sample.

So, the number would probably be about 2,000 on top of that. Add up the 37 plus the 89 plus the 2,000 and you get 2,126 out of 16,017.

That’s a far cry from “37 out of 16,000” like the first biased article reported. That’s over 54 times as many drug users in fact.

How can that possibly be counted as “fact?”

 

The narrative (lie) we are being told by the media in ALL of the articles the original article links to is three part.

1- Welfare users are “clean.”

2- Drug tests are expensive.

3- The combination of 1 and 2 means that drug tests cost more than they save in benefits.

 

Let’s go through these.

Lie #1-

Welfare users are “cleaner” than the general public regarding drugs.

Fact: They are NOT. The numbers are false, as shown above. They include people who didn’t take a test as having “passed” a test. In addition, they pre-screen the applicants with a questionnaire first.

In addition, they don’t include ALL drugs. They only screened for a few specific drugs. Importantly, they did not screen for alcohol abuse.

I know from personal experience from working with the welfare population that MANY of them have alcohol problems. Nationally, according to several government studies about 8% of the general population uses illicit drugs. About 5% more have a drinking problem.

If we truly cared about our poorer citizens and wanted to help them with rehab, wouldn’t testing for alcohol be a good idea? They can obviously do it, as the rehab clinics test for it regularly. If the test had included alcohol, who knows how many more they would have nabbed and sent to treatment?

Already we saw above that 13% of the welfare recipients (as opposed to 8% of the general population) used illicit drugs. That’s 63% more.

Wouldn’t it stand to reason that if 5% of the population abuses alcohol…another drug… that it would be around 60+% higher too? A drug is a drug after all. Addiction is addiction when you get down to it.

So, that 13% is more like 21%. Now factor in the drugs NOT tested for and you could see it as high as 25% perhaps. In this study that would be about 4,000 people abusing drugs who could be sent to rehab.

That’s not “a few” by any means!

I think it’s a safe bet to conclude that the true rate of drug use in the welfare recipient community is around TRIPLE that in the general public. You can judge for yourself why that is or what other societal and economic implications that has. However, facts are facts. That is what the data from the Tennessee test tell us.

Lie #2- Drug tests are expensive.

Fact: They are not. Done in bulk for $15 a pop they are CHEAP. Even though other articles cite $30 or more for each, the numbers are right there. Tennessee says it cost then $4200 for 279 tests. Do the math. That’s $15 each.

Lie #3- It’s not cost effective to use drug tests to find those abusing drugs on welfare.

Fact: It IS!

For the whole group of 16,000 at once that would be $240,000 a year… to catch about 4,000 drug abusers. That’s about $60 to find each drug abuser. Is that a lot? It seems pretty cheap to me.

I don’t know who would pay all the rehab costs. That’s not my point here. They can always refuse after all, and many will. Either way welfare won’t be paying their benefits if they are in rehab or refuse rehab. So, that’s money saved short term.

According to Wall Street Journal research, Tennessee spends an average of $17,000 per person on welfare. So, they would in theory save about $36 million dollars by doing welfare tests on the 16,000 folks who applied ($17,000 times 2,100 found to be drug users.)

Then they can use that $17,000 spent on each to instead give them rehab/therapy.

Finally, hopefully once they get help they will become employable again and get off of welfare. That will save money long-term. That’s the hope anyway.

In the long run it would save LIVES as well as MONEY.

Imagine that…

Regardless, simply IGNORING the problem won’t solve it. There is ample evidence that up to 25% of the folks on welfare are using drugs. Whether you don’t want to think about it or don’t want to pay for it, the issue remains. It’s like not giving people cancer tests so you never find cancer.

I think we as a society want to help folks get on their feet, but they will NEVER do so while addicted to drugs. That’s pretty obvious. Subsidizing drug users is just enabling their habit.

It’s amazing how bleeding heart progressives can ignore what is GOOD for people in order to further a false story that serves them politically or makes them feel better.

Why is it “good” to let people wallow away as drug addicts on welfare rather than help them?

Why is it “good” to keep injecting racism into everything rather than talk about unity and coexistence?

Why is it “good” to make up crap like “climate change” and ignore the issues in our own local communities?

Spending a trillion dollars on “climate change” could be a waste of time. A recent study shows manipulation of data to CREATE warmer temperatures on paper that simply don’t exist in fact.

Without going into it too much, I’ll give an example. Say you have two weather stations. Both in the country. They read the same temperature.

In 50 years, one is still in the country but the other is now in suburbia or in a city due to urban sprawl. Now the second one is next to a hot asphalt road radiating heat, or on the tar roof of a skyscraper since there is no room at ground level.

The second thermometer now reads a higher temperature due to location. The “global warming” folks will say “well we put a shade over it to block the sun” or something like that, but anyone who has been in the city on a hot day knows that the whole ecosystem in the city is warmer if you have several square miles of concrete and asphalt around it. The city in effect creates its own heat rise.

So… to “correct this imbalance” the global warming folks “adjust” the first thermometer’s temperature to match the second one. To “normalize” it. If the one in the city is 2 degrees hotter on average, the one in the country must be “corrected” up two degrees to make them match again.

Or, best case scenario they are “averaged” and become 1 degree hotter each.

That 1 degree then becomes the “1 degree global temperature rise” that the environmentalists scream about.

Does the “climate change” really exist? Maybe. Sorta.

Cities are hotter. No link to pollution per se, but there is a link to “it’s hotter in the city.”

Common sense really.

I don’t see it as the end of the world.

I DO see it as a huge waste of time and money.

Remember the “scientific consensus” in the 1970s?

 

Leonard Nemoy sure seemed convinced!

Sure scientists get things wrong sometimes.

Why is it important?

Because it could do a LOT more harm than good!

According to the NRDC (Natural Resource Defense Council) if left unchecked global warming will cost $1.9 trillion by 2100.

That’s really not that much globally in 100 years. Our GDP in America alone is $18 trillion a year. Our Federal Budget is nearly $4 trillion itself.

Who knows what it’ll be in 100 years? At 2% growth (historical average) our economy would be about $135 trillion.

Yet the cost to “stop global warming” by chopping our fossil fuels would be as high as $45 trillion?

Hmmmm something doesn’t add up here.

Much like the “adjusting” temperatures to suit a political hoax is considered “acceptable” in the media, “adjusting” the numbers in the welfare drug test story is also considered to be okay as long as it protects the “story.”

Even though the story is entirely false and unethical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: