Skip to main content

Tennessee is just the latest state to receive a failing grade for their drug-testing of welfare applicants

Given the failed results so far, it's a wonder why states are continually pushing forth bills to require welfare applicants to pass drug tests in order to be eligible for such benefits.

The state of Utah spent over $30,000 on these drug tests, and what did these tests reveal? Just 12 drug users. That was money well spent.

In Florida, just 2% of welfare applicants tested positive for drugs in 2011, whereas approximately 8% of the state uses illegal drugs. This resulted in a net loss of money for the state.

Virginia lawmakers rejected a proposed drug-testing program for welfare applicants because, while it would save an estimated $229,000, it would also cost $1.5 million. In other words, it wouldn't save any money at all.

That brings us to Tennessee. The state started their drug-testing program in July. What have the results been to this point? Oh, let's see here - of 812 applicants, 1 has tested positive. In other words, 0.12% of applicants tested positive for drugs.

Let me paint a clearer picture of how just minuscule that is:

- California is the most populous state in the country, home to approximately 38,332,521 people. If we were to calculate 0.12% of that number, we'd wind up with 459,990, which would make it the least populous state in the country, close to 100,000 behind Wyoming.

- China's population is around 1.26 billion. If we were to calculate 0.12% of that number, China's population would be around 15,120,000, which would place it at number 65, in between Malawi and Mali.

- Earth spreads across 3,959 miles. If we were to calculate 0.12% of that number, Earth would spread across just 47.5 miles - the same distance between the cities of Omaha, Nebraska and Lincoln, Nebraska.

In light of all these numbers, perhaps, instead of drug-testing welfare applicants, we should require politicians to take IQ tests before being permitted into office...

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/08/07/3468610/tennessee-welfare-drug-test-positive/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0

http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/ctypopls.htm

http://www.distance-cities.com/distance-omaha-ne-to-lincoln-ne
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more