Listening to the news on the radio, one big topic today has been the push to drug test recipients of government benefits. Being someone who always asks 'cui bono?' when bad legislation is passed, I immediately realized that this is a welfare program to funnel tax dollars to companies which provide drug testing... in Florida, Governor Rick Scott pushed for drug testing welfare recipients while a company run by his wife stood to potentially benefit. If the Republicans make drug testing mandatory, which well-heeled political supporters will be the recipients of such largesse?
The real bad joke here is that welfare recipients have a lower rate of drug use than people who are employed... no money means no money for drugs. The idea of forcing welfare recipients to undergo drug testing is merely a 'punch down' policy, meant to demean people who are already down. I have only undergone one drug test in my life, a background check and drug test was implemented for all of the coaches in the kids' athletic program I coach for in the post-Penn State atmosphere of due diligence in coaching. It wasn't pleasant- I was given a tiny juice cup while I have a tall boy bladder... I had to choreograph a dance between the tiny cup and golden stream (doesn't quite rhyme). To make matters worse, I couldn't even run the water to wash my hands until I handed the cup over to the testers (can't be reconstituting 'clean' urine now). I basically had to waste half a day to engage in an activity which, at best, wasn't all that pleasant.
Being someone who operates by the 'good for the goose, good for the gander' principle, I suggest that all members of Congress should undergo monthly drug tests until they stop treating the indigent and the unfortunate like shit- these congresscritters receive a hell of a lot more money from the government than some poor unemployed schmo ever will. Hey, maybe Trump can collect all of these samples to usher in a new golden age.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Another aspect of this horror show (which I have been following for some years) is the problem of False Positives.
The essence of the "Screening Test" is that you look at a great many people for whom you have no particular evidence that they are suffering from the disease/engaging in the suspect behavior. If we ballpark the figure at the bottom 10% of households being "on welfare" that works out to about 10 million people being tested.
Given the known false positive rate of about 5%, that works out to about half a million innocent people being unfairly tagged as criminal drug addicts (because we know, as sure as the sun rises in the east, that this record will follow these unfortunates).
Which is horrible policy, especially for a matter cooked up to gratify the biases of some really nasty little pecksniffs.
Just by way of contrast, if you are running an addiction program where - by definition - every enrollie has a known substance abuse issue then the problem with false positives becomes much smaller. (( proof requires a bit of math, google "overdiagnosis" and "bayes theorem" if anyone is that interested)
Hey, B, off topic as hell, but guess where I just got back from? "St Patricks's Day" is a hint....
can collect all of these samples to usher in a new golden age.
What you did there. I saw it.
Given the known false positive rate of about 5%, that works out to about half a million innocent people being unfairly tagged as criminal drug addicts (because we know, as sure as the sun rises in the east, that this record will follow these unfortunates).
That is alarming.
Hey, B, off topic as hell, but guess where I just got back from? "St Patricks's Day" is a hint....
You came to Yonkers and you didn't tell me?
What you did there. I saw it.
I'm a whiz-kid.
Post a Comment