[king360]

This is a win/lose situation..I like the fact that they are drug testing for it, but what about the kids who rely on that to have food on the table?

[zaga_fan]

This is a win/lose situation..I like the fact that they are drug testing for it, but what about the kids who rely on that to have food on the table?

It's a tough one...
but I would imagine that the food comes second to the drugs for the parent.
Maybe this could be something that could either help the parents get cleaned up or get the kids in a better situation.

[Old School]

It's a tough one...
but I would imagine that the food comes second to the drugs for the parent.
Maybe this could be something that could either help the parents get cleaned up or get the kids in a better situation.

That is my biggest fear, the parents that are using drugs are more concerned about how they will buy their drugs, than they are about putting food on the table for their kids.

[Bob Seger]

other info

the average cost of a drug test is about $42 per person tested, not including the costs of hiring personnel to administer the tests, to ensure confidentiality of results and to run confirmatory tests to guard against false positives resulting from passive drug exposure, cross-identification with legal, prescription drugs such as codeine and legal substances such as poppy seeds.
Another way to measure the cost is by counting what it costs to “catch” each drug user. Drug testing is not used by many private employers because of the exorbitant cost of catching each person who tests positive. One electronics manufacturer, for example, estimated that the cost of finding each person who tested positive was $20,000, since after testing 10,000 employees, only 49 tested positive. A congressional committee also estimated that the cost of each positive drug test of government employees was $77,000, because the positive rate was only 0.5%

I am a member of a very large consortium and mine is costing $60 a crack. One of my sons just had to take a test to be admitted to med school and it was an $80 charge out of his pocket. I dont know if the state would contract something like this out or try to impliment it themselves , but either way I doubt with the way the government works that they would be getting the best bang for the buck by contract or be cost efficient trying it on their own. I suspect that they couldn't even be close to being competive as opposed to dealing with an outside source. Anyways I would love to get the $42 deal that you speak of.

[Old School]

If I were a betting person my guess is that our government would pay well over $100 per test. Considering the fact that private employers are paying between $42 and $80 per test, and considering how our government works.

[TheRealVille]

It's a tough one...
but I would imagine that the food comes second to the drugs for the parent.
Maybe this could be something that could either help the parents get cleaned up or get the kids in a better situation.

I'm tore on this one also. Besides your valid points Zaga, what happens to the kids if the parents test positive? What will happen with all the kids? I love the fact that the druggies get their free ride taken, but I just wonder where all the removed kids will go. I get tested regularly for work, but I have no idea what they cost. The company pays for it.


I haven't read through the thread, so excuse me if this has been brought up and answered. I'll go read through now.


Lot's of good points on both sides.

Wildcat, your picture scares me.

[Stardust]

I'm tore on this one also. Besides your valid points Zaga, what happens to the kids if the parents test positive? What will happen with all the kids? I love the fact that the druggies get their free ride taken, but I just wonder where all the removed kids will go. I get tested regularly for work, but I have no idea what they cost. The company pays for it.


I haven't read through the thread, so excuse me if this has been brought up and answered. I'll go read through now.


Lot's of good points on both sides.

Wildcat, your picture scares me.

I understand your point about the kids, but if the parents are junkies, what do the kids have anyhow? How often have you seen that kids of junkies turn into junkies themselves. Maybe it's the only way to save the kids period. If child services sees that kids are not eating, then they take them out of that environment. I say that's better for the kids than giving them a future the same as their parents!

[Hoot Gibson]

I understand your point about the kids, but if the parents are junkies, what do the kids have anyhow? How often have you seen that kids of junkies turn into junkies themselves. Maybe it's the only way to save the kids period. If child services sees that kids are not eating, then they take them out of that environment. I say that's better for the kids than giving them a future the same as their parents!

:Thumbs: It would be a lot cheaper to feed children a little more in school cafeterias than to finance their parents' drug habits with welfare checks.

[Old School]

I understand your point about the kids, but if the parents are junkies, what do the kids have anyhow? How often have you seen that kids of junkies turn into junkies themselves. Maybe it's the only way to save the kids period. If child services sees that kids are not eating, then they take them out of that environment. I say that's better for the kids than giving them a future the same as their parents!

Good Point SD. Sad to say, but I think this happens more than we realize.

:Thumbs: It would be a lot cheaper to feed children a little more in school cafeterias than to finance their parents' drug habits with welfare checks.

I agree Hoot, but in many school districts, careterias have changed greatly over the past several years, now they are restricted in the amount of food given to the children. Due to the child obesity problems, schools do not give out seconds to the kids. I think it's just another way to waste tax payer monies and a shame that schools are throwing out perfectly good food instead of giving it to children who really need it.

[Hoot Gibson]

Good Point SD. Sad to say, but I think this happens more than we realize.



I agree Hoot, but in many school districts, careterias have changed greatly over the past several years, now they are restricted in the amount of food given to the children. Due to the child obesity problems, schools do not give out seconds to the kids. I think it's just another way to waste tax payer monies and a shame that schools are throwing out perfectly good food instead of giving it to children who really need it.

What you are saying is true but it is just another reason why the federal government meddling in public schools needs to end.

I know that in the past, certain principals in the Johnson County school system have instructed cafeteria workers to give certain children as much food as they wanted because they knew the kids were not getting fed at home. Rules have probably changed since that took place but if they have, then those are rules that need to be broken if at all possible. I cannot imagine any Johnson County jury would convict a school employee of any crime done to prevent a child from starving.

[outdoorsman43]

:Thumbs: It would be a lot cheaper to feed children a little more in school cafeterias than to finance their parents' drug habits with welfare checks.

Amen to that.

[TheRealVille]

:Thumbs: It would be a lot cheaper to feed children a little more in school cafeterias than to finance their parents' drug habits with welfare checks.

Correct. :Thumbs: I wasn't really committing either way in the above post, just trying to think of different variables. I can whole heartedly agree with giving them more food at school, and starving their druggy parents out. Good point.

[TheRealVille]

I understand your point about the kids, but if the parents are junkies, what do the kids have anyhow? How often have you seen that kids of junkies turn into junkies themselves. Maybe it's the only way to save the kids period. If child services sees that kids are not eating, then they take them out of that environment. I say that's better for the kids than giving them a future the same as their parents!

Yep. Was just thinking out loud about some things that I was wondering about.

[Hoot Gibson]

Correct. :Thumbs: I wasn't really committing either way in the above post, just trying to think of different variables. I can whole heartedly agree with giving them more food at school, and starving their druggy parents out. Good point.

We agree on yet another point. I know that the Johnson County did this for years and if the state and federal government has put a stop to the practice then shame on them. JC has also discretely taken donations for clothing and shoes for needy children over the years whose parents could not or would not properly clothe them. I have been critical of the Johnson County school system from time to time but they have had some very compassionate teachers and administrators over the years (and still do) who have not hesitated to dip into their own pockets to help kids who needed help.

One former principal, Paul Setser even loaned a kid his car to take his driving test for his license during school because he knew that it was the only chance that he had. I know because I rode to the courthouse with him. Paul Setser was a strict disciplinarian but he was fair and never held grudges against kids. Children are just numbers to most Washington and Frankfort bureaucrats. That is why I am so strongly in favor of local control of schools. Local people understand and care more about local problems than the people in Washington and Frankfort because they know the communities and the children in those communities.

[Amun-Ra]

Test these parasites. It would be a good start to fixing a huge problem in this area and others alike.

Actually the only way to really get rid of the problem is to cutoff pain killers entirely. They should only be used for cancer patients and the such. If your back hurts take a Motrin and shut up.

[TheRealVille]

Test these parasites. It would be a good start to fixing a huge problem in this area and others alike.

Actually the only way to really get rid of the problem is to cutoff pain killers entirely. They should only be used for cancer patients and the such. If your back hurts take a Motrin and shut up.

What he said. I've had my back broke in a car wreck, and you don't see me taking that junk.

[Stardust]

Test these parasites. It would be a good start to fixing a huge problem in this area and others alike.

Actually the only way to really get rid of the problem is to cutoff pain killers entirely. They should only be used for cancer patients and the such. If your back hurts take a Motrin and shut up.

But you can't get Motrin for free on welfare! The the drug companies would be LOSING MILLIONS of dollars by not charging the government full fare for the really good drugs.......:HitWall:

[Stardust]

What he said. I've had my back broke in a car wreck, and you don't see me taking that junk.

Come on RealVille, you have to be scrounging off the government to get your free junk!

[TheRealVille]

Come on RealVille, you have to be scrounging off the government to get your free junk!

LOL, yea. I get nothing free, except a hard time from my BGR buddies.

[vundy33]

BFritz, the random part of it is just that, random. I'm guessing whenever it's time for the recipients "review" or whatever they have every few months to keep receiving their checks, they'll come up for a drug test. If the government did this, I think they would use the military's random drug testing as an example. We just get randomly picked out of a roster on a computer.

This won't happen, because it's logistically challenging for our government to pull off. Simple as that.

But I do think it's a decent idea. It wouldn't really catch people up in that much crap, I don't think. Most of the people that are on drugs have a prescription for it. Go around EKY and try to find some cocaine. It's alot harder than it used to be just because prescription pain killers and all that have completely taken over.

I may be wrong though. I don't really know.

[Amun-Ra]

BFritz, the random part of it is just that, random. I'm guessing whenever it's time for the recipients "review" or whatever they have every few months to keep receiving their checks, they'll come up for a drug test. If the government did this, I think they would use the military's random drug testing as an example. We just get randomly picked out of a roster on a computer.

This won't happen, because it's logistically challenging for our government to pull off. Simple as that.

But I do think it's a decent idea. It wouldn't really catch people up in that much crap, I don't think. Most of the people that are on drugs have a prescription for it. Go around EKY and try to find some cocaine. It's alot harder than it used to be just because prescription pain killers and all that have completely taken over.

I may be wrong though. I don't really know.

And that is the biggest problem of all. How do these people keep getting put on disability and get their SSI when they have never once worked or anything? Crooked *** judges, doctors and lawyers are getting rich off enabling all these piece of **** people in this area.

[vundy33]

^^Exactly.