August 7, 2014 11:40 am -

The state tested 812 people in July and only one person tested positive. That means less than 1%.

In the month since it began, six people submitted to a drug test and just one tested positive out of the 812 people who applied. Four were turned down for benefits because they refused to participate in drug screening. That means a positive rate of 0.12 percent for those who took part in the screening. That compares to the 8 percent of state residents generally who use illegal drugs.

Despite stereotypes that the poor people who need welfare assistance use drugs at a high rate, other states have had similar results. In Utah, just 12 people tested positive in a year of drug testing applicants. In Florida, 2 percent of applicants failed the tests in 2011 but the state has an 8 percent rate of illegal drug use.
And when Maine’s governor set out to prove that welfare recipients in his state were using their benefits to buy drinks and cigarettes at bars and strip clubs, he turned up next to nothing.

Fiscal conservatives ought to have a word with their governors in states where this is being done.

Utah spent more than $30,000 in the year that turned up just 12 drug users. The purported savings in Florida’s program will be negligible after administrative costs and reimbursements for the drug tests are taken into account. The $1.5 million price tag with just $229,000 in savings for a proposed program in Virginia prompted lawmakers to reject it.


D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

96 responses to Tennessee Drug Tests Welfare Recipients; Finds Just One Person Using Drugs

  1. Teddy Simon August 7th, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Florida did the same thing plus the Republican gov. owns the largest test firm in the state HMMMM

    • Pilotshark August 7th, 2014 at 12:15 pm

      isn’t that his wife that owns the company? anyways it still was a scam.

      • Teddy Simon August 7th, 2014 at 12:27 pm

        Yes it was but what’s the difference , he passed a law that benefited a family member and that is against the law in most states but then again we are talking about Florida , love the beaches there but the politics well that is a different story .

        • Mainah August 7th, 2014 at 12:45 pm

          I believe Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act benefitted his brother Jeb or was it Neil, who happened to own a company that made the tests? You remember Neil during the S&L days? No more shrubbery.

          • Pilotshark August 7th, 2014 at 2:16 pm

            Think it was Neil, the one thats good at savings and loans,, now wait was that McCain and loans.

            “A company led by President Bush’s brother and partly owned by his parents is benefiting from Republican connections and federal money targeted for economically disadvantaged students under the No Child Left Behind Act.

            With investments from his parents, George and Barbara Bush, and other backers, Neil Bush’s company, Ignite Learning, has placed its products in 40 U.S. school districts and plans to market internationally.”

          • Mainah August 7th, 2014 at 3:12 pm

            Frightening isn’t it?

          • Pilotshark August 7th, 2014 at 3:25 pm

            it should make you think, that’s for sure:-)

  2. arc99 August 7th, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    I think this is another example demonstrating that conservatives’ alleged devotion to fiscal responsibility is the biggest scam in politics today, found in all levels of government.

    When it comes to their legislative priorities, the cost to taxpayers is seldom mentioned for initiatives backed by conservatives. Look at what just happened with Israel’s “Iron Dome”. The House voted to fund it 395-8, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly a quarter billion dollars.

    Drug testing welfare applicants fits in perfectly with the demonization of the poor, And if you think that it is not demonization, then let’s also drug test the CEO and board of directors of any company which receives a government contract. If it is such a wonderful f*cking idea to make sure that no one who receives taxpayer dollars, is smoking a joint in their living room at night, then let us start with the people earning six figure incomes, thanks to taxpayers. Let’s drug test them first. Then we can turn our attention to a single mother getting a couple hundred a month to keep her kids from starving.

    • Pilotshark August 7th, 2014 at 12:17 pm

      before one of them gets a federal loan or contact the CEO, CFO, COO, CIO and the other C`s needs to take a Wiz Quiz just like the regular folks.

      • ShelleysLeg August 8th, 2014 at 8:46 am

        A hair clipping would be more to my liking.

    • m2old4bs August 7th, 2014 at 12:32 pm

      Couldn’t agree more

    • mmaynard119 August 7th, 2014 at 5:02 pm

      And if you saw The Wolf of Wall Street, the percentage of CEO’s who tested positive would be much higher.

    • TerryW August 7th, 2014 at 11:30 pm

      Should also test the CEOs and boards of companies who require drug testing for job applicants. Why should a six figure income suit get to smoke a joint in his living room at night while denying an $8 an hour applicant a job for the same thing?

  3. Mainah August 7th, 2014 at 12:38 pm

    I wonder what was cheaper, the 30k to find 12 people or the benefits the 12 would have received if they even qualified to receive some? I think the term “fiscally responsible” needs to be actually understood as a function and not a descriptor.

  4. NW10 August 7th, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    • Mainah August 7th, 2014 at 12:41 pm


  5. tiredoftea August 7th, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    Republicans, redefining the “War on Poverty” since 1981, but not in a good way.

  6. vjhunny August 7th, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    Very misleading. 812 APPLIED for benefits, only 6 were tested. One was positive. Might want to go back to math class and resubmit those findings. 4 turned it down because they probably would have tested positive.

    • Mainah August 7th, 2014 at 1:41 pm

      Facts not in evidence. What if they found it violating? So, no you can’t just say they probably would.

      • mmaynard119 August 7th, 2014 at 5:01 pm

        I think there was some miswriting involved. As the article said at the beginning, 812 were tested and 1 tested positive, which is how the .12 percent is calculated. This is consistent with the results of Florida and other states who mandated this invasion of privacy.

        • Mino Re August 8th, 2014 at 8:44 am

          exactly. “six people submitted to a drug test and just one tested positive out of the 812 people who applied” is confusing and sloppy. I could read that easily as 1 in 6, which is 16.7 percent, not .12 percent. And after reading and rereading I still don’t know the actual numbers.

          • Kate August 9th, 2014 at 12:21 am

            well adding to that the 4 that refused you could essentially say only 5 out of the 10 came up clean which drastically changes it to a 50% “clean”, but since we don’t know for sure about the other 4 it could go either way but I’m guessing you wouldn’t turn down much needed benefits if you had nothing to hide.

          • raincheck1956 August 9th, 2014 at 5:31 pm

            Your using the wrong info….. dimwit

        • vjhunny August 8th, 2014 at 12:48 pm

          Thank you. It’s refreshing to see someone who actually read the article and understood what I was referring to. Love the people who jumped all over me, as if I am advocating for the testing, when I never said any such thing. I usually find that kind of ignorance on conservative comment threads. Attack attack attack…oh, wait, why are we attacking her again? Smh.

      • vjhunny August 8th, 2014 at 12:52 pm

        What facts? The ones the article used? I only quoted them. Me saying “they probably would” is an opinion, not a fact and I never said it was a fact. Learn the difference between facts and opinions, you sound like a republican. Nobody knows why they turned it down, THAT is a fact. Have a good one.

        • Mainah August 8th, 2014 at 12:59 pm

          Wow. “You sound like a republican.” Funny, I thought that of you but I digress. It’s a simple sentence reply to your opinion. No need to flip out dear. Thanks, I will and you also.

          • vjhunny August 8th, 2014 at 1:07 pm

            Lol, it’s only a fact that I stated my opinion.

          • vjhunny August 8th, 2014 at 1:08 pm

            No flipping out, you are my entertainment today. Both my husband and I have enjoyed this exchange over our coffee (yes, I’ve been reading it to him as we go along) . Thanks! 🙂

          • Mainah August 8th, 2014 at 1:09 pm

            Your welcome. We were thinking the same!

          • raincheck1956 August 9th, 2014 at 6:34 am

            You and your husband need to get out more often….

          • raincheck1956 August 9th, 2014 at 5:37 pm

            What an incredible life the two of you have together! wow…… I’m sure he was riveted to his seat….

          • Mainah August 8th, 2014 at 1:08 pm

            Well, the second reply was you conceding my point that they could have turned it down for principle while you supposed that they would not pass. LOL.

          • ShelleysLeg August 9th, 2014 at 12:27 am

            She attacked me and some others as well. I’m going to ignore her nasty comments.

          • Mainah August 9th, 2014 at 9:34 am

            I give everybody a shot. But the reply I got was over the top trolling. I won’t waste my time. Ok, occasionally, I will poke a troll with a stick. 3:)

    • Paul August 7th, 2014 at 8:30 pm

      From the primary source (Alan links to Thinkprogress, which links to the Tennessean): “The vast majority — 802 — passed the initial written drug screening.”

      you: “4 turned it down because they probably would have tested positive.”

      OR because they felt it was a gross, untenable invasion of privacy, which it is. I have just as much evidence to support my conclusion as you have for yours.

      • vjhunny August 8th, 2014 at 12:35 pm

        Where does it say anything about a written screening in this article?? And you say you have facts, when in FACT, you only have your opinion as to WHY they turned it down. Learn the difference between fact and opinion, you sound like a republican. I based my comment on what the article actually says. That is my “evidence” (lol) The only possible “evidence” you could have to dispute what I said is actual testimony from the people who turned it down. Go find someone else to have a pissing contest with.

      • Kate August 9th, 2014 at 12:15 am

        So let me get this right… your argument is that these people who we can assume “needed” benefits turned down the testing on principal? So when was the last time you turned down something you actually “needed” (we’re not talking “wanted” but “needed”)? When’s the last time you sat for hours and went through the whole process only to walk away and say… You know what I’m gonna choose starvation over peeing in a cup cause I got nothing to hide but I have a problem with you asking in the first place. When did you EVER hear of that happening? I agree with VJHUNNY, they declined because they knew they would come up dirty and probably didn’t want it recorded in the system.

    • Dwendt44 August 8th, 2014 at 12:47 am

      What ever the few that tested positive could easily have a legitimate reason to test positive. RX drugs for a medical condition or even eating hamburger buns with seeds on top could put you over their arbitrary limit.

      • vjhunny August 8th, 2014 at 12:31 pm

        I agree.

    • ShelleysLeg August 8th, 2014 at 8:44 am

      Yes because that enormous maximum of $220 dollars a month buys tons of drugs, particularly when bartered!

      But please proceed……you all can’t find enough ways to waste MY money as it is!

      • vjhunny August 8th, 2014 at 12:45 pm

        “You all” ? Who are you referring to? If you’re referring to the idiot republicans who keep throwing money away while proclaiming to be fiscally conservative, fine, but don’t lump me in with those jackwads. They wasted enough already with their blocking of everything our POTUS tries to do. I simply stated that the article is misleading, the first line and the first paragraph say two different things. They need to just stop wasting MY money. What is it with people like YOU ALL…I point something out and “you all” automatically get bitchy and your little brain pegs me as a republican, which I most decidely am not, lol
        Reading comprehension.

        • ShelleysLeg August 9th, 2014 at 12:26 am

          Wow, talk about touchy, as well as ‘bitchy’!!

          You’ve managed to attack anyone and everyone who some how seem to share the same opinion of YOUR tortured sentences.

          Before you lecture anyone on reading comprehension, perhaps you should read your own posts and figure out WHY people are attacking you!

          Most of us here are progressives and THIS is how you talk to us? Pretty sure you’ve run off what remaining friends you once had.

          • hownow August 12th, 2014 at 2:21 pm

            Wow, Shelley, the only thing this person attacked was the misleading statements in the article, which if you’d spend 2 minutes (maybe I’m being generous here) actually looking at instead of “attacking” others, you’d understand. I am no republican but these articles, with their obviously incorrect and twisted wording, gives ammunition to the ones that you so hate. This is why you can’t allow this sort of thing stand in your name. You are defending shoddy, sensational journalism just because it says what you want to hear.

    • raincheck1956 August 8th, 2014 at 8:45 am

      At the very top of the page……The state tested 812 people in July and only one person tested positive. That means less than 1%….

      • vjhunny August 8th, 2014 at 12:41 pm

        Which is why I said it was misleading. The first line did say that, but read the second paragraph. Yes, 4 turned it down, but “In the month since it began, six people submitted to a drug test and just one tested positive out of the 812 people who applied. ” Read that several times, if you need to. Six people SUBMITTED….if that word is too big for you, go look it up.
        I am against the testing, always have been. It’s those “fiscally conservative republicans” throwing money around away once again.

        • Kate August 9th, 2014 at 12:09 am

          I TOTALLY agree with you, effin lemmings can’t read past the first line or critically analyze what is presented in the media because SURLY the media doesn’t twist $hit!

          • raincheck1956 August 9th, 2014 at 5:40 pm

            And here you are stuck on the wrong facts… aren’t you embarrassed?

          • Kate August 9th, 2014 at 10:03 pm

            The only embarrasment I feel is for you dumba$$

        • raincheck1956 August 9th, 2014 at 6:24 am

          Sorry…. I didn’t know you were mislead so easily.

      • Kate August 9th, 2014 at 12:01 pm

        VJ don’t fret over this idiot… sometimes some people are so stupid that they have no idea of how far off they are… Ignorance is a bliss that only some of us get to enjoy. Those are usually the same ones who feel it’s ok to reach into our pockets to help them maintain this ignorance.

        • raincheck1956 August 9th, 2014 at 5:44 pm

          Perhaps you could explain to me ..HOW I was off… Please proceed Kate

    • Chinese Democracy August 9th, 2014 at 12:23 pm

      “4 turned it down because they probably would have tested positive.” yeah because all poor black people probably do drugs ..

  7. majii August 7th, 2014 at 5:33 pm

    GA’s RW lawmakers passed a bill mandating that SNAP recipients be tested for drugs and our ethically-challenged RW governor, Nathan Deal, signed it into law. The feds slapped them—hard—by informing them that because SNAP is a federal program, the state of GA doesn’t have the authority to establish additional requirements for participating in the program. The law was a joke from the start because it left the determination of whether one would/would not be referred for drug testing up to the social workers who deal with applicants. Since I live in GA, that fact that the RWers running the government got embarrassed because of their ignorance and pandering to the extreme BS is nothing new.

    • TerryW August 7th, 2014 at 11:26 pm

      That and the fact it’s been RW policies/actions/non-actions that have put so many more in need of assistance in the first place. Now let’s add insult to injury by invasively testing their bodies. I don’t think invasively is a word, but I’m using it anyway.

  8. whatthe46 August 7th, 2014 at 9:56 pm

    not to mention the effects it has on the children. so instead of getting them the help they need and otherwise can’t afford, the children should be punished twice over.

  9. dianeriley1 August 8th, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    Rick Scott did the same thing a few years ago and had to reimburse every single person for the cost of the drug tests when they all tested negative at a cost of millions. Only two people tested positive.

    • voice_reason August 11th, 2014 at 10:25 am

      and of course, they used the drug testing company that he was major shareholder in….

  10. Lindsncal August 8th, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    The problem, as well as most of the country’s problems, stem from the southern republican states who take their orders and get their information from the likes of the Koch Bros and other fascist corporate groups.

    There must be a way to trade them all for Mexico or to help promote their secession from America and watch them disintegrate into a third world country with no government.

    In a few years they’d all be walking to work with their ak47s to protect themselves on their way to their 3 jobs at $7 an hour with no health care and living on chili dogs made with pink slime.

    • Kate August 8th, 2014 at 11:58 pm

      So what does this ramble have to do with the actual article?

  11. burqa August 8th, 2014 at 9:23 pm

    Watch out, them drug addick welfare people are taking over!

  12. Rixar13 McGinnis August 8th, 2014 at 9:26 pm

    Drug Test the Republican Politicians.

  13. Doug Johnson August 8th, 2014 at 10:06 pm

    “Applicants have to answer three questions about drug use to get benefits, and if they answer yes to any of them, they get referred to urine testing. If the result is positive, they have to complete a treatment plan and then take another test. If the second comes back positive, they get cut off from benefits for six months. Those who refuse to take a drug test in the first place can’t get benefits.”

    So all people have to do is answer NO to all three questions and they don’t have to do a piss test.

    Man, this is FOOL PROOF!

  14. Kate August 8th, 2014 at 11:55 pm

    So this author has no idea how to actually analyze stat values because if he did, he would be reporting this very differently. Trying to say that only 1 out of 812 people tested positive is TOTAL BS because they ONLY TESTED SIX! But I’m sure this was done because statically 1 fail out of 6 tested actually goes against this writers beliefs because it’s actually closer to 17% (not %1 as this writer suggests). What’s more troubling is the 4 that refused since we could rationalize why they refused. When you add the four who refused to the six that tested, you have a total of 10 “actual” participants with only 5 that were guaranteed clean. meaning ONLY 50% CLEAN!

    So either this author needs to check his numbers or learn how to critically analyze statistics because he’s WAY off and any lemming that takes this article at face value… well they should be tested too!

    • raincheck1956 August 9th, 2014 at 7:27 am

      “Trying to say that only 1 out of 812 people tested positive is TOTAL BS because they ONLY TESTED SIX!”…..I can’t believe how stupid you are

      • Kate August 9th, 2014 at 11:54 am

        LOL, except that you’re not even smart enough to know what I’m talking about which is actually quite comical…

      • voice_reason August 11th, 2014 at 10:24 am

        maybe you need to re-read the article one more time, very slowly so you can grasp the full meaning of all the numbers they used

        • raincheck1956 August 11th, 2014 at 2:51 pm

          Do you mean this?…”In the month since it began, six people submitted to a drug test and just one tested positive out of the 812 people who applied.” Please explain it …real slow so I understand……

          • hownow August 12th, 2014 at 2:09 pm

            “In the month since it began,” means in the last 30 days.

            “six people submitted to a drug test” means 6 people were tested for drugs (<– THIS IS IMPORTANT. REMEMBER THIS.).

            "just one tested positive" means only one of those 6 that were tested were found with drugs in their system.

            "out of the 812 people who applied" – this is the "tricky" and most important part. 812 people asked for benefits, not tested for drugs. If you go back to the second part I explained, ONLY 6 OUT OF THOSE 812 WERE TESTED FOR DRUGS. So, 812 – 6 = 806 PEOPLE THAT WEREN'T TESTED FOR DRUGS.

            They are misleading you and anyone else that doesn't actually think about what they are reading more closely. "Out of 812 who applied" is a red herring that is meaningless to the point of the rest of the sentence.

            One more time: Out of 812 people that asked for assistance, 6 people were tested for drugs. 1 of those 6 were positive. NOT 1 OF 812, 1 OF 6. 806 PEOPLE WEREN'T TESTED FOR DRUGS.

            Imagine someone is selling you 812 apples. You ask, "Do these apples have worms?". The seller says, "I looked at 6 apples and only 1 of those 6 apples had a worm." Would you say that 1 out 812 apples had a worm or 1 out of 6?

            Does this make sense to you now?

    • Zuckerton August 10th, 2014 at 11:50 am

      Some people suffer from Paruresi (aka Shy Bladder), if they can’t produce a result within a certain amount of time, it’s written up as a “refusal”.

      So perhaps those who “refused” to take the test, didn’t due so of their own will, it was because they couldn’t produce a result in the given time.

      It’s not uncommon, there have been plenty of people who have lost their jobs because of paruresi.

  15. Kate August 9th, 2014 at 12:05 am

    Uhhh, yea… it’s called enabling. If you were an addict and you kept asking your parents for money so you could continue to buy drugs do you think they would give it to you knowing you were using drugs? Risking your life and possibly that of your children? NO, not if they actually cared about you. And lets not forget that these benefits come from taxpayer dollars. Money taken from hard working citizens (without our consent), I don’t know about you but I’m NOT OK with busting my a$$ at work 40+ hours a week struggling to make my own bills only to find out the guy down the street is getting govt. handouts to pay for everything he needs so he can continue using drugs and not working like the rest of us. So while I’m sure you’re not the ONLY one who feels this way… I think those of us who have gone through tough times, haven’t turned to substances and skimming off the govt. might not hold the same beliefs.

    To be fair though… I would say that if they come in for benefits and come up dirty they should be offered support and options about getting back on track before they receive financial benefits.

    • Rusty Shackleford August 9th, 2014 at 12:12 am

      So you subscribe to the belief that people should be required to EARN their basic survival necessities, and are content to let them die if they transgress or don’t prove their worth to you through labor?

      • Kate August 9th, 2014 at 1:31 am

        Survival of the fittest is an ugly theory and yet… all living beings must live by it. If you don’t want that life, make better choices.

        • Rusty Shackleford August 9th, 2014 at 1:39 am

          Who says they “must?” You? You’re the only one here saying so.

          • Kate August 9th, 2014 at 1:44 am

            so i’ll guess you’re not that educated as you don’t seem to have awareness of evolution… Well that’s ok, Google can explain it to you if you don’t bleed out before you can look it up. sigh…

          • Rusty Shackleford August 9th, 2014 at 1:51 am

            I’m well aware of evolution, and your overly simplistic understanding of it. Do you think evolution makes for a good model for human-engineered economies? We create them, we control them, why should we restrict our designs to the rules of things we don’t create or control?

          • Kate August 9th, 2014 at 11:57 am

            And YES to answer your question… I believe that nobody “deserves” hand outs while the rest of us bust our A$$es to pay for them to abuse drugs. But I’m guessing you don’t agree… Maybe it’s because your living high off my tax dollars?

          • Rusty Shackleford August 9th, 2014 at 6:28 pm

            Maybe it’s because I don’t believe people have to EARN their right to basic survival necessities. Necessities that they are only separated from by force thanks to the capitalist system.

            An example: for every homeless person in the country, there are FIVE vacant residencies. We have their basic survival necessity of shelter right over here, in surplus, but they are not allowed to have it unless they prove their value to someone with capital and “earn” their right to live.

            And you think that’s perfectly acceptable and not at all fucked up in a system WE CREATED, ENGINEERED, AND CONTROL. This isn’t “natural law” or evolution, we DESIGNED this, and we can change it any god damn time we want.

      • stormykitteh August 11th, 2014 at 9:24 am

        “…be required to EARN their basic survival necessities…”

        You say that as if there is something wrong with that premise. Of course I agree with that premise. Unless one is an orphan, retarded with IQ< 70 or crippled and brain damaged so as to not be able to get on a computer, yes I agree with the premise that relatively able bodied people are responsible for garnering their own employment (which ought to be a survival necessity), housing, food, transportation and services as such to keep the aforementioned going. Those who can't or won't ought not be on the forced tithings of others (tax payers' monies) but charity – voluntary giving by those who WANT to donate.

        "Labor" and personal responsibility are what make one's self-esteem and self-determination. "Labor" is a good thing for the individual as it gives one autonomy. Sucking a government teat just puts one on the reservation and is very destructive to the individual – weakening him and making him dependent.

        • Rusty Shackleford August 11th, 2014 at 11:29 am

          You know what’s very destructive to the individual? DYING from lack of food, water, shelter, or healthcare, because he didn’t prove the value of his life to you through labor. Seems like it’s less about self-esteem and more about impressing YOU.

          • stormykitteh August 11th, 2014 at 11:50 am

            I pull my weight, try pulling yours. If I want someone to be responsible for, I’ll have or adopt more kids. Grow up.

          • OldLefty August 11th, 2014 at 12:22 pm

            I pull my weight, try pulling yours.


            That’s what EVERYBODY says.

            Including those with their hands out, like many tea people.

          • stormykitteh August 11th, 2014 at 12:48 pm

            You are revealing more about yourself than you realize with that statement.

          • OldLefty August 11th, 2014 at 12:59 pm

            Thou dost project too much, Methinks!

          • Rusty Shackleford August 11th, 2014 at 2:26 pm

            Grown-ups actually address their opponents’ arguments rather than attempting cheap shots on their character. Grow up.

          • stormykitteh August 11th, 2014 at 3:58 pm

            Grownups actually don’t stamp their feet and demand other people support them. You have no argument, just a set of petulant demands that no one ever bothered to tell you were your own responsibility. Want to help a person in need? We have opened our home to a mom & child for 4 years. She’ on her feet and doing well now. Difference between you and me? I didn’t demand someone else foot the bills when we decided these people needed shelter and food. Get your paw away fro my pocket, you wannabe parasite.

          • Rusty Shackleford August 11th, 2014 at 5:44 pm

            What exactly is the purpose of society and governments to you if not to ensure the welfare of its citizens? Why even have a government if you’re not going to do anything useful with it?

          • stormykitteh August 11th, 2014 at 12:50 pm

            Moms getting ready to evict someone from the basement agan?

          • OldLefty August 11th, 2014 at 1:05 pm

            Why do you guys have to invent fantasies about strangers who disagree with you?

            Life in the right wing echo chamber.

          • stormykitteh August 11th, 2014 at 1:25 pm

            Why do lefties have to incessantly try to dig in other people’s pants? Mostly for OPM (other people’s money).

          • OldLefty August 11th, 2014 at 1:42 pm

            That’s EXACTLY what WE say about YOU.

            Especially the corporate welfare queens and the red welfare states.

            The Red State motto;
            Get You Government Hands off My Government Handouts!

          • stormykitteh August 11th, 2014 at 4:04 pm

            Let’s see how that works for you when the power goes off. LOL I’ve got to go get set up to can my maters and beans and then make spicy eggplant in garlic sauce for supper.(all out of my red state garden, chuckle).

          • Rusty Shackleford August 11th, 2014 at 2:24 pm

            I “earn” my living, but your pathetic attempt at ad hominem is noted. I guess actually engaging me like an adult is too difficult.

          • stormykitteh August 11th, 2014 at 4:11 pm

            You’re typing belies a parasitic nature not consistent with being an adult in modern society, expand that to any society. Ever expanding “entitlements” is the rallying call of those who want to be coddled like big Baby Hueys, content to lie in their feculent mess until “someone” comes to change, feed and clothe them again. Since personal autonomy and responsibility mean naught to you, how do you manage to fill your days?

          • Rusty Shackleford August 11th, 2014 at 5:43 pm

            I work full time and live independently, but your continued dodging of the discussion in favor of levying baseless personal attacks at me is noted.

  16. hownow August 12th, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    So in all the back and forth of the comments, only two people seem to understand basic math and reading comprehension. I actually read this article as well as the linked article, and this one is terribly misleading. The first line of this article states “The state tested 812 people in July” but according to the linked article, IT DID NOT. Now people – READ THE ARTICLES. It actually says out of 812 people applied for assistance, ONLY 6 WERE TESTED FOR DRUGS because they answered one of three questions with a yes. 4 refused, 1 tested positive, and 1 apparently tested clean. So, 1 out of 6 tested were positive, not 1 out of 812. 806 people WERE NOT TESTED because they answered NO to all the questions. How is this anything but lying with statistics and misleading wording? And before you flame me, I am against drug testing welfare recipients, but this article is fodder for pro-drug testing people! It’s painfully misleading and is obviously wrong!

  17. QPhysics September 13th, 2014 at 8:08 am

    Only TEN of these 812 were randomly selected for drug screening. Of those, FOUR refused to even take the screening and were subsequently denied benefits. Of the six who took the drug screening, one failed…so FIVE OF TEN people who were randomly selected for drug screening either failed it or knew they would fail so withdrew their application.

    That seems more like 50% to me, and is the perfect argument for making this mandatory for everyone (applicants and current recipients) rather than random testing.