I vote YES on welfare drug testing

I know it's not a popular subject and the argument is that it costs too much to drug test everyone when the majority of people aren't taking drugs. Unfortunately, I'm not really buying into that theory because what we could save in pay outs could offset the costs of the testing itself.

If the test is done once a year and costs an average of $30, just deduct that cost from their monthly pay out. Spread it over a couple months and they won't even notice that much difference, then the tax payers don't have to cover that as well. It's a small price to pay for having someone else work to support your family.

Not to mention that some states report saving pay outs because people refuse to take the test. No lost money for a test not taken but we save the money that would have been paid out to that person if we hadn't mandated testing to begin with. Here is one story about just such an instance.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.


In some states, they indicated the people are losing their benefits for failing to take the mandatory drug test. I say that's a win/win but some folks think people refused the test because "it's not right". Are people living on the system really going to risk losing their main, or only, source of income on principal? I sure wouldn't.

There are tons of reports that say testing people on welfare is a waste of time. I think those of us that are busting our butts and still living paycheck to paycheck to support these folks that can't/won't work feel differently.

If I have to take a drug test to get a job so that I can be taxed to support those that don't work, they should have to be drug tested to get my hard earned money.

And I don't care what your situation is...everyone has to pass the test, regardless of how "valid" their need is.

Kids these days

Dear parents of teens,
Do you have any idea what your kids are doing online? Do you monitor their social media accounts? Do you know their passwords so you can control what they are doing?

Think this is an invasion of their privacy? Tough...until they grow up and move out, they shouldn't assume they have the right to any privacy at all.

It's pretty easy to identify a kid with parents that don't monitor their online activities. They post provocative pictures of themselves, curse & talk about doing drugs & having sex.

It's clear their parents let them surf the web unchecked. It's possible 90% of their posts are pure fiction...published to make themselves appear more interesting than they really are. But...how do you really know?

Seems too many parents take the "what I don't know won't hurt me" approach. Thinking that there won't be any problems if they ignore the signs.

Had a conversation with Josh about some of the things I've seen posted online in the last few weeks. He then had a talk with one of the girls because she was making jokes about rape. Seriously?!??!?!?!?! Where are the parents these days?

Pay attention, control your kids & be involved...before something bad happens!

Electronic Meth Tracking

The meth problem in Indiana has gotten really bad. There has to be a way to stop it. What can be done? 1 step in the right direction is a new law that will track ephedrine & pseudoephedrine purchases electronically. This article talks about the changes taking place effective January 1st, 2012.

This is a big improvement over the manual, paper records that were only compiled at the pharmacy level. It should make it easier for pharmacies and law enforcement to track and harder for meth makers to purchase large quantities of this drug within the state of Indiana.

What about those that cross the state line to Illinois or Kentucky which is a short drive away? Is the electronic system only being used at stores within the Indiana state line? This will help alot for those meth users that are too lazy to cross the border but most of them will eventually "get smart" and go elsewhere.

Also, the max limit per 30 day period is 240 pills. I can't think of any legitimate need for that many pills per month. Shouldn't this limit be much lower? I know this is lower than the previous limit but it's still too much for me. I'm not sure how many pills it takes to make meth but we need to lower this limit.

What else could be done to prevent the meth making problem?
- Lower the number of pills allowed per month
- Require a prescription for products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine
- If a purchase is attempted that is over the monthly limit, contact police immediately

I'm not sure how they plan to log these folks into the system but I sincerely hope they require a valid state issued ID and are logging them based on several factors that can be cross-referenced in the event someone has multiple ID's with different information.

There have been way too many labs and explosions in the state over the last year and something needs to be done. Police officers should not have to risk their lives for this sort of foolishness.

On a lighter note, check out the Faces Of Meth - Before & After pics. Here is one of my favorites.