Doesn't matter. The OP was disingenuous at the very lest. You can't extrapolate the 0.3% to those not tested only the 89.Originally Posted by leekohler2
Advisor
Doesn't matter. The OP was disingenuous at the very lest. You can't extrapolate the 0.3% to those not tested only the 89.
It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right.
Senior Member
I have several pertinent concerns.
The criteria used by those social workers in deciding who to drug test beyond the initial screening: the article states that those referred for drug testing consisted of those who had "used drugs in the past year or [had been] convicted of a felony drug crime in the past three years". In other words, any drug-related contact with the criminal justice system that did not result in a felony conviction was not considered to be serious enough to justify drug testing. A felony drug conviction older than three years similarly was not deemed important enough to worry about. Apparently, the only other ones referred for drug testing were those who were dumb enough to admit using drugs in the previous year when asked.
What drugs were tested for? Drug testing can be expensive, and agencies tend to try to get by on the cheap by testing for as few substances as possible. Many only test for methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana...leaving a long, long list of drugs of abuse untested for. (BTW, I am not buying for a minute that "almost $100 per test" figure. If anywhere in the vicinity of true, there is some serious numbers juggling, possibly a bit of graft or embezzlement going on there.)
How much notice was given to the participants before the samples were collected? Most recreational drugs of abuse, with the exception of THC, stay in the urine at a legally reportable level for only 2-3 days. Any but the most serious addicts can abstain from drug use for a few days - or switch to a drug with a similar effect that is not being tested for.
Were "diluted" specimens - specimens that are almost pure water because the donor has drunk a gallon of water shortly before testing - counted as positive? (Dilution is the principle behind all of those products they sell in the head shops and online that promise to "clean the drugs out of your system". They actually do no such thing, of course, but they do result, when mixed with the gallon or two of water that the instructions advise you to take them with, result in a diluted specimen - meaning that the sample is almost pure water, making it a less than reliable indicator of what might be in the donor's system.)
Were the participants even observed by a same-sex monitor during the collection process - a monitor trained in detecting fraud...people sneaking in "clean" urine in a commercial or homemade device?
Senior Member
It does matter. How much money did it save us?
Advisor
Why are you basing your concerns on an OP that basically lied ??
It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right.
Awards:
Advisor
Most civilian drug test programs are easy to game. Only idiots get caught.
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Banned
he specifically said screened.
why do you insist on lying about this?
Banned
no, the one lying here isn't the op.
Senior Member
Let the stupid clownwads do their thing and waste BAZILLIONS in taxpayer dollars.
$#@! Scott in FL had the same result .. positive results around a QUARTER of what the general population tests at.
HOWEVER, he accomplished his diabolical goal .. giving his wife's drug testing clinics MILLIONS in new biz.
Awards:
Advisor
Don't need to test all. Just have a policy of random tests with zero tolerance.
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
hanger4 (02-12-2016)
Senior Member
If only 89 people were actually tested and it cost $100 per test how could North Carolina have spent $760,000? $8900 is the correct figure for the testing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
