States consider drug tests for welfare recipients

misshestermoffitt

New Member
Who thinks Politicians should also line up to pee in a cup? They're paycheck used to be our paycheck. They should be tested at random for alcohol and drugs both.

I wonder, if the shoe is on the other foot if it would still fit so well?



States consider drug tests for welfare recipients


By TOM BREEN
Associated Press Writer


AP Photo/Jeff Gentner




CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) -- Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.
Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.
The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.
Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.
"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site - notwithmytaxdollars.com - that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"
Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.
Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.
On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.
A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.
In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.
"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.
There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.
Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.
"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."
Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.
Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.
In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.
The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.
But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
At least six states - Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia - tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.
Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.
They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Who thinks Politicians should also line up to pee in a cup? They're paycheck used to be our paycheck. They should be tested at random for alcohol and drugs both.

I wonder, if the shoe is on the other foot if it would still fit so well?



States consider drug tests for welfare recipients


By TOM BREEN
Associated Press Writer


AP Photo/Jeff Gentner




CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) -- Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.
Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.
The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.
Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.
"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site - notwithmytaxdollars.com - that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"
Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.
Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.
On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.
A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.
In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.
"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.
There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.
Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.
"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."
Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.
Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.
In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.
The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.
But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
At least six states - Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia - tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.
Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.
They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said
What a bunch of BS

As far as the idea for mandatory drug testing for politicians and bureaucrats. Now that's a good idea, with a positive test leading to immediate termination with no redress, appeals or additional compensation.

Of course they wouldn't like it, but that's their problem, not mine. If they want to push this kind of absurd policy that violates freedom and privacy then they should not object to having their freedom and privacy violated.
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
That is a bunch of BS ... testing all those on unemployment? ... that's a lot of people ... who's suppose to pay for all this?:spew:
... and I would insist that these so called lawmakers be subjected to drug testing also ... :-|
 

medicineman

New Member
Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site - notwithmytaxdollars.com - that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Go figure, a republican, my my.
 

misshestermoffitt

New Member
We should test politicians first. Nobody forced them into those jobs.

I do however remember NAFTA and our jobs leaving the US faster than rats jumping off a burning ship. They sent our jobs away and are now bitching because there aren't any jobs? :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
 

ilkhan

Well-Known Member
See, this is exactly my problem with these programs. As soon as the Government pays for it they think they run it including your life.. And you want more?? Its not that the programs are wrong (some are) its that its the Government. They think they own you, hello!!

I have an Idea lets just follow the Constitution.
 

LostInSpace...

Well-Known Member
I have a couple of issues with this, one, if they are going to test welfare recipients then ALL government workers should also be tested, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Second, who the fuck pays for it? Thats right, taxpayers. I feel the government already takes enough of our money, and most of it is completely wasted.
 

HotNSexyMILF

Well-Known Member
LOL.. well of course if you take their handouts they own you.. since when was there a such thing as a free lunch?? If anyone surprised? The point of government programs ALWAYS is to survive (keep its employees employed) and to GROW..ALWAYS, no matter what its stated goals are..

Over in the UK they were trying to pass a bill where welfare recipients who are unemployed get put into nice little work brigades.. hm.. that was a while ago I read that, wonder if it passed..

Drug test these criminals already.. oh wait, forgot.. "laws and justice" only watch over the serfs..
 

misshestermoffitt

New Member
I guess the government isn't taking into consideration the people who have paid into them for their whole lives and need help now.

It's not a free lunch if you paid for it in advance.

Test the politicians........
 

HotNSexyMILF

Well-Known Member
I guess the government isn't taking into consideration the people who have paid into them for their whole lives and need help now.

It's not a free lunch if you paid for it in advance.

Test the politicians........
I hear you Miss.. but there's no account with your name on it with the money you put in.. it goes into one BIG pot, that anyone can take from.. surprisingly :roll: a LOT of these people never put anything into the pot..

LOL.. cmon Miss.. you know right when that money leaves our hands and goes into the government's, they only see it as THEIR money.. now what will you do to keep receiving THEIR money???
 

medicineman

New Member
I recieve my money plus interest in the form of Social Security. It's been there for 60-70 years, and so far they're still paying, What pisses me off, are all the scammers that get SDI, phony disabilities promulgated by ambulance chasing lawyers. They are draining the pool of my retirement. I have no problem with genuine disabilities, but there are more and more scammers every day. These lazy demented pricks deserve more than drug testing, I'd say cut off at least 1 nut, or a 1/2 inch off their dicks.
 

misshestermoffitt

New Member
Social Security.... :spew:

I hold in my hand right now my husbands yearly social security statement issued Jan 13, 2009. So far to date in his lifetime he's paid $26,685.00 into social security.

Mine from one year ago states that I've paid $13,728.00 into social security in my lifetime.


There's a bigger chance of a spaceship landing in my backyard than him or I ever seeing a penny of that again.

The shitty thing is, amount paid in to SSI = $40,413

Amount owed on our mortgage = $37,815

At least now we know for sure who stole the American dream.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Like Med, I also get Social Security. The difference between the two of us is, Med honestly FEELS that his Social Security check comes from a beneficent government. I, on the other hand, KNOW that government is only the broker, taking the money from Miss, Stoney and all the other young people posting in this forum. The government's take is the brokerage fee ... and that brokerage fee makes Wall Street look like total pikers.

Vi
 

misshestermoffitt

New Member
Now the whole "medicare tax" thing also has me pissed as hell. If I die before I'm of age for medicare, is my family getting those dollars back? Hell no......talk about a scam.
 
Top