I read an article on Fox News this morning that shows several states considering random drug testing of recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits and welfare. If you think about it, why not? It’s no different that getting drug tested at your place of employment, as pointed on below.
“Nobody’s being forced into these assistance programs,” said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Virginia 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 points out on this web site, “Nowhere in our state or U.S. constitutions is it mandated that financial assistance is a right.” He also points out that employers pay unemployment insurance in West Virginia, just as they do here in Indiana. The fact is, if you’re unemployed and looking for work, you have to be drug free to get most jobs, so why not unemployment benefits?
From Fox News
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.
The Kansas bill passed on a vote of 99-26. If you fail a drug test it doesn’t mean you get kicked to the curb. From Kansas House Bill 2275, (PDF) which covers people who receive financial aid through the Child Care Assistance Programs, Temporary Assistance to Families and General Assistance:
If a recipient of assistance tests positive for using an illegal substance they could be required to complete an educational or treatment program, and then would be subject to additional screenings. In the event of a positive test, if a person did not complete a treatment program or if the person failed subsequent drug tests, they would no longer be able to collect the assistance.
Of course the ACLU has to jump in to defend drug users.
“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.
Least able? They’re able to milk the system for welfare, section 8 housing vouchers and food stamps so they don’t have to work. All the while, still being able to rustle enough cash for drugs. I’d say they’re very “able”.
In doing some research on this subject I found that Cindy Noe, Indiana State Representative in District 87, introduced House Bill No. 1717 in January of this year and it is currently in committee.
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Drug testing as a condition of benefits. Requires the division of family resources to develop a drug abuse testing program for applicants for and recipients of assistance under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and the federal Food Stamp Program. Provides that an individual who tests positive for a controlled substance or a legend drug without a prescription is ineligible to receive TANF assistance and food stamp assistance unless the individual attends a drug treatment program. Requires an individual who: (1) tests positive and attends a drug treatment program to be tested a second time within two months; (2) tests positive a second time to be regularly tested; and (3) tests positive a third time to be ineligible for TANF and food stamp assistance. Provides that the results of a drug test may not be disclosed in any legal proceedings or elsewhere unless the individual has tested positive a third time for drugs. Provides that an individual who is ineligible for TANF assistance and food stamp assistance as the result of testing positive for the presence of illegal drugs is ineligible for assistance under the Medicaid program. Requires the office of Medicaid policy and planning to apply for an amendment to the state Medicaid plan to limit Medicaid eligibility for individuals who are ineligible under the TANF program and food stamp program as the result of testing positive for the presence of illegal drugs.
I think it’s a move in the right direction, but I’m certain my liberal friends will disagree. What do you think?
AWB
No related posts.
Tags: drug testing, food stamps, unemployment, welfare
Entries (RSS)
You don’t have to be “liberal” to think that compulsory drug testing is a the sign of an invasive big-brother government.
What happened to that “presumption of innocence”, and all that?
Derek, When I seek employment, I’m drug tested. What happened to the “Presumption of Innocence” there?
I’d say it’s about time that those asking for “assistance” live by the same rules I have to.
[a] I disagree with that drug-testing as well, and would not personally do it. But
[b] that’s a transaction between two private entities (you, as a private citizen, and the employer, as a private company).
What we’re talking about is STATE-MANDATED presumption of guilt until you prove otherwise, which is a world of difference.
And, to head things off at the past, as AWB can attest: I was straight-edge before they had a word for it, I don’t drink, smoke, or do drugs (outside of a small caffeine addiction *grin*), and I’m not some drug-user who doesn’t want to get caught. I just find the idea of giving up a cup of piss to prove … what I don’t know exactly … to an employer to be distasteful.
umm, “at the pass” I mean…. heh, typing too fast.
I just installed the ability to edit comments for up to 10 minutes after you have posted. I’m not sure if it’s working so this is just a test.
Maybe because I’m admin I cannot see it. Someone let me know if you see an (Edit) link by a new comment after you have posted.
Do the drug testing.
People are not being FORCED to get government benefits. If they want to do drugs on their own that’s their business and I don’t care. However, if they are receiving money from the government it’s all of our business just like the bailouts are. Welfare recipients typically have a higher prevalence of illicit drug use. We can identify drug abusers and get them help with their addiction if they are willing to comply. Otherwise, if they have enough money to spend on illicit drugs, they don’t need money for food stamps and other benefits.
testing….
nope
I think it SHOULD be implimented…ASAP.
Time to make everyone “equal”, and by that I mean if you D/T for one group (those who actually SEEK employment), then D/T for the other (the ones who do NOT seek employment).
No exceptions.
And considering ALL the “people” I see “AT HOME” every damn day with nothing to do but sell drugs, buy drugs, and/or wait for that NEXT (taxpayer-funded) welfare check, I’d say we’ve a HUGE untapped workforce that needs some “direction and motivation”.
Talk about reparing our infrastructure…for CHEAP, too!
Such a move to D/T them would be a wake-up call to the “frauders”.
…And a godsend to the TAXPAYERS.
And it would certainly help those who are trying their damnedest to wean themselves OFF of the “dole” and BE productive for themselves and their kids.
Who knows…at THIS rate, maybe we’ll even see prison chain gangs repairing our ROADS before long once again.
(yeah, I can dream..the price is right)
Good idea in any event.
Bob: ahhhhh, so we should all be equally oppressed by the State.
That’s a wonderful definition of “Freedom” you have there, if for no other reason than it would probably speed up the revolution.
Derek:
Equality IS what it is.
Speeding up the revolution might be JUST what we need…
But that’s OK by me…let us taxpayers keep working. That’s what they WANT us to do, so they can laugh as they cut in front of us in line at the grocery with their food stamps (and drive away in that nice, new SUV).
Well, you see my position would NOT be to “raise the level of oppression so now EVERYONE is being oppressed”, but simply to lower the level of oppression so nobody is being oppressed.
But then again, I’m an anarchocapitalist….
I’m reminded of a PoliSci class I took in college (as an adult). The prof polled everyone for their political affiliation, just to get a “headcount” of the color of the room so to speak. When I said “Libertarian” someone asked what a libertarian was. I told them “A libertarian is an anarchist who’s afraid to close the deal.”
And then, over time, I’ve slipped a little further out to the edge in my views.
I want the government to STFU on drug-testing, heck I want it to STFU on drugs, period. But I also want it to stop giving out welfare, period, to anyone, as well.
I am going to look at this from a purely fiscal conservative point of view.
Pro: Drug users may have to find jobs in order to continue their habit.
Con: Drug tests cost money. If the plan does not reduce the welfare rolls enough to pay for itself, it is a failure.
Con: It is more expensive to put someone in jail than it is to give them welfare. If an addict loses his welfare benefits, he may turn to other forms of crime to feed himself and support his habit.
Derek,
You have to be vegetarian as well to be straight edge. I don’t smoke, use drugs, or drink, but I love eating meat.
I think it is interesting, however….
What makes me wonder is this:
…….if it’s so bad to be ‘under the influence’ and ‘people on welfare shouldn’t be on drugs’….
……then why are people be fighting to make drugs legal?
Robert: vegetarianism was a “late arrival” to the whole straight-edge culture. Although I’m with you… nothing finer than red-meat, rare.
i work at a job where i was an alternate(read: worked there once every third blue moon) in a department where drug testing was required, unlike the rest of the plant. I spent more time trying to pee than actually ever working in the department. Thus I think my opinion is valid, and that is: it doesn’t matter to me. However, I think when you’re number comes up, you should get a 15-minute pepsi-chugging break so that one doesn’t have to get so intimate with one’s intimate parts.
Jennifer,
The people who believe that it wrong to be under the influence are not the ones who want drugs legalized.
Why stop at welfare recipients? Why not test everyone who receives financial benefits from the government? This would include anyone who has a government-subsidized mortgage (meaning anyone who deducts mortgage interest on their taxes)? If they have money for drugs, they don’t really need the tax break, right? How about anyone who gets a government-subsidized education at a public high school or university? Anyone who drives on public roads, uses public safety or fire protection services?