Lawmakers Finally Propose Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients

Zappa

Road Warrior
NES Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
62,755
Likes
50,387
Location
Living Free In The 603
Feedback: 28 / 0 / 0
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...NGS?SITE=WBBMAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
=

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.

It's about friggin' time already.

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Virginia Legislature who has created a Web site - www.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?"

Well said.

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.

Why did it take them so long to figure this out?

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.

Another great idea. Look at how much of this "public assitence" money is wasted by these idiots on lottery tickets.

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.

If these laws are already on the books, why haven't they been enforced?
 
Why did it take them so long to figure this out?
It wasn't a matter of figuring it out - the trouble is what to do with the results? You and I know the answer, but for the libs, everyone person you put out on the street without giving them some of our money is someone who could potentially storm the gates... Can't have that...

Zappa said:
If these laws are already on the books, why haven't they been enforced?
See above, the whole point of "welfare" is to keep the peasants fed just well enough that they stay out of the manor... You start putting requirements on them like (gasp) working, or (gasp) obeying the law or (gasp) buying food instead of booze, drugs, lottery tickets, etc... and the whole point is lost... [sad2]
 
I've been a fan of drug testing for those on welfare for a long time. That being said with the amount of Dumbocrats in the fed .gov it won't happen. They can't afford to lose their voting base.
 
This is what we classify as "unintended consequences". The problem isn't that they're using their checks to buy drugs. It's the fact there's a wealth redistribution network.

The best course of action is to totally abolish all welfare programs for individuals and corporations.

If we don't like people on the dole using their taxpayer funded welfare checks for crack and we're irate that bailout money is used for bonus payouts to upper management at failing institutions, then we need to stop asking our lawmakers to redistribute our money.
 
This is what we classify as "unintended consequences". The problem isn't that they're using their checks to buy drugs. It's the fact there's a wealth redistribution network.

The best course of action is to totally abolish all welfare programs for individuals and corporations.

If we don't like people on the dole using their taxpayer funded welfare checks for crack and we're irate that bailout money is used for bonus payouts to upper management at failing institutions, then we need to stop asking our lawmakers to redistribute our money.

+1
 
The best course of action is to totally abolish all welfare programs for individuals and corporations.
I've been thinking for a long time on where I really stand on a "zero safety net" society...

Ultimately, this is the only way to ensure that as many people as possible are "rational actors". That is, so long as we provide ever-increasing support networks which reduce the penalty of not providing for yourself, we will have an ever-growing list of people who are willing to take "something for nothing" even if that "something" is subsistence level existence...

I've been thinking lately that the solution is not to remove all safety nets and let people die on the streets, but provide only temporary support which accumulates as a debt. The government would NEVER "give" money away, but rather you would, if qualified for support, draw from a fund which needed to be paid back either directly from future earnings or labor...

It has many problems, but it might be a whole lot "less bad" than either our current system or a system which does literally allow people to die on the street...

That said, every time we create a government system of support, it displaces community support that would otherwise prevent "dieing on the street"...

Not sure how to balance this one... It's easy to say "let them starve". It's much harder to actually allow it to happen. Ideally, communities would solve the problem individually, but as India demonstrates, that system is far from perfect as well...

BTW - one model for this is the much touted (by liberals no less) micro-loan approach used in Africa...
 
Last edited:
Oh boy... as a Libertarian everything about this bothers me--

A. The fact that welfare exists
B. The fact that drugs are illegal
C. The fact that anyone, left, right or center would ever think it's a good idea for agents of the state to be forcing U.S. citizens to urinate in a cup to test for illegal substances without probable cause- anyone for a mandatory drug test to get a LTC? Why not? You have nothing to hide, right?

If you don't like people selling food stamps for drugs or lottery tickets, stop issuing food stamps, but keep the state out of the piss testing business (and keep them out of the lottery business while you're at it)
 
Oh boy... as a Libertarian everything about this bothers me--

A. The fact that welfare exists
B. The fact that drugs are illegal
C. The fact that anyone, left, right or center would ever think it's a good idea for agents of the state to be forcing U.S. citizens to urinate in a cup to test for illegal substances without probable cause- anyone for a mandatory drug test to get a LTC? Why not? You have nothing to hide, right?

If you don't like people selling food stamps for drugs or lottery tickets, stop issuing food stamps, but keep the state out of the piss testing business (and keep them out of the lottery business while you're at it)

That was my initial reaction, then I thought about it a little more.

I agree with points A + B.

Point C I wavered on. I'm still iffy on it, but my thoughts are these:

It's not random testing of citizens. It's a condition of the program. People aren't forced to be tested. They choose to be.
 
That was my initial reaction, then I thought about it a little more.

I agree with points A + B.

Point C I wavered on. I'm still iffy on it, but my thoughts are these:

It's not random testing of citizens. It's a condition of the program. People aren't forced to be tested. They choose to be.


As a matter of course I'm against ALL drug testing by the government. If a private company chooses to test for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. I have no problem.

But your argument could also apply to testing for obtaining a LTC. Nobody would be FORCING you to get your LTC, it's your choice alone.

As for food stamps, either issue them or don't. I believe private charities should and would pick up the slack if the government got out of the free cheese business. But if you're going to give out food stamps, drop the paternalism. In fact don't even make them "food" stamps. Give the poor cash. If they choose to spend it on drugs, lottery tickets, vodka, cigarettes, or porn, that's their business, not the governments. If they end up hungry, c'est la vie, again, that's their business.
 
However the ability to bear arms is a right, not a privilege. Sponging off .gov is not a right.

I happen to love the 4th Amendment just as much as the 2nd. Drug testing citizens without cause violates the 4th in spirit, if not in the letter of the law.

What else are we to require of the poor before the government gives them their free cheese? If it's okay for government agents to inspect their bladders, surely it's okay to poke around their closets in their bedrooms to see what else they're hiding? I'm dead serious. Maybe the poor have DRUGS in their house too?? Anyone can cheat on a drug test, the only way we can really be sure they don't have any DRUGS is to go check their medicine cabinets.

If they don't want the agents rooting through their house, they won't be forced to, they can just not enter the food stamp program.
 
A
But your argument could also apply to testing for obtaining a LTC. Nobody would be FORCING you to get your LTC, it's your choice alone.

The are forcing me to get my LTC if I want to enjoy rights that were supposed to be protected by the Constitution. That's another discussion, though.
 
As a matter of course I'm against ALL drug testing by the government. If a private company chooses to test for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. I have no problem.

If it's involuntary testing, sure. That I can understand.

However, if you're applying for a government job, or you're applying for
benefits, the .gov has every right to test you.

But your argument could also apply to testing for obtaining a LTC. Nobody would be FORCING you to get your LTC, it's your choice alone.

This is a vacant argument considering that an LTC is already too much regulation on something that's already a right. That particular topic has been beaten to death already. Welfare is not a "right", especially not in the case of a system which is basically a pure redistribution of wealth.

ETA: I'd prefer the government get out of the welfare business entirely, but frankly I have no
problem with them reforming the system.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
I agree, but as a NH resident I really can't make that argument.

Yes you can. NH requires a permit for concealed carry, where virtually no permit should be required. While it's not an onerous task to get a permit in NH, it's still a minor violation of your rights.

-Mike
 
One thing I grossly disagree with is drug testing for unemployment benefits.

All of the being against government assistance programs aside, people that work pay into this program. There should be no bar to someone that contributed to the program being able to benefit from it when in need.
 
I've been thinking lately that the solution is not to remove all safety nets and let people die on the streets, but provide only temporary support which accumulates as a debt. The government would NEVER "give" money away, but rather you would, if qualified for support, draw from a fund which needed to be paid back either directly from future earnings or labor...

cekim, great idea. That is one way to turn the safety net into a trampoline, rather than the hammock it is often used as today.

If we don't have something to catch people when they fall, people won't take as much risk. And risk can be a good thing - what do you call starting a new business? Unfortunately the takers have corrupted the system. We need to reclaim it as the temporary safety net it should be, and get rid of all welfare - corporate and individual.
 
Last edited:
However the ability to bear arms is a right, not a privilege. Sponging off .gov is not a right.

Are you sure? It's seems the other way around in MA....A lot of Obots are pretty convinced that "entitlements" = rights....[thinking]

My licensing officer told me to "enjoy the privilege of firearms ownership" when he gave me my LTC.

God I hate this state
 
This will never happen because:

1) it is racist and discriminatory
2) entitlement recipients are in fact ENTITLED to our hard-earned money
3) if you are on drugs, it is because you are a victim of the system. It is not your fault, it is the system. Hard working tax paying people are to blame for your condition, and as such they will be expected to take care of you financially

God Bless America
 
I am all for any incentive to get people off of the government payroll. Or at least demanding some sort of return on investment.


If a person's income is derived from the tax payers, then it seems to me that the tax payers have some vested interest in requiring at least some standards. For example, using monies received from the government to buy drugs. Using drugs, preventing them from being able to be employed etc..

I'd also like to see people on the gov payroll have to work at least a certain ammount of hours per week. Volunteer work at some gov funded place, old age homes, hospitals, cleaning up the side of the roads etc. Or how about this, work the toll booths one the pike?


I would also be in favor of any person that does not pay taxes not being allowed to vote.
 
Last edited:
This will never happen because:

1) it is racist and discriminatory
2) entitlement recipients are in fact ENTITLED to our hard-earned money
3) if you are on drugs, it is because you are a victim of the system. It is not your fault, it is the system. Hard working tax paying people are to blame for your condition, and as such they will be expected to take care of you financially

God Bless America

Nobody thought this was funny but me?
 
I would also be in favor of any person that does not pay taxes not being allowed to vote.

I think this is a bad idea, mainly because there are individuals who don't pay taxes who should probably still have the right to vote. (Some retired folks, veterans, or just old people under the care of others... ) Anyone who is a "free" adult US citizen should have the right to vote, period. Once you start making exceptions for something which should be a right then you eventually end up with a voting permit that comes from the mayor, with 3 letters of reference and a suitability clause. Sounds great in principle, but then when you think of the slippery slope it gets pretty scary.


-Mike
 
Last edited:
Yes you can. NH requires a permit for concealed carry, where virtually no permit should be required. While it's not an onerous task to get a permit in NH, it's still a minor violation of your rights.

-Mike

Minor quibble: Open carry is quite legal in NH. Therefore, you can own (keep) and carry (bear) arms without a permit.

No rights need be violated.
 
Back
Top Bottom