Plans to Drug Test Welfare Recipients Get Momentum
- Posted on February 25, 2012 at 3:30pm by
Christopher Santarelli
- Print »
- Email »
(AP) — Conservatives who say welfare recipients should have to pass a drug test to receive government assistance have momentum on their side.
The issue has come up in the Republican presidential campaign, with front-runner Mitt Romney saying it’s an “excellent idea.”
Nearly two dozen states are considering plans this session that would make drug testing mandatory for welfare recipients, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. And Wyoming lawmakers advanced such a proposal this week.
Driving the measures is a perception that people on public assistance are misusing the funds and that cutting off their benefits would save money for tight state budgets – even as statistics have largely proved both notions untrue.
“The idea, from Joe Taxpayer is, `I don’t mind helping you out, but you need to show that you’re looking for work, or better yet that you’re employed, and that you’re drug and alcohol free,’” said Wyoming Republican House Speaker Ed Buchanan on Friday.
Supporters are pushing the measures despite warnings from opponents that courts have struck down similar programs, ruling that the plans amount to an unconstitutional search of people who have done nothing more than seek help.
“This legislation assumes suspicion on this group of people. It assumes that they’re drug abusers,” said Wyoming Democratic Rep. Patrick Goggles during a heated debate on the measure late Thursday.
The proposals aren’t new, according to the NCSL. About three dozen states have taken up such measures over the years.
But as lawmakers seek new ways to fight off the effect of the recession on state budgets and Republican politics dominate the national discussion as the party seeks a presidential nominee, the idea has sparked political debates across the nation.
This year conservative lawmakers in 23 states from Wyoming to Mississippi – where lawmakers want random screening to include nicotine tests – are moving forward with proposals of their own.
Romney, in an interview this month in Georgia, supported the idea. “People who are receiving welfare benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they’re not using those benefits to pay for drugs,” Romney said to WXIA-TV in Atlanta.
Newt Gingrich addressed the topic with Yahoo News in November, saying he considered testing as a way to curb drug use and lower related costs to public programs.
“It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid – unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it,” he said.
In Idaho, budget analysts last year concluded that such a program would cost more money than it would save, prompting lawmakers to ditch the idea.
Also, recent federal statistics indicate that welfare recipients are no more likely to abuse drugs than the general population.
Data show that about 8 percent of the population uses drugs. And before a random drug testing program in Michigan was put on hold by a court challenge, about 8 percent of its public assistance applicants tested positive.
In years past such legal challenges had a chilling effect on state legislatures, but that seems to have thawed.
Michigan’s program was halted after five weeks in 1999, eventually ending with an appeals court ruling that it was unconstitutional.
For more than a decade, no other state moved to implement such a law.
“The biggest piece that has held up action now and in the past are the constitutional questions,” said Rochelle Finzel, the Children and Families Program manager at the NCSL.
But Florida last year passed legislation that was eventually halted by a federal court ruling that cited constitutional concerns.
Finzel said some states are trying to avoid court challenges by requiring drug tests only in cases where there‘s reasonable cause to believe there’s substance abuse, instead of requiring everyone to take a test.
Missouri took that approach in passing a law last year that hasn’t gotten tied up in court, but which has touched off an attempt at political one-upsmanship from a House Republican who introduced a bill this month that would require his colleagues at the state Capitol to take and pass the same test.
In Wyoming, the Republican-controlled state House handily approved a welfare drug testing bill after a fiery debate Thursday. The plan sailed through a second vote Friday and needs only one more reading before heading to the solidly-conservative state Senate, where a key leader supports the concept.
In Colorado, a testing plan is expected to fail because Democrats who oppose it control the state Senate – but Republicans have succeeded in starting a conversation on the issue.
“If you can afford to buy drugs, and use drugs, you don’t need” welfare, said Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, who is sponsoring a bill this session.
Sonnenberg said his bill also seeks to help drug users get clean because applicants must complete rehab to qualify for government aid again.
Sonnenberg’s critics said the idea feeds off the negative – and unsubstantiated – stereotype that low-income communities are more likely to use drugs. Sonnenberg said he’s not picking on any group, and pointed out that the legislation would likely have a narrow effect.
“The five percent, or the four percent, or whatever that percentage is that is on drugs, will have a choice to make. They will either do what they can to get clean, or not have their (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funds,” he said.
In Wyoming, Republican Rep. Frank Peasley, a co-sponsor of the testing bill, said the measure is an effort to rein in a welfare system run amok.
“We are going broke,” he said,
But Linda Burt, director of the ACLU in Wyoming, said this week it‘s possible her group would challenge the testing program if it’s adopted in Wyoming.
“We challenged it in Michigan. We challenged it in Florida. Both of those cases found that singling out this particular group of people for drug testing was unconstitutional with absolutely no cause.”
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 575 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 372 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 342 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 342 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (180)
jungle J
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:37pmthey need random and post tests also….anyone can pass the initial to get some crack or dog fighting money.
Report Post »DoubleThrowDown
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 10:00pmI agree, test them the day after they get the check! Lmao
Report Post »michael48
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:59ambefore and after…if I’ve got to drug test to work my a– off, they should be quite willing to test so they can SIT ON THIERS…BTW ACLU…that’s not picking on any specific clan of people…otherwise eliminate it for EVERYONE and that way we can have wiped out truck drivers in 80,000 lb. buncker busters roaming the freeways…
Report Post »lionslayer44
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:35pmif thats the case then anyone receiving govt. money or who is paid by the TAXPAYERS should also be tested. FROM TOP TO BOTTOM!!!!!! by the way the article said alcohol? this is a legal substance and why stop at alcohol what about prescription drugs. so does that mean they are going to re-open all the rehabs that were closed in the past couple years? will they give people a chance to get clean? ive been clean 10 and 20 years and i still think this is ridiculous. BE PREPARED COLLECT FOOD, WATER (FILTERS), AMMO!!!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!
Report Post »tincan53
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 10:26pmI was tested at least twice a year for 21 years I served in the US Navy. All service members are screened. I was screened at all three jobs I‘ve had since I left the service in ’94. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says the poor need to be paid for sitting on their behinds. If they want my tax money, they can be tested just like the men and women who are dying protecting our freedoms. If they can be tested, so can the welfare brats.
Report Post »Captain Crunch
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:34pmEvery time I go to a new job site to start a job, not only am I subject to mandatory drug and alcohol testing, but I am subject to multiple random tests at the managements whim. I also have to drug test annually in order to maintain my state licenses which enable me to work through my union.
Report Post »If people want my money via welfare payments or other state and federal assistance programs then they also should be tested at least as frequently as me. What’s fair for the goose is fair for the gander.
brknhrt
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:34pmTest them for tobacco use too. If you can afford cigarettes, you aren’t poor. They should have to pick up their welfare checks and be tested once a week.
Report Post »PJL
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:33pmWhat states?
Report Post »kapnkd
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:09pmOf course their argument will be that it is an unconstitutional infringement on their rights.
…BULL ROAR!!!!
As a term or stipulation of agreement to the TERMS of acceptance for welfare (just like someone who agrees to drug testing for a job). They themselves have the choice of either accepting the tests or refusing the offers of welfare WITH STIPULATIONS!
It is NOT like these tests are being imposed on ALL citizens of our country. They have an option to seek welfare somewhere else!! (Perhaps in Mexico or Canada???)
Report Post »jasontjapkes
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 10:30pmExactly, it is not unconstitutional. They can be asked to sign into a legally binding contract that their required to take drug test. If they refuse to sign then the agency has every right to deny them assistance.
Report Post »Rob in Katy
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 12:29amI like that: no drug test no money or no vote, take your pick :)
Report Post »B-Neil
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:06pmI glad Drug testing has come to the forefront of Government benefits. I would like to see the following individuals tested randomly and results recorded on public record.
Judges and all lawyers
Teachers
Law enforcment
Doctors
all Government employees
all elected Officials
Its time to clamp down on the bigger side of drug use. Lets not forget Hollywood and the Music industry. If your gona test some, test them all. Currently the drug cartels have a lock on Government Employees and Elected Officials who are using. Thats why we can’t stop it. Someone please prove me wrong. CARRY ON McDUFF
Report Post »kapnkd
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:17pmWOW!! …I LIKE your thinking on this!! …Very good!!
Report Post »RabidPatriot
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:36pm“Currently the drug cartels have a lock on Government Employees and Elected Officials who are using. Thats why we can’t stop it. Someone please prove me wrong.”
I have a better idea. First prove your argument with reliable sources. After you try your best, then I will dismantle your argument. You are suggesting that drug addicts within the government are all working together in some grand conspiracy with cartels to influence drug policies. Just a point of logic. Different branches of government from federal down to the smallest municipality can’t work together effectively sober. Just the idea that drug addicts are all working together to intelligently outsmart everyone else in the country is a dumb idea.
Report Post »1casawizard
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:57pmWell put, B-NEIL. I’ll go DITTO on ya post. thank you.
Report Post »jasontjapkes
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 10:36pmRabidpatriate,
You have it right and I do believe that all those jobs mentioned do require drug testing.
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 12:35amspeaking out your butt,,,,many of those agencies ARE drug tested.
Report Post »Hail Storm
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 7:21amI am a Rural Mail Carrier and I was given a drug test when I was hired. And I was told I was subject to random drug test at anytime. So I guess my rights have been violated. As far as welfare recipients as long it is up to each state and not federal government. I have no problem with it.
Report Post »Hail Storm
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 7:22amI am a Rural Mail Carrier and I was given a drug test when I was hired. And I was told I was subject to random drug test at anytime. So I guess my rights have been violated. As far as welfare recipients as long it is up to each state and not federal government. I have no problem with it. You can always move out of that state.
Report Post »cjs41
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 5:52pmMy kid is a teacher in SoCal and as such she has to submit to yearly, as well as on demand, drug testing. If the teacher must, then so should the parents of some of her students (of the free breakfast/lunch program) many of whom are “illegal aliens” on welfare. All tax payer employees should have to be tested to retain their jobs, including those elected.
Social Security recipients who worked and paid into the system are NOT welfare by any means of the imagination. Had Johnson (and every other President since) left the trust fund alone there would be money in the bank instead of useless IOUs.
Report Post »JRE
Posted on February 27, 2012 at 10:55amDarn straight, when I went online and read word for word the law in my state that requires randon drug testing of private employees to qualify for worker’s comp coverage the law specified that it did not apply to Federal, State or local government employees due to “privacy” concerns.
Report Post »Why do we allow an environment which makes one set of rules for working people and another set of rules for the government workers. Now we cannot even apply the same rules to the people that live off our work. Since when is a welfare collector’s “Privacy” more important than a working taxpayer.
SOUNDTHETRUMPET
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:05pmWhile you are at it. Drug test Congress as well
Report Post »2theADDLED
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 9:04pmWhile your at it Drug Test Voters before Voting.
“Sorry Paulbots”
Report Post »azsmitty
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:53pmTest them for drugs? Damn straight! We who work are subjected to random drug tests………….pre-employment background checks, pre-employment drug screenings, long haul truckers are subjected to log checks to assure they aren’t a hazard to other drivers on the highway…………..so who has a problem with testing those who want assistance from these honorable people…………why of course, party democrat.
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:04pmI have a MUCH BETTER idea…I think Congress, the Senate, President, Vice President, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General should ALL be drug tested! (They aren’t, you know?) You’d probably solve 99.9% of ALL our problems!
Report Post »Wat Tyler
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:47pmExpensive, Big Brother BS.
They better test for government approved alcohol, by far the most popular drug of choice that causes society the most problems.
Get a life, fascists.
Report Post »oriondma05
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 9:24pmWait… So a program that takes earned money from a citizen to give to a person that in most cases has no job and has kids that they can‘t afford so they rely on the public dole and you think we’re fascists for making sure they’re not on drugs for receiving OUR money that they neither EARNED no deserve?
Stop me when I’m wrong, please..
Report Post »Wat Tyler
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 2:25amYou went wrong when you want to invade and search something as private and personal as someone’s urine. What’s next? Anal exams?
The “I worked so hard with my tax money” mantra is a separate issue. If you don’t like welfare, fine. Get rid of it. I’m not so crazy about it myself. Keep in mind, though, that you can food stamp 1000 families for a year for the cost of one cruise missile. The DOD and their wall street contractors are another form of (corporate) welfare.
But back to the issue at hand. If you catch them doing “drugs”, fine, bust them. But it is un-American (downright Nazi German) to put someone in a position where they must prove their innocence with no evidence that they did anything wrong to begin with..
It’s an elitist attempt to humiliate. Nothing more. Well, maybe a little political pandering against an un-popular boogie man: the welfare recipient. Like the Jews were to the Nazis. Read “1984”.
That’s where you went wrong.
Report Post »Look4DBigPicture
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:44pmTaking welfare is just as addictive as any bad habit or drug. There‘s a certain high a person gets when they look at their gov’t debit card and magically money‘s there that wasn’t earned. End welfare and you’ll have a much more productive and caring society.
Report Post »rusureuwant2know
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 10:04pmYou have got to be kidding – a high??? That’s what you would feel apparently – stop projecting your feelings onto someone else.
Report Post »BTW – I can say I’ve “been there, done that” (been poor) and what one feels when using a food stamp card is as far away from a high as one can get – try shame for not being able to provide for one‘s self or one’s family and having to ask for help. Of course, you and others that are so eager to judge will never be in that situation yourself, right?
therealconservative
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:43pm@BAD
Where in the 4th Amendmet is a pi$$ test not allowed? But like most Ron Paul “followers” you claim to follow the Constitution, but have never read it. Like the liberals, you truely are, you put things into the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are not there.
Report Post »therealconservative
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:59pmThe above comment was for BADDOGGY, in response to a post which is no longer shown.
FYI to TheBlaze: DO NOT delete comments or resposes that are not offensive.
Report Post »I Aint PC
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:34pmDrug test them. I have to be tested at my job, even though I have never had a positive test. If they fail, they are out of the handout line.
For the “But if they fail, they wont get money and their kids could starve” argument. If I fail a drug test, I lose my job and cannot buy food for my kids. Plus I no longer can contribute to the welfare system and their kids will starve anyway. If someone really cared about the well-being of their children, they would NOT be on drugs in the first place. If someone can afford drugs, they could afford to buy food to feed their kids.
There is a difference between being out of work for lay-offs, job closings, ect and just being to lazy to get off of your butt to get a job.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:47pmEach person has… AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODY… which no one, Business, nor Goverrnment should be able to Transgress… otherwise, you have some form of SLAVERY!
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:11pmObviously you haven’t had a job or you would have had to undego a drug test to get that job – if I as a taxpayer have to take a drug test for working to pay the welfare checks, then the persons who are getting those checks paid for by my labor, need to take a drug test also
Report Post »MidWestMom
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:24pm“Drug test them. I have to be tested at my job, even though I have never had a positive test. If they fail, they are out of the handout line.”
I agree. The way I see it, they’re getting paid by me and guess what, I require a drug test before I write their check.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 2:14amPeople…. should not be Thinking: If I have to take a Drug Test, then I want everyone to take a Drug Test — they should be Thinking: I do not being Drug Tested, so no one should be Drug Tested!
If you accept your Slavery… then you will condone Slavery unto others!
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 6:21am@ Luke – that is the flip side of that coin. If it is unconstitutional to drug test a welfare recipient, then it should be unconstitutional to drug test me to get a job, too
Report Post »nolefan2
Posted on February 27, 2012 at 4:47pmAmen! When I was a teacher, I had many children whose parents would not send them a lunch, but depended on the “free lunch” program. It used to gall me to run into them in the local store where they were purchasing a “suitcase” of beer.
Report Post »jagr1850
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:31pmjust make all the welfare stop and make obumma create jobs for the lazy welfare group, then when they have jobs it will be ok to drug test….wtf……problem solved.
Report Post »jnfomo
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:29pm@BAIKONUR
Report Post »I wrote “MANY” not “ALL”
Rob in Katy
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:28pmI say, don’t waste the money on testing, just don’t let those on welfare vote. if $15,000-30,000 a year is not enough to be considered a bribe, well then nothing is. Gee, I wonder if that would have an effect on both parties having earmarks if they can’t buy votes with them.
Report Post »BRONZESTAR
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:26pmBoth are right if its uncostitutional do to so for one group then there should be no drug testing for anybody truckers et al…
Same sword opposite edge, just like states that allow abortion but not the death penalty one innocent while the other convicted by his/her peers.
Report Post »jnfomo
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:24pm@BAIKONUR
Report Post »I wrote “MANY” not ALL
Baikonur
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:14pmHow would this work in states with medical marijuana, I wonder? Lol, so much stupidity and malice and pettiness.
Report Post »NOTYERHUCKLEBERRY
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 5:57pmI agree with you but why do we truckers have to have random drug tests? Please don‘t say that’s different!
Report Post »Baikonur
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:08pmBecause you are operating heavy machinery that can potentially kill people if you lose focus.
Report Post »NOTYERHUCKLEBERRY
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 10:08pmThat‘s just about the stupidest comment I’ve heard in a long while.
Report Post »Mil-Dot
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:57amBecause you guys are constantly running into the back of minivans packed with kids on their way to six flags killing everybody in a fiery death. All this because you were too busy texting instead of driving. That’s why.
Report Post »larry59
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 8:23pmYOU are an idiot for even making a comment like that. Maybe you should TRY to back that up with statistics before posting such a mindless comment.
Report Post »Jenny Lind
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 5:45pmI think drug testing is ok, if it’s ok to have one for a paycheck, it’s OK to have one for a helping handout. Alcohal is a bit tougher-it’s still legal to drink, so the whole darn thing becomes a comedy of errors, we would encourage the “liquid” drug if they couldn’t have the other. Not sure what is best. Maybe a whole new universe of good decision making, think we can get there?
Report Post »2theADDLED
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 9:01pmMy daughters boyfriend cannot last an hour without going outside to smoke some dope so yes by all means I support drug testing for welfare.
Report Post »Now if they could implement a system to catch the dealers that receive assistance and deal with cash sales. Say Paco gets assistance but his spending doesn’t jive with his claims you know Escalade with rims 5 cell phones big screen TV and the likes.
jnfomo
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 5:41pmCompanies require drug testing before they hire. I believe that a person should show that they are drug-free before receiving a check that I, as a tax payer, am helping to fund.
Report Post »MarcusFL
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 5:01pmI agree 110% !
Report Post »I.Gaspar
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 5:38pmIt works for me.
Report Post »If they are not drug abusers…nothing to fear. But we are borrowing money from the chinese so that many of them can abuse the system and we cannot afford to carry the junkies any longer.
Workfare would be a great idea to bring up again, too. If you’re able bodied and living off the government, then you can clean streets, parks, and highways….or help out in food kitchens…ANYTHING to earn your keep.
For those who cannot work, let the safety net catch them; for the others…no work/ no money. Unless of course, warren buffet is willing to pick up your tab. Bill maher, too.
Baddoggy
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 5:48pmYea…you would find a lot of able bodied participants LOL And if you did, they would file lawsuit after lawsuit because they were hurt working on the job….or they would burn down the kitchens.
Like Jesus said…we will always have the poor. I just wish he would have been a little more specific on what to do with the lazy…
Report Post »Brooke Lorren
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 9:55pmThe only job that I ever had to get a drug test for was the military. That being said, I really don’t have a problem with drug testing.
That being said, a lot of people that receive food stamps already are working… so workfare wouldn’t work for them. The federal poverty level for a family of 4 is $23,000… you can easily work a full time job and earn less than that; except for when I was in the Navy (where I earned about six figures), I’ve never earned more than $8 an hour, which is less than that. I’m sure that there are many people out there without jobs, and I would agree that people without jobs should be doing something.
Report Post »JP4JOY
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 5:35pmTruckers are constantly tested for non-drug compliance. I’m sure there are others that are tested as well. If you want the taxpayers to give you money then provide evidence you don’t do drugs. If you abuse drugs I shouldn’t have to voluntarily submit your abuse of my money.
Report Post »VanceUppercut
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 5:33pmSo, they want to test recipients for the sake of easing strained budgets. Studies show that it will actually cost more money than it will save. They want to do it anyway, still claiming that it’s to save money.Yep, sounds like a Republican idea.
Report Post »Baikonur
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 5:51pmExactly. Will cost more than it will save, plus has been ruled unconstitutional. You know what would be interesting? Random drug testing of legislators. I wonder if the percentahe of them with oxy, alcohol, nicotine, pot, etc. in their system would be higher, lower, or the same as your average unemployed American?
Report Post »jnfomo
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:00pm@VANCEUPPERCUT
Report Post »Stop the liberal tactic of twisting and distorting common sense. Many people that actually work for a living and are productive members of the USA go through periodic testing to show that they are free of drugs, and therefore more competent to perform their tasks. Why should the people receiving free money be exempt from the same testing? After all, if they are drug-free, no worries!
It all boils down to moral responsibility, and if somebody is making a crappy choice by using drugs, I should not have to pay for it with my tax dollars.
Baikonur
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:07pm@jnfomo
Report Post »Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:00pm
‘Many people that actually work for a living and are productive members of the USA go through periodic testing to show that they are free of drugs’
************************************
I worked in the US most of my life and never once was asked to submit to drug testing.
jnfomo
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:47pmI tried to leave a response under this thread, but it was printed out of order, twice, so I will repeat and hope that it gets to the right place.
@ BAIKENUR
Report Post »If you would read more closely, I wrote MANY, not ALL.
00gabooga
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 10:07pmTake the cost of the test out of the first 2 or 3 payments. If they fail then they have to pay for the test before they can apply again or renew their driver’s license.
Report Post »