Bills that would require recipients of public benefits such as welfare or unemployment benefits to submit to drug testing have advanced in three states. On Monday, an unemployment drug testing bill passed the Arkansas Senate. On Tuesday, a welfare drug testing bill won a Senate committee vote in North Carolina. And on Wednesday, a welfare drug testing bill passed the Texas Senate.
It passed the Republican-led Senate on a 25-5 vote and now goes to the House.
"Arkansas law states that you have to be adequately seeking employment, and by that you have to pass a drug test since so many employers require drug tests," said bill sponsor Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson (R-District 33), who said 80% of employers in the state require drug tests. His bill was "more of an enforcement mechanism than anything else," he added.
The bill is being opposed by the ACLU of Arkansas, which is threatening to fight it if it becomes law. But even if the bill gets through the House, Gov. Mike Beebe (D) has signaled it might not survive his veto pen.
"We have concerns about whether the bill will put us in violation of the federal unemployment laws administered by the US Department of Labor," Beebe spokesman Matt DeCample told Reuters. "There are also continued concerns as to whether the cost of implementing such a program would produce any real savings in offset."
The North Carolina bill, Senate Bill 594, sponsored by Sen. Jim Davis (R-Macon), would require applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to undergo mandatory suspicionless drug tests at their expense. Applicants would be reimbursed if they tested negative, but denied benefits if they tested positive -- until they have entered and paid for drug treatment.
Things got testy before the measure passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday.
"If you have money to buy drugs, you have money to buy food, you have money to support your family," Davis said. "You don't deserve public assistance." Non-drug users "will gladly" pay for drug tests because they know they will be reimbursed, he said.
"If they're already there because they need food stamps, where are they going to come up with that money? They're scraping the bottom," Sen. Ellie Kinnaird (D-Orange) shot back.
Bill Rowe of the North Carolina Justice Center told lawmakers that studies showed drug use is no more common among welfare recipients than the general public, and that similar laws in Florida and Michigan had been found unconstitutional, sparking an angry reaction from one lawmaker.
"Our Fourth Amendment doesn't allow suspicionless testing of people," Rowe said. "There's no decision that says this is okay."
"You're okay with (drug users) getting federal dollars if they've had a doobie and get the munchies and need more food stamps?" challenged Sen. Tommy Tucker (R-Union). "Sit down."
Noting that the bill "mostly affects poor people and a significant number of them people of color," Sen. Angela Bryant (D-Rocky Mount) said its sponsors were letting their "prejudice" show. "There's a lot of people getting government money," she said. "Let's not start with poor people on this. Let's start with ourselves. When you run for election, you should have to take a drug test. If we give a scholarship, you should have to take a drug test."
"I really reject the notion of injecting race into this thing," Davis shot back. "I'm sick and tired of it. This is not a racial bill."
The bill was approved on party lines and now goes to the Senate Health Committee.
The Texas bill, Senate Bill 11, would require TANF applicants to undergo a drug use assessment, and if there is "good cause to suspect" drug use, they must then undergo a drug test. A positive drug test would result in a denial of benefits for six months, with a second positive drug test resulting in a denial of benefits for a year, although they could be restored after six months if drug treatment is completed.
People who had prior drug convictions or previous positive drug test results would face mandatory drug testing.
"Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used to subsidize a person's drug habit," said bill sponsor Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound).
"Welfare should never subsidize the irresponsible choices of otherwise capable people who instead elect to stay at home, play video games, and get high with their friends," Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (R) said.
The bill passed the Senate on a 31-0 vote after Nelson agreed to language sought by Democrats that ensured that children of parents who tested positive wouldn't lose their benefits. It now goes to the House.
Drug Testing for $$$
I believe I read about some of these folk`s earlier . Popular Mechanics magazine from February 1938 told the truth . Titled " hemp: the new billion dollar crop " . The Hearst and DuPont family business was under attack by a plant . The Hearst " timber " and the DuPont " synthetics " business . Harry Anslinger was w/ one of `em`s niece . Who is this " Roger DuPont " ? Wonder what his interest is in Cannabis / Hemp prohibition ? Is his wife from the Hearst family ? Roger DuPont is a " drug testing consultant " to corporate America . See the article over at the alternet website , by Isabel McDonald , 4-10-13 . Titled " Send them to jail that day " . Old 77 year old Dupont is up to his old tricks as usual . This is the scoundrel that needs to be confronted for what he is . This is the madness behind the curtain .
Brilliant Reasoning from a Prohibitionist
"You're OK with (drug users) getting federal dollars if they've had a doobie and get the munchies and need more food stamps?" challenged Sen. Tommy Tucker (R-Union). "Sit down."
Absolutely brilliant argument. We can't give food stamps to those damn druggies, they'll get the munchies and need more food stamps to pay for it!
Welfare should never subsidize the irresponsible choices of otherwise capable people who instead elect to stay at home, play video games, and get high with their friends," Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (R) said.
Yes those federal welfare dollars are marked for bailing out the banks whose "irresponsible choices" damn near torpedoed the economy. Apparently welfare is only for those who launder drug money, not those who actually consume the drugs.
As much as I hate Democrats,
...this is why I'll never vote Republican.
Dear Republicans,
This is why the idiotic civil rights hating Democrats win elections.... because of your "Good Ol' Boy" politicians acting like spoiled, fat children who didn't get their third piece of cake for dessert. The rest of the country has moved beyond your "Southern Strategy". Where's that "super-majority" that your God, Richard Nixon, promised you?
Keep blaming the "doobie smoker" while the country continues to become unrecognizable... that's all you do when pushed into a corner. You have no good ideas or solutions, so you blame everyone else but yourselves.
Again, this is all about cannabis -- a form of medicine -- and there will still be plenty of alcoholics and crackheads on welfare. It has been shown that these Unconstitutional bills cost taxpayers extra money.
I'm sorry for those Americans who live in these states, but honestly you guys need to harrass these politicians 1000x more than what you're doing currently...
Get some new material
The proof of the pudding...
Seems you guys have some very odd lawmakers up there in the land of the free?
That they would proffer a positive drug test as proof that someone,
a) has a drug habit.
and
b) is using taxpayers dollars to subsidize said habit.
Maybe a generous person just gave that someone a toke. I mean, you still have some regular, non lawmaker kind of people up there who are still willing to share what they have with the less fortunate, don't you guys?
Or maybe that someone had just got back from hanging out with said lawmakers friends and colleagues in Washington or Colorado. All without a single taxpayer dollar being misappropriated.
And another thought while I'm here good people, why do your odd lawmakers insist that these proposed drug tests be random, while making it quite clear (well sort of clear) that they are wishing to detect people with a habit? That is, someone who uses a drug habitually and can't stop, along with the not stopping, of the requisite and gross misappropriation of public funds? Hey guys, if a person has a habit, then a mutually convenient and agreed upon time for conducting the said tests, should always provide very rewarding results for all.
If I might make the suggestion however, that rather than random drug tests, random tests to determine any odd persons sound reasoning ability are what is in order. And with that we can expect the problem of welfare recipients misappropriating taxpayer dollars to cease along with the expedient end of prohibition.
cheers
Blake
I live in Texas. I moved
I live in Texas. I moved from CO. Texas and its governor and all of republican reps are baby killing creeps who are more interested in making sure everyone knows they are god. The majority wants one thing and the republicans make sure we the people dont get it. I am as history minor and the Republicans look like NAZIS.
Is This Really a Debate?
Why is there even a debate about this? Federal money = our tax dollars. I personally know quite a few people that are on welfare or unemployment that have absolutely no interest in looking for jobs because "the government pays them to sit at home". That is a verbatim statement. I work 50 - 60 hours a week to make my paycheck and it kills me to see or hear of these folks that get their government check without having to do ANYTHING to earn that money. There is zero accountability
I grew up on a farm and was brought up with the understanding that I was expected to "earn my keep" and "nothing in life is totally free" When I wanted a new skateboard, I dug 3 miles of post holes for fence. When I wanted a truck, I dug a stock pond over a summer. When I wanted an ATV, I built a cattle pen and a water tank. Bottom line, I've worked for everything that I've ever owned since I was 9 and it honestly irritates me that I work my rear off and stay drug free just so my income can be taxed and then fund those that don't have to do one single thing to earn that money. Combine that with the fact that the system is so broken that millionaires received unemployment benefits that we the taxpayers are paying (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/10/thousands-of-millionaires-c...) and the absolute LEAST that is being asked for is to require people that we're paying for to be drug free, that's not really too much to ask, is it?
I realize that some people do not take advantage of this system and I have no problem helping someone out that really needs it. I am human. However, I personally know more people that are abusing this system than not and don't really feel like my / our work should fund that lifestyle.
If someone is receiving federal (taxpayer) money, they should have to "earn" that in some way or prove that they need it. If that means take a drug test, then don't do drugs. In my opinion, that's a small request to ask for providing people with meals, shelter, clothing, utilities, and a quality of life that does not involve sleeping on streets. Just sayin...
Drug testing for welfare applicants
I agree with you. Where I came from we worked manual labor in our teens.
My father told his kids, "If you do not work you do not eat". We learned really fast that working helped us afford things we need. Sometimes when we wanted to test our father's resolve we would moan and b! tch about working in 100+ degree weather, however dad reminded us that no one in our family would EVER depend on welfare.
For those of you who wonder why you should work, here are the facts:
#1) It hurts, #2) It teaches you ethics, #3) It proves you have endurance and perseverance, #4) It makes you proud and most importantly, #5) You realize you are going to get an education and (dang it!) you refuse to accept that you will be killing yourself din a difficult job for the rest of your life if you can avoid it. And yep, you guessed it, all my siblings decided to get an education and continue to college in order to get away from the hot sun!!!
Now I see kids expecting everything given to them in a silver platter. What a bunch of lazy wimps! OH, what to do without free money for cellphones, food, toys, drugs, "Daddy's baby"? etc. How can our "leaders of tomorrow" survive if they do not teach their children survival skills and determination? What are folks going to do if government suddenly stops feeding them? If our ancestors could face starvation, hostile attacks, daily challenges, sickness and Lord knows what else, why the HEll can we expect to survive without skills?
Those people who are young and healthy should get off their lazy butt and go to work. If you played house and had children do not expect hardworking folks to support you and your children. You did not ask our permission to bring innocent children into this world and should take care of themselves and not avoid the consequences of irresponsible decisions.
Shifting the source.
This bill means people eating food legally, and stealing it, or stealing something to trade for food, maybe from your garage. Drug users are going to use drugs, whether they can eat while doing it doesn't matter because they will, one way or another. The government can't treat a medical condition as a crime, because that in itself would be a crime. A crime requires a victim, and a criminal, with harm being inflicted, and a legal remedy in a court of law. Legislating a criminal where there wasn't one, because of a medical, not a criminal condition, is in itself a criminal act.
Post new comment