Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

States consider drug tests for welfare recipients
AP ^ | 3/26/2009 | Tom Breen

Posted on 03/26/2009 11:55:19 AM PDT by mad puppy

"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?"

(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: civilliberties; drugtest; welfare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
Double edge sword...No likes more gov't, but I'd love to get all the druggies off the Gov't dime. Bottom line, I say lets try it.

[btw: many other similar posts, but not this one]

1 posted on 03/26/2009 11:55:19 AM PDT by mad puppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mad puppy
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

No bias there, no sir.

2 posted on 03/26/2009 11:58:19 AM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Be prepared for tough times. FReepmail me to learn about our survival thread!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

I support this 1000%. If they got serious about it, I think it would cut the welfare rolls by HALF at least.


3 posted on 03/26/2009 11:58:50 AM PDT by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

Pros and cons.. One big con is, if the drug testing administration gets backed up, bogged down, loses records, etc., they will still get their benefit. Second is that we will PAY for all of including the screwed up administration of the system. Seems like a good concept, but I would be afraid the only outcome would be more tax dollars spent for no good use.


4 posted on 03/26/2009 11:58:51 AM PDT by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

Cue the little kid yelling “that’s racist!”.


5 posted on 03/26/2009 11:58:54 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

I’d like to see drug tests for politicians... ;)


6 posted on 03/26/2009 11:59:52 AM PDT by rock_lobsta (Atypical Crustacean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

What?

It is only OK for truck drivers, pilots, fishing boat crews......working scum serf low return tax scum like that.

/sarcasm off.


7 posted on 03/26/2009 12:01:06 PM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN

Washington DC could save a lot of money. They need drug testing every 90 days on politicians. If the people have to go thru it, so should the politicians.


8 posted on 03/26/2009 12:01:10 PM PDT by RC2 (http://www.youtube.com/user/Funbobbasso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

I think its good but I think it should be anyone who gets a government paycheck of any kind


9 posted on 03/26/2009 12:01:14 PM PDT by GeronL (http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF

Michigan tried it (random tests) some time back I hear. Got shot down by its Federal circuit court.

Not optimistic that anything but comprehensive tests would pass legal muster, and oh the bill for doing that.


10 posted on 03/26/2009 12:02:17 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Beat a better path, and the world will build a mousetrap at your door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
(we know your ip address)


11 posted on 03/26/2009 12:02:52 PM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

People have been suggesting this for the last 10 years or more.


12 posted on 03/26/2009 12:04:09 PM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2
The ones that can hang from the neck from 200lb test for half an hour, are innocent.
13 posted on 03/26/2009 12:04:15 PM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

Must be part of the stimulus package. Just think of all the lab techs the private labs are gonna have to hire.


14 posted on 03/26/2009 12:04:51 PM PDT by umgud (I'm really happy I wasn't aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

we passed it when republicans were still in charge, it didn’t go to 6th until 4 years later. at that point we were rat and rino controlled and they would never consider pressing it on to scotus.


15 posted on 03/26/2009 12:07:05 PM PDT by absolootezer0 (thank God for Chicago: makes Detroit look wholesome by comparison.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF
From the linked web site, there is yet another link: http://www.register-herald.com/local/local_story_062212021.html

which quotes a letter W.V. Delegate Sally Susman wrote to Blair:

“The notion that a person should be drug-tested — randomly, at first, you note, kindly — because he or she receives public assistance is no more grounded in logic than that a person with a public pension should be tested because he or she receives public funds,” she wrote to Blair.

To which I respond that YES, Sally, there is substantial difference between someone receiving UNEARNED assistance to which they have NO right and someone he has worked for the Government long enough to EARN a pension. The fact that she can't grasp that difference tells me a great deal about Ms. Susman....none of it complimentary.

16 posted on 03/26/2009 12:07:44 PM PDT by mad puppy (Never have I felt so politically radical and I swear I didn't move an inch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

They should drug test congress and the wh too.


17 posted on 03/26/2009 12:08:05 PM PDT by b4its2late (Ignorance allows liberalism to prosper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

Hey, let’s have some compassion for welfare recipients. Drug testing? Who came up with that idea?


18 posted on 03/26/2009 12:08:13 PM PDT by Professor_Leonide (I said to the young man who showed me a photo, "Who can ever be sure what is behind a mask?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy
"If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Only certain jobs like pilots and other transportation workers can be drug tested because suspicionless searches are a violation of the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution.

Republicans that have absolute contempt for our constitution like this idiot jerk are one of the reasons I quit the Republican party.
19 posted on 03/26/2009 12:09:26 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rock_lobsta
Test the politicians! I would LOVE that. Just 1/year at a random and UNANNOUCED time would be fine with me. Any positive test causes much more frequent tests and a 2nd positive gets you booted.
20 posted on 03/26/2009 12:10:19 PM PDT by mad puppy (Never have I felt so politically radical and I swear I didn't move an inch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
Check this out:
That's Racist on Steroids
21 posted on 03/26/2009 12:10:25 PM PDT by MrB (irreconcilable: One of two or more conflicting ideas or beliefs that cannot be brought into harmony.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
I'm just a S/W engineer and I've had to take drug tests prior to employment several times. When I worked for a DOD contractor they made it clear that they can and would test me if I did anything to cause them to notice me.
22 posted on 03/26/2009 12:12:55 PM PDT by mad puppy (Never have I felt so politically radical and I swear I didn't move an inch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: microgood

“Republicans that have absolute contempt for our constitution like this idiot jerk are one of the reasons I quit the Republican party. “

If they don’t want to be “searched” all they have to do is not come looking for a check from the tax payers! There is NOTHING ‘unreasonable’ about trying to prevent tax payers from paying for clearly illegal activities.

What is your alternative?


23 posted on 03/26/2009 12:21:51 PM PDT by mad puppy (Never have I felt so politically radical and I swear I didn't move an inch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy
Beyond this, people living off the taxpayers should be audited a few times a year to evaluate their wealth (not their income).
24 posted on 03/26/2009 12:23:30 PM PDT by Niteranger68 (As 0bama punishes us, we will punish his supporters ten fold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

It will never pass constitutional muster.


25 posted on 03/26/2009 12:23:31 PM PDT by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

“Must be part of the stimulus package.”

I was wondering how I could get a piece of the action. This might at least serve some purpose.


26 posted on 03/26/2009 12:24:25 PM PDT by A Strict Constructionist (I'm studying Voodoo...curses cast daily. Landrieu be gone to the devil...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy
There is NOTHING ‘unreasonable’ about trying to prevent tax payers from paying for clearly illegal activities.

Unless you advocate people giving up their constitutional rights when they go on public assistance, it may not be 'unreasonable' but it is unconstitutional.

I understand the goal, but trashing the constitution in the process of trying to cut the welfare roles is no different than outlawing guns to bring down crime.

This legislator cares nothing about the rule of law. If he did, he would first propose a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Fourth Amendment. Instead, he wants what he wants, and does not care how he gets it. The ends justifies the means, which is a stance completely devoid of any principle or morality.
27 posted on 03/26/2009 12:31:19 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

Me too. Since joing the Marine Corps at 17 (31 years ago), and getting a Secret Clearance, I’ve spent a lot of time with plastic cups.

Here’s one: I was working a job in Portland, Maine-after it ended I stayed there and looked for a job-got one w/ a DOD contractor—in Pennsylvania. Cool.

I had to take a drug test first. Fine—except the co. only went through a certain lab company -and just prior to then, the labs in the states of Maine,NH,Vermont, and Mass. went belly up or lost certification.

Long story short, the closest ones were in Albany NY, or Connecticut. I drove down to CT. (220 miles)one evening, checked into a motel, spent the night, got up and had breakfast, went to the lab, did my thing, drove back, and got a call a few days later that I was good to go.

So, while I’m concerned about privacy and slippery slopes, I have little sympathy for these slugs, most of whom have few enough brain cells to spare without killing the ones they do have....


28 posted on 03/26/2009 12:40:28 PM PDT by Mac from Cleveland (How to make a small fortune in the Obama era--first, start off with a big fortune....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: microgood
“Only certain jobs like pilots and other transportation workers can be drug tested because suspicionless searches are a violation of the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution.

Lots and lots of companies have pre-emp screening. If you handle health records — random testing all the time!

29 posted on 03/26/2009 12:41:09 PM PDT by Unassuaged (I have shocking data relevant to the conversation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: microgood

Are you concerned about the constitutional rights of pilots , transportation, and other workers? (it’s more than just them BTW)


30 posted on 03/26/2009 12:42:39 PM PDT by Mac from Cleveland (How to make a small fortune in the Obama era--first, start off with a big fortune....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Unassuaged
Lots and lots of companies have pre-emp screening. If you handle health records — random testing all the time!>

You are correct. I was mainly referring to random testing. I was not aware health workers were randomly tested. I know pre-employment testing is common but I thought random could only be done in cases where safety was involved.
31 posted on 03/26/2009 12:46:35 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

Makes sense, given many strings are attached to Bailout money for Corps.


32 posted on 03/26/2009 12:48:04 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Obama is the stupidest president this nation has yet had.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: microgood

I think it was because of HIPPA laws about 5 years ago.

http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/23/132772.html


33 posted on 03/26/2009 12:50:21 PM PDT by Unassuaged (I have shocking data relevant to the conversation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
It will never pass constitutional muster.

LOL! Like many things are that come from our government.

Me? I'd like to see welfare recipients have to log in voluntary hours under zer0's mandatory service programs (GIVE)..they should, if anyone should.

34 posted on 03/26/2009 12:50:41 PM PDT by KittenClaws ("The state rubs the lotion on its skin, then it places the lotion in the basket". ~ Dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mac from Cleveland
Are you concerned about the constitutional rights of pilots , transportation, and other workers? (it’s more than just them BTW)

Actually, I am. I think the entire random drug testing system in this country is completely unconstitutional and I fault Reagan for implementing it.

The thing I find most objectionable to it besides the constitutional question is that it tried to solve a problem that did not exist. Were planes falling out of the sky prior to drug testing? Were semi trailers killing people right and left? The whole motivation behind this was hatred of drug users. The price of it is just one more right we have abandoned to our government overlords.
35 posted on 03/26/2009 12:51:59 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
"It will never pass constitutional muster."

Like all the assistance/welfare programs are constitutional? Make it mandatory and not random for every individual receiving benefits.

36 posted on 03/26/2009 12:57:27 PM PDT by bonnieblue4me (You can put lipstick on a donkey (or a dimrat), but it is still an ass!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN

“I support this 1000%.”

That is old way thinking.

I support this 1,000,000,000,000%.

However, it’s going to take a long time for something like this to become law, I estimate it at..... ( 1012 sec)/( 3.16 x 107 sec/yr) = 31,546 years!

As you can see, this will come into being, soon after our country gets out of the debt that Obama and the democrat Congress are putting us in.

So, there is hope for this change we’ve been waiting for.


37 posted on 03/26/2009 1:03:55 PM PDT by Gator113 (For America to Survive, Obama Must Fail..... Obama=Failure in Chief with the Audacity of Dope.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

They will find so many on drugs that they will just refuse to take any action for fear of the political fallout.

Imagine if they just cut welfare for millions and millions of professional brood sows and welfare pimps.


38 posted on 03/26/2009 1:05:14 PM PDT by Iron Munro (Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

Random drug testing for Welfare Recipients would cause many recipients to go out and find a real job . . . where it’s mandatory for a drug test to get the job.

I love twisted humor.


39 posted on 03/26/2009 1:28:37 PM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (The Constitution & Bill of Rights stand as a whole. Remove any part & nullify the whole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gator113

Of course liberals would never support this; however, people are getting ticked off about all of the wasted money. People are ticked about AIG bonuses, but they are also ticked about government waste and welfare addicts. There could be big popular support for drug-testing for welfare recipients. This puts the lib politicians on the spot - support it and turn their main constituents against them and we get what we want; - oppose it and kill it, giving us a campaign issue to clobber them over the head with. Could be a component of the next “contract with America”.


40 posted on 03/26/2009 1:31:59 PM PDT by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: microgood

Ironically, while there weren’t a lot of planes or trucks crashing due to illegal drugs—there was a lot of mayhem and turmoil and crime perpetrated by welfare recipients over the years either in full or exacerbated by drugs. Our cities were ruined.

The real-life Murphy Brown single mom making big bucks and having a baby by herself as a lifestyle choice, or the Marin County trust-fund hippies having some “happy smoke” in their hot tubs might not cause a whole lot of trouble per se (although I think they are both wrong, pretty much), but for the average inner city resident, who, in all candor, is probably, on average, a lost cause no matter what-the kind of person whom the great Eric Hoffer was talking about when he said, circa 1970:

“The cores of our cities are packed with people who lack the enterprise to take advantage of opportunities, and the character to lack temptation”

it’s a different kettle of fish. Legalization-in our present society, would be even more ruinious-like Communism it’s fine on paper, but it wouldn’t be-what’s the answer? Like someone said on FR about this-cut welfare pretty much altogether-reserve it for those who must have it due to physical/mental issues, or are recovering from disasters, etc.Then we don’t need to worry about it.


41 posted on 03/26/2009 1:33:15 PM PDT by Mac from Cleveland (How to make a small fortune in the Obama era--first, start off with a big fortune....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Is it constitutional to have your driver's license revoked for one year when you refuse a Breathalyzer?

Seems that most on FR say driving is not a right but a privilege and therefore the above is not unconstitutional. Apparently it holds up in court, but I don't know the legal means. Same for road blocks.

Is welfare a right? Seems if you don't want a drug test, don't ask for welfare. Sort of how NYC got by with random bag searches at subway stations. If you didn't want to be searched, you had that choice, but then you couldn't ride the train. At least not at that station.

Maybe the drug test could be random prior to picking up a welfare check. You don't have to pee in the cup, but you're not going to get that month's check unless you do.

42 posted on 03/26/2009 1:54:06 PM PDT by OA5599
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN

Agreed. I hope it makes it.


43 posted on 03/26/2009 1:59:31 PM PDT by Gator113 (For America to Survive, Obama Must Fail..... Obama=Failure in Chief with the Audacity of Dope.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

Code Toading Under The Influence.


44 posted on 03/26/2009 2:17:07 PM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: microgood

You sir are sorely mistaken! EVERY job on oil refineries require random drug testing, almost every construction company requires random drug testing, several industrial companies require random drug testing.

But, this money is NOT a right. Just like I have the right to work for a company that does not require drug testing, these guys can go to work and not get this money.


45 posted on 03/26/2009 2:20:39 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (For whatsoe'ver their sufferings were before; that change they covet makes them suffer more. -Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

All health care workers, BUT NOT DOCTORS, have to have drug screens before employment, and at any time.


46 posted on 03/26/2009 2:30:19 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

I know there are many more jobs that require random testing. Most companies where you handle money (convenience stores, grocery stores and banks (at least in Texas)) require random testing.

Besides, the liability of a drugged out employee on your property and on your time is just TOO dangerous! Also, this has been ruled upon in court and the ruling was that you can always go to work somewhere else.

So, if they don’t want to be drug screened, then they can go get their money from somewhere else - I like the idea of less people on the Gubmint teat! Most importantly, we are not talking about physically disabled people here; we are talking about people usually too lazy to go get a job and pull themselves up by their boot straps! You know those that have been “held down”! BS!!!


47 posted on 03/26/2009 2:41:51 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (For whatsoe'ver their sufferings were before; that change they covet makes them suffer more. -Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy

I don’t like the idea.

Most long time welfare recipients already have to provide specimens to their parole agents and probation officers- it would be a duplication of effort.

Those that are out looking for a job often already have to provide it for new employers.

It just seems like additional red tape which would just cause a lot of work for bureaucrats and government contractors with little upside to it.


48 posted on 03/26/2009 3:00:06 PM PDT by I_Like_Spam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine
You sir are sorely mistaken! EVERY job on oil refineries require random drug testing, almost every construction company requires random drug testing, several industrial companies require random drug testing.

Private corporations are different. They are not bound by the 4th Amendment. The limitations apply when the state and federal government is trying to drug test you. Most of the private corporations do this for insurance purposes and you agree to it as a condition of employment.
49 posted on 03/26/2009 4:33:20 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OA5599
Is it constitutional to have your driver's license revoked for one year when you refuse a Breathalyzer?

Probably not since you are being forced to incriminate yourself.(5th Amendment?)

Seems that most on FR say driving is not a right but a privilege and therefore the above is not unconstitutional. Apparently it holds up in court, but I don't know the legal means. Same for road blocks.

Government will always want more power than it is granted by the Constitution. This is a case where the government has won and citizens have lost. The Supreme Court even admitted that sobriety checkpoints violate the Constitution but seem to believe that the checkpoints are more important than the Constitution.

Is welfare a right? Seems if you don't want a drug test, don't ask for welfare.

No, welfare is not a right. The only case where the government can currently take away your constitutional rights is when you join the military. But if they have a government program that anyone can apply for, that does not mean you give up your constitutional rights to get in that program.

The bottom line with drug testing is it is basically a test for marijuana since all the other drugs are water soluble and leave your system very quickly. With the marijuana test, it only knows if you have done something in the last two weeks or so, not if you are currently under the influence so it is of limited value as well except that something you did last weekend can get you fired from your job.
50 posted on 03/26/2009 4:42:58 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson