Posted on 03/01/2013 1:54:34 PM PST by Responsibility2nd
AUGUSTA, Maine — Lawmakers this session once again will debate whether recipients of state and local welfare benefits should be subject to drug testing. And this time, a Democrat is bringing forward the proposal, which is more likely to prove popular with Republicans.
Rep. Paulette Beaudoin, D-Biddeford, is sponsoring a measure that would allow the state to conduct random drug tests on Maine residents receiving benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program or health insurance through Medicaid. Under the measure, the state would cut off benefits to anyone who tests positive.
Beaudoin’s bill, LD 678, also would let municipalities drug-test recipients of aid through local General Assistance programs and cut off support for those who test positive.
Nine Republican lawmakers and one Democrat, Rep. Matthew Peterson of Rumford, have signed on as co-sponsors.
Beaudoin’s bill is one of a handful that lawmakers will consider this session dealing with drug use and eligibility for state assistance. Rep. Wayne Parry, R-Arundel — a co-sponsor of Beaudoin’s bill — also is proposing to require drug testing for food stamp recipients.
In addition, Gov. Paul LePage’s administration is preparing a measure that would make drug felons ineligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits.
Beaudoin, who’s serving her fourth term in the House, said she sees her measure as a logical step for Maine’s welfare programs. Drug testing is already widespread, she said.
“It’s not because I’m picking on [welfare recipients]. I’m not,” she said. “They just need to be drug-tested, just like everybody else is.”
The state shouldn’t be awarding public funds to people who use their assistance to purchase illegal drugs, Beaudoin said.
“We give them public funds because they need it to survive. We give it for the children. We give it to them to have a better life, but not to be using it in that fashion,” Beaudoin said. “It’s to be used for food, for heat, for everything it has to be used for. Not for drugs.”
Lawmakers two years ago debated drug testing for TANF recipients and included in the two-year state budget a measure that allowed the state to cut off TANF benefits to drug felons convicted within the past 20 years who failed a series of drug tests. The budget provision allowed some of those felons to avoid losing benefits if they enrolled in substance abuse treatment programs.
The state, however, hasn’t implemented that provision of the budget because of the cost and concerns about its legality, John Martins, a Department of Health and Human Services spokesman, said in January. Martins said Wednesday in an email that the department hasn’t yet taken a position on Beaudoin’s bill.
Advocates for low-income Mainers plan to oppose the measure.
It’s unclear why a law allowing drug testing of welfare recipients is needed, said Sara Gagne-Holmes, executive director of Maine Equal Justice Partners, an advocacy group for low-income Maine residents. No data point to a major substance abuse problem among recipients of welfare benefits, she said.
“We need to base public policy on facts, not rhetoric,” Gagne-Holmes said. “I don’t understand where this issue is coming from and why we need such a draconian measure, never mind that it’s unconstitutional.”
Drug testing for welfare recipients has been debated in a number of states in recent years, and Florida began to require drug tests for all people seeking welfare benefits in 2011. The state implemented the drug-testing requirement for four months before a federal judge issued an injunction that put the law on hold. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Tuesday upheld that temporary ban on drug testing, and Florida Gov. Rick Scott has vowed to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
During the four months the law was in effect, Florida saved no money from the policy and saw little change in the number of applications for welfare benefits, according to data the state released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from civil liberties groups.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story had a photo caption that incorrectly stated that Rep. Beaudoin's bill would require drug testing for food stamps recipients.
They're not all Maine-iacs up there in Yankee Land.
So these measures include the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol too, right? Nobody needs alcohol to survive.
Someone is going to be as welcome as the proverbial ‘t__d -in-the-punchbowl’ with her ‘rat-pack’, for quite a while!
This is not about alcohol, now is it? How’d I know you and your pro-drug crusade would show up on this thread?
Why not just admit it. You OPPOSE this “unconstitutional” search of private citizens, don’t you? You support welfare bums and their right to smoke or injest whatever they want while ripping off the taxpayers.
You are still a frickin troll.
I would like recipients tested for cable television and internet.
One thing I'm quite sure of is it does not include corporate welfare like tax abatements, tax breaks, zero-interest loans, subsidies, government grants, stimulus money, bailouts, etc.
But the Internet is a "fundamental human right" according to the U.N.
Alcohol is not illegal, there is no reason to test for it.
If MJ is legal there (no not illegal) I do not know how they can test for that either.
Ok, based on your statement it appears that a glass of wine at dinner or a martini on a nice afternoon on the deck or a beer with BBQ is the same as falling down into the gutter drunk........not only not true - its just silly.
So these measures include the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol too, right? Nobody needs alcohol to survive.
This is not about alcohol, now is it?
Based on the rationale presented, it should be. You support welfare bums and their right to guzzle whatever they want while ripping off the taxpayers, don’t you?
So these measures include the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol too, right? Nobody needs alcohol to survive.
Alcohol is not illegal
It's also not needed to survive - which is the presented rationale for testing.
Ok, based on your statement it appears that a glass of wine at dinner or a martini on a nice afternoon on the deck or a beer with BBQ is the same as falling down into the gutter drunk
No, that's just your baseless inference.
Wonder if that dem has stock in the clinics like Gov. Rick Scott who also passed it here in FL.
Actually being alcohol-free is a pretty good requirement. In fact, if it were up to me, if their blood stream contained anything other than Ramen or catfood, then no welfare check!
I’m sure that’s because you want them to have it so they can find work and get off the dole. Right?
Racist, homophobic, sexist and just plain mean.
But wait, she is a Democrat.
Naa. She will or has been excommunicated.
Damn Republican racist, homophobic, sexist pig.
Something along these lines.
Just because MJ might be legal doesn’t mean the company/agency/employer can’t test for it and prohibit it for employees.
I live in Maine (escaped from massachusetts)it still seems to put liberal types in federal positions but for the most part frugality is celebrated and the police are very conservative.You have to be an idiot to get pulled over as opposed to the police state below and the cost of living is MUCH lower if your self-sufficient and have half a brain.I love the state of Maine and especially Governor LePage he really gets under the skin of the moonbats.
Yet watch the Drug Warriors fight tooth and nail against it, so deeply in denial are they about the simple fact that alcohol is a drug.
No, no, no...you don’t understand.
He wants to test them to make sure they’re taking ENOUGH drugs.
There is a vicious irony, that the people making the money and paying the taxes more often than not have to be tested in order to be and remain employed (or, in a dangerous profession, alive), so that those who aren’t working can have enough money to spend on booze and drugs.
A court in Florida struck the same thing down as being a violation of the 4th amendment.
so people can’t make sure money WE give tothese welfar queens isn’t used for drugs because it violates their 4th amendment rights
but employers can force drug tests on employees?
I guess I am too dumb to get it
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.