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

Skip to comments.

House Approves Drug Tests for SNAP Applicants
Big Government ^ | 6/20/2013 | William Bigelow

Posted on 06/20/2013 3:49:19 AM PDT by markomalley

The House voted Wednesday voted to give states the power to perform drug tests on people who apply for food stamps under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The proposal was written as an amendment to North Carolina GOP Rep. Richard Hudson’s farm bill. Hudson commented:

If adopted, this amendment would join a list of good-government reforms contained in the farm bill to save taxpayer money and ensure integrity and accountability within our nutrition system. From preventing lottery winners from receiving food stamps, to closing loopholes and preventing illegal immigrants from receiving benefits, I commend the chairman and ranking member on the work done to reform the food stamps program in the farm bill.

Democrats asserted that the drug testing amendment was proposed by the GOP because the GOP is implying that people applying for food stamps use drugs. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) claimed that studies have shown SNAP recipients are not using drugs more than the general populace, that the proposal was unconstitutional, and that the proposal would humiliate SNAP users. She said, "It costs a lot of public money just to humiliate people. It'll cost $75 for one of these drug tests, and for what purpose? Just to criminalize and humiliate poor people."

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


TOPICS: Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS:
And of course, we all know that requiring drug tests is racist, misogynistic, and homophobic </sarc>
1 posted on 06/20/2013 3:49:19 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

As we read this, the ACLU, the NAACP, ACORN, CAIR, LA RAZA, et al are preparing a joint lawsuit.


2 posted on 06/20/2013 3:50:38 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Yet people have to be tested before and after getting a job. DUH
3 posted on 06/20/2013 3:53:51 AM PDT by piroque ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

As much as I approve of the measure, isn’t this a matter for the states to decide?


4 posted on 06/20/2013 3:54:22 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows (You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows
As much as I approve of the measure, isn’t this a matter for the states to decide?

And this bill authorizes states to do so, it doesn't mandate it.

5 posted on 06/20/2013 3:55:40 AM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

By any reasonable reading of the Constitution the states already have the power to do so, but yes, this should clear an obstacle or two.


6 posted on 06/20/2013 4:00:53 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows (You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows
By any reasonable reading of the Constitution the states already have the power to do so, but yes, this should clear an obstacle or two.

By any reasonable reading of the Constitution , the federal government has no authority to be in this at all (at least I've never seen "food stamps" listed in Article 1 Section 8, but, hey, I'm not an expert).

7 posted on 06/20/2013 4:17:25 AM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Be very interesting to watch this in the progressive controlled senate.


8 posted on 06/20/2013 4:17:36 AM PDT by SilverMine (IF the US gøvt says it is a lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

“As much as I approve of the measure, isn’t this a matter for the states to decide?”

It is in this case, based on the wording. But it shouldn’t be - if taxpayers in Texas are paying for Food Stamps in California, then it is a federal issue and the feds should have every right to demand testing.

In other words, if a state doesn’t want to test their recipients, fine - but don’t expect federal money - pay for your program yourself.


9 posted on 06/20/2013 4:20:03 AM PDT by BobL (To us it's a game, to them it's personal - therefore they win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

How about proof of eligibility?? Should only be for those truly in need.


10 posted on 06/20/2013 4:21:28 AM PDT by FES0844
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FES0844

As well as for only those WHO ARE TRULY CITIZENS!!!


11 posted on 06/20/2013 4:25:43 AM PDT by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This isn’t about caring if food stamp recipients use drugs, this is about someone getting a big fat contract to make people pee. Just like in Florida.

And they will find out it costs more to operate than it saves in kicking people off of assistance.


12 posted on 06/20/2013 4:27:27 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to thoe tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

This is where one can shake the hypocrites out of the “smaller, less intrusive government” tree. Instead of voting to reduce or eliminate funding for a program government has no business being in in the first place, they steal more money from the taxpayers for piss tests.


13 posted on 06/20/2013 4:34:37 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Willing to bet the tests will be given by people that are on EBT themselves who will turn a blind eye. If not there will be a huge market for drug-free pee in a test tube


14 posted on 06/20/2013 4:35:28 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"and that the proposal would humiliate SNAP users."

Those who mooch off the government (ie. fellow citizens) for a living have given up on personal pride and long past humiliation.

15 posted on 06/20/2013 4:38:14 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

> Democrats asserted that the drug testing amendment was proposed by the GOP because the GOP is implying that people applying for food stamps use drugs.

No implying necessary. Go down to your local Walmart and sit for a few hours and watch for those white cards to come out and draw your own conclusions. I don’t know if any statistics have been gathered but I’m willing to bet Democrat population as a whole use drugs far more on average than GOP members.


16 posted on 06/20/2013 4:40:25 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
This isn’t about caring if food stamp recipients use drugs, this is about someone getting a big fat contract to make people pee.

A+

17 posted on 06/20/2013 4:42:03 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
We no longer need The House and The Senate.

We have all the laws needed for a self-sufficient and sovereign nation

18 posted on 06/20/2013 4:44:06 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof, but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Democrats asserted that the drug testing amendment was proposed by the GOP because the GOP is implying that people applying for food stamps use drugs.

Republicans all over the country are doing this because it elicits the reactions among conservatives that you see in these posts.

However, it is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution and will be struck down as soon as it hits Federal Court like it has been every time it has been passed. The Republicans know this, however, and that is even more raw meat they have to feed the masses.

It is nothing but political theater where the outcome is already known by both parties.
19 posted on 06/20/2013 4:45:36 AM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

In a world, not so long ago, it USED to be shameful to be on food stamps.

Now it is a matter of “pride” (eyeroll).


20 posted on 06/20/2013 5:01:48 AM PDT by NoGrayZone (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The key will be to protect against any liberal amendments.


21 posted on 06/20/2013 5:03:36 AM PDT by G Larry (Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Psalms 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: microgood

How about striking food stamps down on A1S8, 9th and 10th Amendment grounds instead?

If taxpayers are being robbed to supply the dead-beats with $$, the least the taxpayer should be assured is that the process THEY had to go through (IE: drug test for job, and chance of random) is the same for the dead-beat.


22 posted on 06/20/2013 5:22:39 AM PDT by i_robot73 (We hold that all individuals have the Right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives - LP.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: knarf

One would think so.


23 posted on 06/20/2013 5:24:38 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
As all this snooping is being exposed and the immagration bill being proposed (I think it's the eleventeenth .. but I've lost count), it occurs to me that The House and Senate are just inventing work, or going back over stuff that has already been done.

They're not being watchdogs against attacks on American security and sovereignty, they're not protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic, they're not discussing ways in which Americans can prosper EVEN MORE, they're not trying to decrease government but rather increase it ...

If I can use the word Congress to lump them both together ... We no longer need Congress.

Unfortunately, my thought process leaves only a police force necesary .. and THAT is more frightening than bumbling boobs in Congress.

I'll be dead in a few years and it'll all be over ... for me.

God, how I wish I could get into other people's heads.

24 posted on 06/20/2013 5:33:52 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof, but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

If they are on SNAP, they shouldn’t be able to afford drugs. If they are on drugs, that’s the reason they cannot afford food.


25 posted on 06/20/2013 5:40:16 AM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

So add forty bucks a pop for the testing fees on top of the monthly benefit for millions of people.

Am I the only one who sees a problem here?


26 posted on 06/20/2013 6:38:44 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Democrats asserted that the drug testing amendment was proposed by the GOP because the GOP is implying that people applying for food stamps use drugs.

As usual, the Democrats got it ass backwards. We are implying that people who use drugs are applying for food stamps. Huge difference. If you have money for drugs, you have money for food and do not require hard working tax payers to subsidize your poor lifestyle decisions. If you don't do drugs, you have nothing to worry about. How typical of Democrats to fight to keep their constituents hooked on drugs. Government of the dirtbags for the dirtbags there.

27 posted on 06/20/2013 6:52:21 AM PDT by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

In the Army I had to p** in the bottle on demand. For a while I sat on the separation boards for those who popped hot. Even when the specimens were sent to Aberdeen PG for analysis (known as “the impregnable fortress of urine” since its conclusions were sacrosanct), the process was so expensive that commanders were told to keep this in mind whenever they locked down their units for p-tests.

But something has to be done about the welfare druggies. Maybe make it random based on SSN like in the military. That’s a joke, too; our CO liked to hold urinalysis lockdowns immediately following promotion & awards ceremonies. I protested that having these back to back was inappropriate.

Guess whose name got called every month for the rest of the year.


28 posted on 06/20/2013 7:10:53 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

Maybe those with prior drug arrests?


29 posted on 06/20/2013 7:35:06 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to thoe tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Makes sense. What I hated about the Army urinalysis program was the guilty until proven innocent aspect. Individuals suspected of using illegal drugs could not be singled out and all unit personnel had to be tested. “Who’re they trying to catch?” was frequently asked while we stood in line to be `observed’.

JAG also informed me that since separation by board was an administrative procedure & not UCMJ, that due process did not apply.


30 posted on 06/20/2013 7:45:59 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Not the guy getting the profits from doing the drug tests. Guaranteed he or she sees no problem with it. AND will probably donate freely to those who voted for it.


31 posted on 06/20/2013 7:50:56 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to thoe tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

We already know from Florida and another state that very few applicants test positive. This is a conservative “feel good” thing with little benefit. Cost of tests will exceed savings, just as in the two prior states. 95% of posters here will say “Yeah, Yeah”. Waste of time.


32 posted on 06/20/2013 7:52:06 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by Nature, not Nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73
How about striking food stamps down on A1S8, 9th and 10th Amendment grounds instead?

I am all for that. Food stamps are completely unconstitutional.

If taxpayers are being robbed to supply the dead-beats with $$, the least the taxpayer should be assured is that the process THEY had to go through (IE: drug test for job, and chance of random) is the same for the dead-beat.

Government cannot drug test people without a warrant based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause because of the 4th Amendment except for certain safety critical jobs.

Private companies are not bound by that rule because theya re not the government and a job is voluntary.

I would rather end food stamps than eliminate the 4th Amendment.
33 posted on 06/20/2013 10:35:52 AM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: piroque

“almost” as if someone WANTED to make it easier to get on “assistance” than to get a job and be self reliant...


34 posted on 06/20/2013 10:38:14 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FES0844

And any fraudulent activity should result in a lifetime ban from any gov’t assistance program.


35 posted on 06/20/2013 10:39:02 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: microgood

I’m with you there on the final wish-list, but I have one little lawyer’in idea for ya:

Does the gov’t, when hiring, not also drug test? If so, then would not people getting $$ from the gov’t (aka TAXPAYERS) not fall into the same category?? IE: You take the $$, you play by ‘their’ rules = essentially paid for doing ‘nothing’


36 posted on 06/20/2013 11:28:35 AM PDT by i_robot73 (We hold that all individuals have the Right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives - LP.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001
I’m willing to bet Democrat population as a whole use drugs far more on average than GOP members.

Illegal drugs, absolutely.

37 posted on 06/20/2013 11:50:44 AM PDT by houeto (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970
Guess whose name got called every month for the rest of the year.

I've always loved getting popped for randoms. Nine times out of ten I was working my tail off in the heat or cold. Once they get you relief you go straight to the heated/cooled clinic until you pee. BTW, I can hold it a long time...hehe.

38 posted on 06/20/2013 12:00:00 PM PDT by houeto (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Don’t go getting in the way of a good old fashioned “Harrumph!”


39 posted on 06/20/2013 12:10:48 PM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: microgood

“Government cannot drug test people without a warrant based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause because of the 4th Amendment”

As noted, in the military the opposite is true. Don’t know the legal basis, but if a commander suspects someone is using, then everyone gets tested under a “health & welfare” command-directed urinalysis.

In the Reserves, anyway, ten percent of personnel are supposed to be randomly tested every monthly assembly. The unit administrator who loved herding us all into the assembly hall & posting guards at the doors was forced to admit to me that in over twenty years nobody had ever popped hot.

Like I say, sucks to have to prove your innocence.


40 posted on 06/20/2013 1:00:37 PM PDT by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970
As noted, in the military the opposite is true.

That is because you have temporarily given up your constitutional rights and are covered under UCMJ instead.

Like I say, sucks to have to prove your innocence.

Indeed it does. We won most of our wars without military personell having to do this, which is why I disagree with this policy.
41 posted on 06/20/2013 1:33:36 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows
isn't this a matter for the states to decide?

Would it be? It's a federal program, and don't the feds determine eligibility?

Anything that brings power closer to the people is a good thing.

42 posted on 06/20/2013 1:37:09 PM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: grania

IIRC, welfare eligibility is determined by the individual states, although they usually (always?) receive federal money to augment their own spending.

Agree re devolution of power.


43 posted on 06/20/2013 3:37:25 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows (You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

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