Skip to comments.House Approves Drug Tests for SNAP Applicants
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 Hudsons 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 ...
As we read this, the ACLU, the NAACP, ACORN, CAIR, LA RAZA, et al are preparing a joint lawsuit.
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.
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).
Be very interesting to watch this in the progressive controlled senate.
“As much as I approve of the measure, isnt 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.
How about proof of eligibility?? Should only be for those truly in need.
As well as for only those WHO ARE TRULY CITIZENS!!!
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.
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.
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
Those who mooch off the government (ie. fellow citizens) for a living have given up on personal pride and long past humiliation.
> 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.
We have all the laws needed for a self-sufficient and sovereign nation
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).
The key will be to protect against any liberal amendments.
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.
One would think so.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Maybe those with prior drug arrests?
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.
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.
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.
“almost” as if someone WANTED to make it easier to get on “assistance” than to get a job and be self reliant...
And any fraudulent activity should result in a lifetime ban from any gov’t assistance program.
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’
Illegal drugs, absolutely.
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.
Don’t go getting in the way of a good old fashioned “Harrumph!”
“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.
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.
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.