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

Skip to comments.

States consider drug tests for welfare recipients
My Way ^ | Mar 26, 2008 | TOM BREEN

Posted on 03/26/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by GOPGuide

snip

In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

snip

Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.

"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."

Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.

Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.

In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.

The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.

(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: drugs; drugtest; drugtesting; welfare; what4thammt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
Are you for it or against it?
1 posted on 03/26/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by GOPGuide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

Being pushed by drug test vendors. We need to stop the drug war insanity.


2 posted on 03/26/2009 10:36:49 AM PDT by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog

No, I think they are pushing it because they know many welfare recipients won’t cut the mustard, so to speak.


3 posted on 03/26/2009 10:39:58 AM PDT by GOPGuide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog

“Being pushed by drug test vendors. We need to stop the drug war insanity.”

BS! Why should some druggie get welfare (our tax money)?

Make them take the tests ! No pass; No $$


4 posted on 03/26/2009 10:40:14 AM PDT by texson66 (DemonRats: Remember: They have what it takes to TAKE WHAT YOU HAVE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

May I suggest a better solution? Get rid of welfare and all other social programs. Problem solved!


5 posted on 03/26/2009 10:40:26 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

I’m for it. I’ve seen plenty of people in grocery store lines using food stamps to buy food but they were obviously strung out on who knows what. For that matter I’ve seen em buy smokes and booze too.

If you can’t afford food you can’t afford drugs, smokes and booze.

I don’t think we should be paying for their habits by paying for their food.


6 posted on 03/26/2009 10:40:47 AM PDT by Domandred (Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide
For.

No dope smokin’ hippie is going to lay around getting high and watching H.R. Puffinstuff on my dime.

7 posted on 03/26/2009 10:40:55 AM PDT by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

The man who pays the fiddler calls the tune..............


8 posted on 03/26/2009 10:40:55 AM PDT by Red Badger (If Keynesian economics worked, Zimbabwe would be a superpower.......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

“Those are the people who need welfare the most” and “paying them welfare is the most effective stimulus, they will spend it right away”

See how the reasoning goes?


9 posted on 03/26/2009 10:41:01 AM PDT by sickoflibs (RINOs : "We stand for nothing but we're not as bad as Pelosi !")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

It is NOT for the benefit of any recipients. The ONLY purpose of testing is to give the States an excuse to CUT PAYMENTS.


10 posted on 03/26/2009 10:41:15 AM PDT by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

Sure....why not? I had to take a drug test to get my job. Why can’t they take a drug test to get my money from my job?....


11 posted on 03/26/2009 10:41:36 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog

Valid point, but on the flip side, many, many jobs require you to pee in a cup before being offered employment. If you are on unemployment, how would you be able to take a job if you were unable to pee “clean”??? And unemployment payments can be looked at as now the “employer” is your fellow taxpayer, and like most employers, don’t want unproductive meth freaks on the payroll.


12 posted on 03/26/2009 10:42:23 AM PDT by rednesss (fascism is the union,marriage,merger or fusion of corporate economic power with governmental power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive

You make it sound like a bad thing.


13 posted on 03/26/2009 10:42:43 AM PDT by GOPGuide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

It will save the states a lot of money.

But wasn’t welfare designed to get stoners out of the work force?

/sarcasm


14 posted on 03/26/2009 10:42:46 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

“Urine the Money!”


15 posted on 03/26/2009 10:44:08 AM PDT by taxcutisapayraise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

Michael Savage suggested no voting rights if you don’t pay taxes.


16 posted on 03/26/2009 10:44:26 AM PDT by Selmore (Turn him over......That's how Hendrix died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Selmore

I agree with Savage.


17 posted on 03/26/2009 10:45:42 AM PDT by GOPGuide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide
I know a number of people who live off welfare and are heavy marijuana smokers.....spending day & night stoned.

The rest of us go to work to support their habit.

18 posted on 03/26/2009 10:46:31 AM PDT by capt. norm (Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

If drug testing is appropriate for our military it’s appropriate for welfare recipients.


19 posted on 03/26/2009 10:46:39 AM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that certain public housing, perhaps in certain cities only, instituted random drug testing for applicants/residents, and the courts have upheld. Does anyone else recall this?


20 posted on 03/26/2009 10:47:28 AM PDT by JustaDumbBlonde (America: Home of the Free Because of the Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

That would drop about 90% of them off the rolls.


21 posted on 03/26/2009 10:48:14 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

In New York, at least when I was more up on these things, if one of the main reasons a single person collected welfare was because he/she had an addiction problem. Now they kind of put the alcoholics and addicts into a separate category and one had to be enrolled in some kind of outpatient program. In many of these programs there would be urine tests involved. But for the most part, if the alcoholic or addict was using, they wouldn’t show up anyway, or they’d start missing a lot of days etc.-—in reality, no need for the state to spend money on drug testing because attendence at the program is a fairly reliable method for weeding most of those still using off of welfare.


22 posted on 03/26/2009 10:49:15 AM PDT by brooklyn dave (First Atlas Shrugged, now he's screaming bloody murder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
I had to take a drug test to get my job. Why can’t they take a drug test to get my money from my job?....

Quote of the Day.

23 posted on 03/26/2009 10:50:35 AM PDT by randog (Tap into America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

This is a great idea!


24 posted on 03/26/2009 10:51:30 AM PDT by Redleg Duke ("Sarah Palin...Unleashing the Fury of the Castrated Left!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Selmore

No voting rights if you don’t pay taxes.

Also test them for cigarettes and booze. We shouldn’t have to pay for those either.


25 posted on 03/26/2009 10:51:47 AM PDT by Envisioning ("....The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by........(you know the rest)")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

My job is such that I am required to periodically take urine drug tests. Why shouldn’t people on public assistance or unemployment be required to do the same? If they test positive, get them all the help they need to get clean and if they fail again, cut off the assistance.

If you listen to the idjit from the ACLU, he’s implying only rich people should be tested.


26 posted on 03/26/2009 10:52:07 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (Turning gold into lead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide
bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

Good idea. They collect our tax dollars for life (bail outs), and still expect to keep their bonuses? No way. Welfare recipients owe us every penny they get their hands on.

27 posted on 03/26/2009 10:52:40 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde

Public Housing in NYC can be all over the place as far as what kind of folks are living there. In Manhattan’s East Village and Lower East Side all along the East River are projects. I would say the majority of folks living in them now are senior citizens who have lived there for many years...mostly Hispanic. These folks I doubt are doing bong hits.


28 posted on 03/26/2009 10:53:32 AM PDT by brooklyn dave (First Atlas Shrugged, now he's screaming bloody murder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide
Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance:

Good idea. It would cut the cost of welfare in half - if not more. they shouldn't be buying drugs with our paychecks!

29 posted on 03/26/2009 10:54:17 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

I think we need to look at this the way the Rats in Congress would look at say AIG bonuses. We pay their unemplyment, therefore we own them (I think that’s what queen Frank said) so in that case sure why not, piss in the cup to get your check. We have a project in the southern part of my town where you can get totally affordable housing, C/O the taxpayer, C/O the residents you can buy crack, heroine and weed from just about anyone there, make those people pee for their checks, because I know they are making enough to pay rent, buy food and still drive that Escalade!


30 posted on 03/26/2009 10:56:29 AM PDT by gOOsefmalOOsef (Whatever happened to personal accountability?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

I am sick and tired of my tax dollars going to people who live in subsidized housing, receive food stamps, welfare, WIC, Medicaid, etc. who do not work.

You will not get a job in either the private or public sector without a drug test. Why then should those on public assistance not be held to the same standard?


31 posted on 03/26/2009 10:56:40 AM PDT by NoKoolAidforMe (1-20-09--The Beginning of an Error..............1-20-13--Change we can look forward to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

Exactly


32 posted on 03/26/2009 10:57:03 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Selmore
Michael Savage suggested no voting rights if you don’t pay taxes.

I agree. The tax payers pay for EVERY piece of legislation passed. The others just vote themselves other peoples money.

33 posted on 03/26/2009 10:58:32 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: taxcutisapayraise

LOL!


34 posted on 03/26/2009 10:59:49 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Domandred
I’m for it. I’ve seen plenty of people in grocery store lines using food stamps to buy food but they were obviously strung out on who knows what. For that matter I’ve seen em buy smokes and booze too.

Back when the foodstamps were paper, users could trade them - 2 for a dollar - to the dealers. (Don't ask me how I know that.) Now that they are in credit card form, it may be a little more difficult - but I'm sure it can be done.

My daughter and I were behind a lady in the grocery line yesterday who paid with a foodstamp card. She was loading groceries in a Jaguar when we walked out. I kid you not. If we must keep "welfare" - then I'm all for the drug testing.

35 posted on 03/26/2009 11:00:18 AM PDT by babyfreep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave
I don't recall even remotely hinting that senior citizens were "doing bong hits", although I do know quite a few people who are getting on up in years that probably still enjoy a joint here and there.

What I was getting at is that there is precedent for this requirement and it may be legally/constitutionally sound. I realize that public housing shelters folks from one end of the spectrum to the other. If they are not taking drugs, they wouldn't have much to lose now, would they?

It would be my guess that there is no drug testing for public housing in my state, as a drive my the projects reveals a bunch of people who all look like they are drunk, high or stoned, or a combination thereof.

36 posted on 03/26/2009 11:01:10 AM PDT by JustaDumbBlonde (America: Home of the Free Because of the Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics; Selmore
Michael Savage suggested no voting rights if you don’t pay taxes.

I can top that. Robert A. Heinlein suggested no voting rights unless you're an honorably discharged veteran.

37 posted on 03/26/2009 11:01:44 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (Turning gold into lead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

this is a good idea, so it will probably only get enacted in Texas.


38 posted on 03/26/2009 11:02:34 AM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Selmore

no representation without taxation. but those people currently elect the people who make the decisions, and they’re not going to elect people who would do that. and the people that benefit do everything they can to increase their numbers.

won’t happen this side of The Great Turmoil.


39 posted on 03/26/2009 11:06:48 AM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

Thanks, you just compelled me to put HR Puffinstuff and Lacelot Link: Secret Chimp into my Netflix queue so my kids can experience what I had to watch when I was a kid.


40 posted on 03/26/2009 11:10:25 AM PDT by dirtman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide
Back when I worked in Public Health, there were a couple of 'blind' tests done where our maternity clients urine was tested for drugs and as expected, some were positive. I asked why nothing was done about it and was told that at least they were seeking some prenatal care.

As much as I hate to say it.. There are kids that depend on those welfare checks to sustain life, regardless if mom uses or not. If only adults getting money was at stake, I'd be for it even tho I'm against being asked to submit my urine, without cause, for employment.

41 posted on 03/26/2009 11:10:32 AM PDT by sweet_diane (embracing Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde

Funny thing; legally would it stand up. ACLU would fight it tooth and nail, but in NY (the most liberal state after Massachusetts) they will kick grannies out of the projects because grand baby is selling dope on the grounds of the project. See a lot of these teenage or 20 somethings are living with their grannies—and this has stood in the NY courts. I personally think it’s harsh, the law should be amended for granny to have an opportunity to remedy the situation (kicking the bum out)instead of her being on the street.


42 posted on 03/26/2009 11:14:53 AM PDT by brooklyn dave (First Atlas Shrugged, now he's screaming bloody murder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide
LOL! Oh yeah, this will go over like a pregnant pole-vaulter!

That being said; it's a GREAT idea! That money they're getting is supposed to be used to feed, clothe and house their families, not be wasted on crack, heroin, or weed.

43 posted on 03/26/2009 11:18:09 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

For it!


44 posted on 03/26/2009 11:23:28 AM PDT by mojitojoe ( Idiots elected a Marxist ideologue with narcissistic personality disorder & America is dying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

Against it for unemployment insurance.

For welfare? Leaving aside the legitimacy of Welfare, I’d have to think about it. There are unknowns and unintended consequences. Increased crime, increased homelessness, perhaps increased illness and death. All of that, plus the unknowns, will have to be dealt with—or not. “Or not” may be the correct course, but is the public willing to do that?ha will they propose instead? W


45 posted on 03/26/2009 11:23:41 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide
It will be difficult to enforce when you can buy a clean-out kit anywhere.

How many chances will we give the welfare recipients when they fail? How many times can they fail?

When they do fail and we cut off funding, how much funding will we allocate for security for the workers at welfare offices?

46 posted on 03/26/2009 11:28:40 AM PDT by TheThinker (Even though Obama is President, I'm more American than that imposter will ever be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babyfreep
My daughter and I were behind a lady in the grocery line yesterday who paid with a foodstamp card. She was loading groceries in a Jaguar when we walked out.

This was not necessarily a food stamp benefit. In certain states, the "EBT" card is used to distribute various kinds of payments for services, such as foster care and guardianship.

47 posted on 03/26/2009 11:35:32 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide
Test every member of Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive branch!

They get my money too.....

48 posted on 03/26/2009 11:36:43 AM PDT by Species8472 (The evil has landed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide

Against


49 posted on 03/26/2009 11:38:34 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPGuide
Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

uh ... Exsqueeze me but if they hit the jackpot wouldn't you want the OFF of WELFARE?

But hey, if you're going to take all their winnings over $600.00 why not just pass a law saying they can't play the lottery at all. Brand a big 'W' on their foreheads so all the merchants know no Lotto tickets for them.

Or better yet just have a gubmint worker stationed in ALL welfare recipients homes and they can order what these folks can spend their money on. Naturally the main concern would be food, so no cookies, cakes, or popcorn. Just gubmint cheese and crackers and for Sunday they get gubmint gruel to feast on.

Or the ultimate control for the gubmint -- just put all people on public assistance into big camps and they can pick cotton from dawn to dusk to 'earn' their keep. Ooops, wait a sec.... that was already tried, it was called Slavery and ..... Communism.

I'm NOT defending the Welfare Queens in Cadillacs whose kids have $300.00 sneakers but come on, they are people with some rights left. And if they want to buy $5.00 worth of Lotto tickets instead of gubmint approved stale bread, so be it.

50 posted on 03/26/2009 11:39:00 AM PDT by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 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