Some Missouri lawmakers want to force welfare recipients to take drug tests in order to receive government aid.
They're mostly the ones with R's after their names. Folks like state Sen. Jason Crowell (R-Cape Girardeau) and state Rep. Casey Guernsey (R-Bethany). State Rep. Ellen Brandom (R-Sikeston) is sponsoring H.B. 1377.
Kudos to state Rep. Ryan Silvey (R-Kansas City) for tacking an amendment on the bill subjecting lawmakers to drug tests.
Silvey wasn't the only one making the point. State Rep. Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D-University City) introduced a bill (H.B. 1754)
to drug-test elected officials every two years before they take office.
Pass one test and you're good to go for the next 24 months. Woo hoo!
How about drug-testing everyone receiving public assistance?
State Rep. Mike Talboy (D-Kansas City) says whenever someone suggests drug-testing everyone who receives public assistance, "they balk and say it's unconscionable and over-broad and targeting people."
"It's obviously going after a certain segment of the population," Talboy says. "They just want to go after poor people."
Drug-testing elected officials might not be a bad idea, Talboy says.
"Given the comments and the ideology coming out of Cynthia Davis and Tim Jones, this might be a decent idea," Talboy says.
Earlier this week, a Senate committee passed a bill
requiring drug tests for welfare recipients.
Voting against the bill
were Kansas City Democratic Sens. Jolie Justus and Yvonne Wilson and
St. Louis Sen. Joseph Keaveny.
Showing 1-15 of 15
If not taking drugs without a Dr. order they would not have anything to worry about
And what if they test positive, do we allow them to become homeless? put their children in foster care? They will still be in the "system" just differently. Also they will have displaced children or possibly become criminals. If after they are tested and are positive, they are given a reasonable amount of time for drug rehab before their benefits are cancelled, I can see this being good idea.
Doesn't that make sense? If you want a job, you have to take a pre-employment drug test to qualify. If you want money from any type of anything, there are a series of preliminary tests you need to do to qualify. Believe me, I believe if someone is in true need of assistance, as once have been, ABSOLUTELY we should help them get on their feet again. But, not that I bust my butt to go to work every day, only so they can sit home and toke a bowl. 1 test in 24 months....if a user can't get around that, even if they are they heaviest user in the world, then.....really?
So the wife and kids have to suffer if daddy has a joint? Or perhaps it was mommy attending a party and through second hand smoke test positive?
Now lets add the people to watch you pee. Kansas ( 1/2 the welfare population ) cost over 800,000.00 dollars to do this. Is Missouri spending 1.6 Million to pee test poor people?
Better things to do. Can't single out one section of society like this. It has been shown as unconstitutional in more than one state.
There are better ways to find and eliminate those who abuse the system.
I have read all these comments and wonder how many of these caring individuals have screamed to high heaven about rights and such when they were drug tested for a job or do they work???
If you look at welfare as a form of payment equivalent to what you would get on a job then it is not unreasonable to request drug testing of those wanting the benefits.
You speak of the legislators. I have absolutely no problem with drug testing legislators and all public officials each year. I believe that if you can't pass a simple UA then you have no business being in public office.
You speak of violent revolution. How about treating the "War on Drugs" as a war. That means anyone convicted of using any form of illegal narcotic or other illegal drug would be convicted of treason. That might mean the loss of a few people and the higher up the user, the more public the conviction should be. After a few people are publicly put to death for possession and use of these drugs the word will start to get out that maybe casual use isn't such a healthy idea.
There are losses from within and without in any war. The War on drugs should be no different. I figure we could afford to lose a few out of a country of 300 million to make a strong point about drug use!!!
I think this is a good idea. Although there are some individuals who really need it, but i think that taxpayers want to pay for someone to lay around and use drugs. I feel welfare is to help individuals in a temporary situation,it is not suitable for living on. it's not enough money especially if you have children! I say move forward with drug testing those who are getting welfare income wages. Maybe they might get up and get some drive about theselves.
RE:S.Clayton As a matter of fact I smoked a bowl before I answered this plog.Its because I'm into mind expansion that I have the disposition I do.Oh that's right just because I smoke weed I'm supposed to be some docile mental midget.I guess you are one of those people that think just sittin around and gettin high duude will like solve everything.I enjoy smokin and I enjoy personal Liberty.Tyrants do not understand anything short of violence.That they understand.Tyrannical governments have understood this one simple truth,that might is right so to speak.One has to be more cunning,more brutal,more resolute to effectively put down tyrannical government.Look what happened to Caesar on the senate floor at the hands of Brutus and others.It is a crying shame there is not that resolve today in the u.s.In other countries this kind of non sense would not be tolerated.Perhaps there is something to be gleaned from African,South American,or Middle Eastern countries.They publicly execute fuck-heads in their countries.
I'm surprised so many people think this is a bad idea. I grew up in KCK, and knew many people who needed government (taxpayer) assistance to buy food for their kids, but had no problem laying down $50 for a bag of weed.
I'd say this doesn't go far enough. I know a girl who gets cash assistance, food stamps, and lives in subsidized housing, let she still manages to smoke Newports. These things are like $5.50 a pack. We're talking about a $200 per month habit, and her cash assistance happens to be about $280 per month. Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for her cigarettes?
i find it hard when people dont understand that public assistance is suppossed to be a way for society to help someone improve their life, get the things they need- its our tax dolars, welfare should not be viewed as a lifestyle, does anyone really think that using drugs will help anyone get off public assistance? i say, use the safety net- focus, and get independent- then celebrate..
oooh does that make me uncaring? or does it make me interested in people improving their lives..
Ridiculous. So my guess is that food stamps can be sold at liquor stores for synthetic piss. Who can ever forget when 7 candidates running for the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office admitted they couldn't pass a drug test. Well go figure when you work the warrant desk and have cart blanche to the evidence room at 1125 Locust, which I may add is still audited annually by the Missouri State Auditor, because "hocus pockus" things just magically disappear faster than a pair of handcuffs off Houdini.
So let's definitely drop a "UA" on all members of Congress, the President, his wife, mother-in-law; esentially everyone that gets a government check. Or better yet, let's have 24 hours of community announcements to take pledges to make them stop their philabuster Jerry Lewis style.
The Pitch should give Justin Kendal a raise for his brilliant insights that are in his Plog and other stories which grace your fine, weekly periodical that I read online in Boise.
It figures.While a large majority of people in this country and indeed throughout the world favor legalization or at least decriminalization, leave it to dumbfuck mid-western politico's to once again demonstrate to the rest of the country how stupid,repressive and non progressive people really are here.I have to say the people here because the people who allegedly elect these fuck-sticks have allowed them in power.No wonder the rest of the world thinks the people of the mid west are retarded.It is far past time for violent revolt.Yes you heard right I said VIOLENT REVOLT!!!! I get so sick of the fuck-tards always quoting the founding fathers of this cradle of filth when its to their advantage, but then balk at the idea of violent resistance that the same founding fathers engaged in.It is far past time to take these mother fuckers out to the nearest light post and hang em high.The United States as it is now is beyond redeemable.Any-one who wants to debate that has an I.Q.of 2 and all the sharpness of a bowling ball.If people could really change things "working within the system" the fucking politicians and their shadow handlers would outlaw it.Think about it people,governments have never been created to were the people really had any significant ability to change things.If that were the case then the government would be done away with.It's amusing to hear people ramble on about the prostitution,er sorry,I mean the constitution.The constitution was not meant for you.Proof of this is in the constitution itself,If you look at it you will notice alot of words with cap letters.Like We the People.Notice the caps in the word People.That means it is a proper noun which refers to only a specific class of people(i.e.the wealthy cock-sucking english aristocrats)If it was refering to the general class of people, people would be lower case.That's basic grammar 101.The whole fucking doc.is like that.Get it through you thick skulls,THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT FOR THE GENERAL CLASS OF PEOPLE!!!!! PERIOD!!!! NEVER HAS BEEN,NEVER WILL BE!!!!!Stay more TRUTH AND FACTS that most of you don't want to hear to follow
It is interesting that the GOP would try this tactic. Wait no its not... Poor people and people on welfare when they do vote, vote Democrat. Lets not fool ourselves here. This is just the latest attempt at the GOP trying to supress votes by any means necessary. We already have busted ballot scanners, now this...
Next they will propose that we drug test anyone who wants to cast a ballot and then have us piss in cups before they hand us a ballot.
No mention WHO will pay for all these drug tests.
Will they cut more education (but...but...it's for THE CHILDREN!) funds? Stay tuned...
like
dislike
