As The Daily Show expertly demonstrated two weeks ago, the growing trend among state lawmakers to require welfare recipients to submit to drug tests raises troubling questions. As correspondent Aasif Mandvi found, if poor mothers and fathers receiving tax-funded benefits have to pee in a cup, why shouldn't everyone receiving taxpayer money? Like state legislators.
But Mandvi's challenge to Florida lawmakers to submit to tests hasn't scared a group of Kansas lawmakers, including Merriam Republican Rep. Brett Hildabrand, from wanting to drug-test Kansas' poorest residents before getting their hands on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families funds. The Star reports that after two failed tests, a person would be cut off for a year. Three failures would mean a lifetime ban.
Meanwhile, in Missouri, The Daily Show prank seems to have struck a chord with Rep. Rick Brattin (R-Harrisonville). The Star writes that Brattin is sponsoring legislation that will require all members of the General Assembly to submit to random drug testing. "Our salaries are paid by taxpayers, so we should assure them we aren’t using that money on drugs," he told the paper.
Showing 1-22 of 22
It's an idea who's time has come. If we're gonna get upset about our tax dollars 'subsidising' planned parenthood (contraception/abortion) then we should be equally militant about ALL Government beneficiaries. Cops and G.I.s are routinely drug tested. Part of the job...why can't other public servants have the same requirments?
so if they two state legislators got together they could test both.....since they are really the same thing anyway.
Did you know Sarah Steelman, Republican candidate for U. S. Senate used to sleep with Bill Kenney? Remember him? He used to be a state senator and he's also a washed up NFL quarterback.
How's that for family values?
I suggest in Missouri they test the legislators for greed and stupidity as well.
Two-percent of the welfare recipients in Florida came up hot. Probably for pot since heroin and cocaine/crack are out of your system in 48-hours.
A skin patch is the best way to determine drug use.
We just need better interactions between the welfare offices and the recipients. Right now you sign up for welfare online and have your interviews over the phone. There is no accountability there. If there was physical interaction it wouldn't take much for the person doing the interviews to see if the welfare case is doing drugs like heroin and meth. Obviously, liberal militants will incorrectly claim this is profiling, but it doesn't take a genius to tell if someone is whacked out on hard drugs. Instead we have lazy government officials sitting in an office calling people, hoping they tell the truth.
Also, if they want to test, they need to do bloodwork rather than piss tests. Yes it's more expensive, but testing should only be enforced when there is reason to believe the welfare recipient is on powerful drugs. Piss tests do nothing as most hard drugs like cocaine and meth are out of the urinary system within days of use, unlike pot which lingers for a month.
People getting assistance are no different than any other citizen. I find it repulsive that our elected servants are bent on torturing the most vulnerable in our community with this kind of BS.
Corporate america benefits with many subsides and loopholes. I say we test CEO's and board members of any company that benefits from the tax code also.
Since some posters are more concerned about drug-free legislators than drug-addled welfare recipients breeding more and more "crack babies" who'll likely one day engage in one form of aberrant behavior or another, it's probably a good idea for both the politicians and the welfare recipients to be drug tested. This way the taxpayer at least won't be forced to subsidize the bad behavior of a 20yr old w/4 kids by 4 different daddies. And if the legislators fail the test they can always join the ranks of entertainers or so-called journalists who enjoy a frequent
chemical indulgence.
why would any sensible person believe it's OK for persons working REAL jobs to be drug tested to get/keep the job but that others who live for free off the labor of the employed should not also be drug tested?? In other words, workers deserve drug testing, slackers should be exempt.
As long as legislators are voting to continue the War On (some) Drugs, I think they are absolutely hypocrites if they don't submit to testing themselves.
Of course, I can't imagine a politician ever actually getting caught....a little $$ to the right person at the drug lab would go a long way. They'd either find a way to dodge the test, use somebody else's piss, blow the test off altogether, or find a way to suppress a positive.
Or maybe Republicans could spend their time addressing an actual, y'know, problem, instead of coming up with pompous, self-righteous legislation aimed at kicking people while they're down.
we need a test to detect the amount fecal matter on hildabrands tongue...
another dumbass repub
will kansas ever grow up
Florida's drug testing resulted in low positives and a huge bill for tax payers.
@Jack--I'm 100% agreed . I'm hoping that these measures would remove legions of job-allergic drug users from the public dole. The legislation includes a job-search requirement , and also takes into consideration the income of live-in boyfriends. I do feel that the proposed legislation falls short by not including all gold teeth as taxable assets.
In reply to Jeffry Heavin,.. Even though the proposed legislation has a "fix" on who pays for it, it is a long shot that it stays that way. The social mechanisms that define a minimum welfare benefit would simply increase the minimum to cover the "additional" burden, even though there really isn't one. Bleeding heart liberals never actually read the legislation. Poor souls can't even pay for bread.. Ahh Spare me! I just don't think the proposed legislation would actually work the way you described.
Our congress critters are the biggest welfare recipients of all.
The proposed legislation calls for the recipients to pay for the drug-test. The money would be returned if the recipient tests negative for drugs. This legislation is a step in the right direction. Lawmakers are public servants and should be not only drug-tested, but , like all servants , periodically abused .
Not to mention this is as much "class warfare" as anything else. Again.... hypocrites.
In principle, I agree with Bobp. But there the practical side of it is that those on welfare wouldn't pay for the actual drug testing. It ends up being a larger tax on society. With the legislators, it is a good idea, but it is a government funding of drug testing with a relatively low need for it. They wouldn't have gotten elected if they were meth addicts.
I agree with the writers that all lawmakers should be the FIRST ones to have to undergo this kind of testing. Once they have passed a bill to make that happen on a regular basis, and once they pass those drug tests, then and only then can said lawmakers talk about drug testing NON-Government workers just because they are on welfare.
I also think this sort of thing isn't exactly "shrinking government." So if these lawmakers are Republicans or especially tea party'ers that would tend to make them hypocrites.
The guy with the job, whos money the goverment takes to give to others, must take a drug test in order to have that privilage of paying the taxes that supports the welfare state. I see NO problem with having welfare recipients pee-tested.
Testing welfare recipients, by all measure, would be good for the social aspects of getting them OFF of welfare. However, the practical side is that, if they can't put food on the table, who is going to pay for the testing? THE TAXPAYER! The money would be in ADDITION to the money already wasted on welfare. Secondly, testing legislators AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE is a good idea. But, it would drive up costs for testing because it would be de facto government funding of drug testing. Nope on both. Signed, US Taxpayer.
I say drug testing should be used on ANYONE getting ANYTHING from the government.. including a paycheck, tax break etc.. that way ALL of america can be subject to the same aspect of if your getting something from the government.. you are subject to random testing!
like
dislike
