PDA

View Full Version : Kentucky lawmaker wants random drug testing for welfare recipients



reggie_miller_fan
01-26-2011, 06:51 PM
http://www.kentucky.com/2011/01/17/1600950/kentucky-lawmaker-wants-random.html

I hope this passes

gatorboymike
01-26-2011, 06:57 PM
Second.

DunkingDurant35
01-26-2011, 07:11 PM
Third. I'm not going to say that absolutely everyone on welfare abuses it, but it would be naive to think no one does, either. My half-brother knows someone who does, and he cut contact with him years ago. It's reprehensible to say the least.

sanfran22
01-26-2011, 07:17 PM
Right on.....

tutall
01-26-2011, 07:32 PM
I do have many issues with this law but I like the basis of it.

I have issues with people who think like this though...




Sheila Schuster, who works with organizations that advocate for disabled Kentuckians, said her concern with Napier's bill is "it fans the flames of people who misunderstand the plight of those who receive assistance and would put more negative connotation on them."

Lets be honest... people on government assistance already have a negative connotation with them like it or not... If we started the testing that could only help the image as you know someone passed the test... The part I do have issues with is when kids are involved... I mean if we cut funding to a single mom who has used drugs in the past and that is the money for the babys formula where do we go from there?

INTIMADATOR2007
01-26-2011, 08:29 PM
I like it also , My state of georgia has a similar law in the state house awaitng a final vote later this year ..Just last week I was in the grocery store line and a female and male were stacking 2 buggie's high , After she paid with a food stamp card they were walking out and she told the other male to call the weed man and they would stop by on they way home . This goes on everywhere and it makes me Puke .. The Grocer bagger said alot of the people take the food back to the neighbors and sells what they don't need for cash , The system is broken and needs to be fixed .

duane1969
01-26-2011, 08:35 PM
I do have many issues with this law but I like the basis of it.

I have issues with people who think like this though...




Lets be honest... people on government assistance already have a negative connotation with them like it or not... If we started the testing that could only help the image as you know someone passed the test... The part I do have issues with is when kids are involved... I mean if we cut funding to a single mom who has used drugs in the past and that is the money for the babys formula where do we go from there?

If she used drugs in the past but isn't now then there is no reason for her to lose her assistance. My guess is that if she test positive then she would lose her aid but still get it for her child. The risk is that the state starts taking kids from parents who test positive by using the logic that no job and no assistance equals an inability to properly care for the child.

I support this 1000%. I hope my state adopts it as I know of several people who get assistance and are drug users.

theonedru
01-29-2011, 10:31 PM
Why stop at just drugs? People on assistance should not be doing drugs, drinking booze or smoking, not on my $...... Make em do a test for all 3 you test positive you get instantly chopped

tylermckinzie
01-29-2011, 11:43 PM
Heck, why stop with welfare recepients? Why don't we just test everyone before they get their paycheck?

I mean, since when is illegal not illegal? Does it matter who it is?

(Yes, some of you will find the irony in this ;-)

theonedru
01-30-2011, 02:12 AM
Heck, why stop with welfare recepients? Why don't we just test everyone before they get their paycheck?

I mean, since when is illegal not illegal? Does it matter who it is?

(Yes, some of you will find the irony in this ;-)

Because you Work for a paycheck, a welfare check is a handout that comes from societies pockets and I refuse to contribute my hard earned cash to people that abuse the system and take advantage of it.

Hairylemon
01-30-2011, 06:27 AM
A question from overseas. How does your welfare system work? For example if you lose your job when do you become eligible for assistance?

tylermckinzie
01-30-2011, 10:29 AM
Because you Work for a paycheck, a welfare check is a handout that comes from societies pockets and I refuse to contribute my hard earned cash to people that abuse the system and take advantage of it.

So it's ok to partake in illegal activities as long as you have a job? But if you don't, then you can't....

(Trust me, just playing devil's advocate, I would vote for it)

tutall
01-30-2011, 10:45 AM
So it's ok to partake in illegal activities as long as you have a job? But if you don't, then you can't....

(Trust me, just playing devil's advocate, I would vote for it)

If i tested positive for drug use I would lose my license and my job... Im not sure what the point is...

tylermckinzie
01-30-2011, 11:38 AM
If i tested positive for drug use I would lose my license and my job... Im not sure what the point is...

The point is people will always push for legislation that wouldn't directly effect them, but are hesitant to give up the same rights..... you knew when you took your job random drug testing was required, but to impose it on a group of people is a little different. And like I said, while I do agree with the concept, people would complain about how much money it cost the government to run a drug-testing program and I worry a bit about the whole second-class citizen treatment.

duane1969
01-30-2011, 02:48 PM
The point is people will always push for legislation that wouldn't directly effect them, but are hesitant to give up the same rights..... you knew when you took your job random drug testing was required, but to impose it on a group of people is a little different. And like I said, while I do agree with the concept, people would complain about how much money it cost the government to run a drug-testing program and I worry a bit about the whole second-class citizen treatment.

Most people have to drug test for their job. Why on Earth should it be different to get free money for not working?

The "you knew ahead of time" thing is kind of moot. Just announce that anyone wishing to continue getting benefits will have to drug test. They either don't want a check anymore or they do. Problem solved.

As for people complaining about the cost. No worries. If 1% of welfare recipients lost their benefits due to drug use then the testing would pay for itself. Think about it. A drug test cost what, $50? $75? Welfare pays hundreds per month in food stamps alone not counting HUD, utility assistance, clothing vouchers, etc. Add in the people who would drop the program to avoid the testing and I imagine that savings would far outweight the cost of testing.

tutall
01-30-2011, 02:52 PM
The point is people will always push for legislation that wouldn't directly effect them, but are hesitant to give up the same rights..... you knew when you took your job random drug testing was required, but to impose it on a group of people is a little different. And like I said, while I do agree with the concept, people would complain about how much money it cost the government to run a drug-testing program and I worry a bit about the whole second-class citizen treatment.
....
Im glad you really dont think this way as it is a little ridiculous... It isnt like we are asking them to never go outside or speak to their mother again to get benefits... We are asking them not to partake in illegal drug use, which is illegal, with our tax money

tylermckinzie
01-30-2011, 03:03 PM
tutal-

I am with you on part.... but don't we pay for policemen, teachers, government workers, legislators, and all of that too? All I am saying is that I find it a bit discriminatory to simply say we should just test people on welfare.

And don't give me that "I had to take a drug test before I was hired" line. That's a lot different than getting one every time you get a paycheck.

I am not against the idea of drugtesting everyone. I am a little against the idea of just saying test those on welfare.

elocin
01-30-2011, 03:12 PM
tutal-

I am with you on part.... but don't we pay for policemen, teachers, government workers, legislators, and all of that too? All I am saying is that I find it a bit discriminatory to simply say we should just test people on welfare.

And don't give me that "I had to take a drug test before I was hired" line. That's a lot different than getting one every time you get a paycheck.

I am not against the idea of drugtesting everyone. I am a little against the idea of just saying test those on welfare.

My sentiments exactly. I've been saying the exact same thing for a while now. are we related? :hug:

sanfran22
01-30-2011, 03:13 PM
tutal-

I am with you on part.... but don't we pay for policemen, teachers, government workers, legislators, and all of that too? All I am saying is that I find it a bit discriminatory to simply say we should just test people on welfare.

And don't give me that "I had to take a drug test before I was hired" line. That's a lot different than getting one every time you get a paycheck.

I am not against the idea of drugtesting everyone. I am a little against the idea of just saying test those on welfare.
I think his point is these people work for a living.....The point is, those that get handouts don't get to make the rules...."make them a little uncomfortable in their situation". Could be a great motivator for some, but it's not a perfect solution of course.

tylermckinzie
01-30-2011, 03:15 PM
Most people have to drug test to get a job. Fine, then make them drug test when they apply for welfare. There are very few with random drug testing after that. <br />
<br />
The second part is totally...

tylermckinzie
01-30-2011, 03:17 PM
My sentiments exactly. I've been saying the exact same thing for a while now. are we related? :hug:

No, just one of the people on here who votes democrat and republican, doesn't vote down everything based on who proposed it, and still listens to both sides of an argument before making a decision.

This is another case of a legislator with the basis of a decent idea that doesn't want to put in the effort of implementing it in an efficient and reasonable manner.

tutall
01-30-2011, 03:18 PM
tutal-

I am with you on part.... but don't we pay for policemen, teachers, government workers, legislators, and all of that too? All I am saying is that I find it a bit discriminatory to simply say we should just test people on welfare.

And don't give me that "I had to take a drug test before I was hired" line. That's a lot different than getting one every time you get a paycheck.

I am not against the idea of drugtesting everyone. I am a little against the idea of just saying test those on welfare.

You dont think policemen, teachers, government workers, and legislators are subject to random drug testing? I can about promise you if any one of those people were found to use illegal drugs they would be ushered out immediatly.. I am subject by the SEC pretty much anytime they want to test me... Also by my company... I also work for my paycheck and understand it is completely up to me whether I want to work there or not.. I dont get your point though... I earn my paycheck and still am subject to tests... I dont get how anyone can be for people who dont work for their money but instead recieve a check in the mail monthly paid for by the taxpayers would be held to any other standards...

Again, Honestly Im curious to see what crime rates look like and what some of these people will do if benefits are actually taken away... They probably will test a very very small percentage of people on welfare but just knowing it could happen at anytime will deter some people from using for at least a short time

tylermckinzie
01-30-2011, 03:20 PM
You dont think policemen, teachers, government workers, and legislators are subject to random drug testing? I can about promise you if any one of those people were found to use illegal drugs they would be ushered out immediatly.. I am subject by the SEC pretty much anytime they want to test me... Also by my company... I also work for my paycheck and understand it is completely up to me whether I want to work there or not.. I dont get your point though... I earn my paycheck and still am subject to tests... I dont get how anyone can be for people who dont work for their money but instead recieve a check in the mail monthly paid for by the taxpayers would be held to any other standards...

Again, Honestly Im curious to see what crime rates look like and what some of these people will do if benefits are actually taken away... They probably will test a very very small percentage of people on welfare but just knowing it could happen at anytime will deter some people from using for at least a short time


Tutal- I am a teacher. I was tested when I applied. Neither I nor any other teacher in my state have been tested since.

My brother in law is a police officer. He gets tested once a year. He knows the date a month in advance.

I know 100% state legislators are never drug tested (although I think some should be!). I can't imagine that national reps would be any different.

tutall
01-30-2011, 03:22 PM
Question for you... Would you be opposed to a law saying if you have a drug charge while on welfare, state funding, etc you lose your benefits for life?

tutall
01-30-2011, 03:32 PM
Tutal- I am a teacher. I was tested when I applied. Neither I nor any other teacher in my state have been tested since.

My brother in law is a police officer. He gets tested once a year. He knows the date a month in advance.

I know 100% state legislators are never drug tested (although I think some should be!). I can't imagine that national reps would be any different.

If they arent tested I am fine with testing them too on our dime... Difference there though is those are essential people to the community so it isnt a cost reduction policy but I would have no problem testing teachers randomly... Considering the unions would never allow that I dont think we need to worry about it... Those people though at least work for a check... They do more than open a mailbox on the third of the month... As far as your question about a refund of the money spent on the test... I am sure if they were testing thousands of people they would be able to reduce the cost quite a bit... If we were spending 10-12 bucks a test which in that volume would probably be realistic, you could run 100 tests for the average check out there....

tylermckinzie
01-30-2011, 04:45 PM
For life..... yeah, I would. For a year? Nope. For the same reason I would have a problem saying if you go to jail on robbery you get life? People change, especially when the person might be a 30...

tylermckinzie
01-30-2011, 04:47 PM
If they arent tested I am fine with testing them too on our dime... Difference there though is those are essential people to the community so it isnt a cost reduction policy but I would have no problem testing teachers randomly... Considering the unions would never allow that I dont think we need to worry about it... Those people though at least work for a check... They do more than open a mailbox on the third of the month... As far as your question about a refund of the money spent on the test... I am sure if they were testing thousands of people they would be able to reduce the cost quite a bit... If we were spending 10-12 bucks a test which in that volume would probably be realistic, you could run 100 tests for the average check out there....

See, there is that common ground coming through :hug:

Theodor Madison
01-30-2011, 04:57 PM
I really Think those on welfare should not be allowed to have more children till they can support them. We do not need them using drugs if they can't support their children either.

tylermckinzie
01-30-2011, 05:00 PM
I really Think those on welfare should not be allowed to have more children till they can support them. We do not need them using drugs if they can't support their children either.

One of those times we wish you could legislate "common sense".......

Theodor Madison
01-30-2011, 05:12 PM
You have realize that there are women who continue to have children just to stay on welfare. I am not saying that they should not be allowed to have children. But make someone responsible, other than adding more burden on the tax payer. How many fatherless children do you want to support??

Where are the fathers in the argument.


One of those times we wish you could legislate "common sense".......

tutall
01-30-2011, 05:31 PM
For life..... yeah, I would. For a year? Nope. For the same reason I would have a problem saying if you go to jail on robbery you get life? People change, especially when the person might be a 30 year old with 65 years of life ahead of them.

For the record, if you wanted my take, anyone that applies for welfare should have to do a drug test. And anyone who is on public assistance and is proven guilty (or pleads guilty) to a drug offense should have those benefits suspended for a reasonable amount of time (1 year?). They should also be subject to random tests once they have their benefits reinstated, and a second positive should be the end of it. If you want to randomly drug test anyone, I do believe that teachers, police officers, highway workers, etc. should all be included as well. It really doesn't matter to me how you get your money, the fact is it was from my taxes and I don't want to support a drug user with a job or a drug user without one. But that's not what this law entails.

Just to pose the question, I would love to see my lawmakers tested in the same manner- but how likely do you think they would be to bring that legislation forward?

Would you guess there is a higher percentage of drug use in those working in the government or those recieving government benefits?

tylermckinzie
01-30-2011, 05:34 PM
Would you guess there is a higher percentage of drug use in those working in the government or those recieving government benefits?

LOL- honestly? If you just take legislators, congressmen and women, and those in lawmaking positions? I'd take decent odds and the government workers! Just smaller sample of people with good money.

But the numbers game doesn't influence me into thinking you need to test without probable cause. Like I said, you get convicted, you take the tests, not the other way around.

tylermckinzie
01-30-2011, 05:35 PM
You have realize that there are women who continue to have children just to stay on welfare. I am not saying that they should not be allowed to have children. But make someone responsible, other than adding more burden on the tax payer. How many fatherless children do you want to support??

Where are the fathers in the argument.

No no, you mistook me on that one, I was agreeing with you when I said I wish you could legislate common sense. If you can't support a child on your own, it shouldn't take a law to make you realize it. People should just know.

tutall
01-30-2011, 05:44 PM
LOL- honestly? If you just take legislators, congressmen and women, and those in lawmaking positions? I'd take decent odds and the government workers! Just smaller sample of people with good money.

But the numbers game doesn't influence me into thinking you need to test without probable cause. Like I said, you get convicted, you take the tests, not the other way around.

Well... You are probably right... I hate political correctness which is why i partially disagree with your statements earlier... If a group of people is not causing a problem leave them alone... I know for a fact the town I work in there is a problem with people on government assistance making Meth... The county I work in has the second most cases of Meth in the state and a lot of the labs are found in government housing right by where I work. If you can pinpoint at least a portion of the problem and not wasting money testing those people who arent causing problems why not do it? I dont think testing a 90 year old on Social Security makes any sense so dont waste the money testing those people... Test the ones who got in the position they are in because of bad choices... Not saying everyone on government assistance made bad decisions but the ones who did I would assume would be most likely to make more bad decisions...

Aikman_TheGreat
01-31-2011, 12:36 AM
I think if people earn their own money they should be able to buy whatever they want, illegal or legal. Of course if they purchase something illegal they risk suffering the consequences.

If you are GIVEN money then you shouldnt be able to spend MY money on your illegal activity, which is probably hurting your chances of getting a job which would get you off of welfare.

theonedru
01-31-2011, 12:43 AM
I think if people earn their own money they should be able to buy whatever they want, illegal or legal. Of course if they purchase something illegal they risk suffering the consequences.

If you are GIVEN money then you shouldnt be able to spend MY money on your illegal activity, which is probably hurting your chances of getting a job which would get you off of welfare.

BINGO ... and they need to set term limits on welfare, no one needs to be on welfare for say over 2 years, that just screams abuse of the system

duane1969
01-31-2011, 08:55 AM
Tutal- I am a teacher. I was tested when I applied. Neither I nor any other teacher in my state have been tested since.

My brother in law is a police officer. He gets tested once a year. He knows the date a month in advance.

I know 100% state legislators are never drug tested (although I think some should be!). I can't imagine that national reps would be any different.

On the flip side, you and your brother get no second chances. If you or he get busted for possesion then you are done. Not only will you lose your job you will probably never work in that field again. In fact, most teachers will lose their job over a DUI.

I know here in our county last year a teacher lost her job over a DUI and right now there is a teacher fighting to keep his job because he got into a bar fight. Teachers and police are held to a high standard and get zero tolerance for mistakes. Welfare recipients get unlimited tolerance and rarely lose their benefits over their life mistakes. In fact, they often get more benfits the more their life is screwed up.

For the record, I think background checks are justified too. If you have a history of drug issues on your criminal record then you get no benefits. Is it unfair? Perhaps. But if you have multiple arrests for possesion then the last thing you need is the government handing you $1000 a month.

pghin08
01-31-2011, 09:23 AM
On the flip side, you and your brother get no second chances. If you or he get busted for possesion then you are done. Not only will you lose your job you will probably never work in that field again. In fact, most teachers will lose their job over a DUI.

I know here in our county last year a teacher lost her job over a DUI and right now there is a teacher fighting to keep his job because he got into a bar fight. Teachers and police are held to a high standard and get zero tolerance for mistakes. Welfare recipients get unlimited tolerance and rarely lose their benefits over their life mistakes. In fact, they often get more benfits the more their life is screwed up.

For the record, I think background checks are justified too. If you have a history of drug issues on your criminal record then you get no benefits. Is it unfair? Perhaps. But if you have multiple arrests for possesion then the last thing you need is the government handing you $1000 a month.

Totally on board with everything you just said. I hope this law passes, I think it's a great idea.

Aikman_TheGreat
02-01-2011, 04:40 AM
BINGO ... and they need to set term limits on welfare, no one needs to be on welfare for say over 2 years, that just screams abuse of the system

That's a really good point

pghin08
02-01-2011, 10:20 AM
This is the only issue I've ever seen on SCF that nearly has a consensus.