drug testing for food stamps?

blondieblue227blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
edited January 2011 in A Moving Train
sounds too much like common sense to me. :roll:


_______________

http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Drug ... 99944.html


Will Kentuckians soon have to take a drug test before they receive public assistance? One lawmaker introduced a bill to make that a reality.

A recession and a struggling economy has put a strain on many Kentucky families, causing longer lines at unemployment offices and more people requiring Government assistance.


Representative Lonnie Napier a Republican from Lancaster says some people are taking advantage of the tax payers.

He says, "The food stamp and medical program is being abused."

Napier says that is the inspiration behind his bill, requiring those looking for assistance of all kinds of assistance of all kinds to first take a drug test.

The idea behind the bill he says; If they fail the drug test, they don't get money.

Napier says the test will likely cost about $30 per test, not comforting news to people like Jack Burch, the executive director of Community Action Council.

Burch says, "There are about 750, 00 people who get some type of assistance we're going to spend millions on the tests."

Napier's idea is to have those applying for the aid pay themselves. Burch also says the bill unfairly attacks the less fortunate and is designed to embarrass some people.

When the session resumes, Napier hopes his bill will be heard in committee.
*~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    The concept sounds logical but it would open the states to lawsuits for discrimination. It would also be costly to implement. It is logical but not feasible.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Jason P wrote:
    The concept sounds logical but it would open the states to lawsuits for discrimination. It would also be costly to implement. It is logical but not feasible.

    That's what I think too...

    And it's not really going to stop abuse, is it? I mean, from this article it sounds like you need to pass the test to be eligible, but after that, you don't get tested again. I know people who did what they had to do to pass employment drug tests before, but went back to smoking or whatever afterwards. So unless you are testing people like monthly or whatever, it's pointless. And at 750,000 x $30, we are talking about $22.5 million to implement what seems like an ineffective program.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • JOEJOEJOEJOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,619
    There is no way to stop 100% of welfare/assistance fraud, but this may be a good way to discourage people from spending their food money on drugs. The testing would cost a lot of money, but in the long run, everyone may benefit. As long as the recipients have ample time to stop using drugs so that they will test clean once the program is implemented, I think it is a good idea.

    Also, to make it seem less big-brother-ish, I think the information should be kept private, and not shared with law enforcement agencies.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    How about this...
    You go after the one who are abusing the system? Including those grocers who accept tobbacco and alcohol for food stamps.
    ...
    Maybe, instead of Food Stamps... a Food Stamp credit card that is tied to a specific person through his/her Social Security Number. And how about someone actually verify the applicant with a combination social security number to make sure the applican is who he/she says they are? No sales without state issued ID cards.
    I don't think we should punish the single mother who is trying to get baby food for her kid because of the douchebags that are basically... ripping HER off.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Jason P wrote:
    The concept sounds logical but it would open the states to lawsuits for discrimination. It would also be costly to implement. It is logical but not feasible.

    That's what I think too...

    And it's not really going to stop abuse, is it? I mean, from this article it sounds like you need to pass the test to be eligible, but after that, you don't get tested again. I know people who did what they had to do to pass employment drug tests before, but went back to smoking or whatever afterwards. So unless you are testing people like monthly or whatever, it's pointless. And at 750,000 x $30, we are talking about $22.5 million to implement what seems like an ineffective program.

    do you guys think that they're looking at this from another angle ? if the drug dealers and addicts have to piss test they may not go after food stamps anymore and that could save millions of dollars for the state.

    Godfather.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Godfather. wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    The concept sounds logical but it would open the states to lawsuits for discrimination. It would also be costly to implement. It is logical but not feasible.

    That's what I think too...

    And it's not really going to stop abuse, is it? I mean, from this article it sounds like you need to pass the test to be eligible, but after that, you don't get tested again. I know people who did what they had to do to pass employment drug tests before, but went back to smoking or whatever afterwards. So unless you are testing people like monthly or whatever, it's pointless. And at 750,000 x $30, we are talking about $22.5 million to implement what seems like an ineffective program.

    do you guys think that they're looking at this from another angle ? if the drug dealers and addicts have to piss test they may not go after food stamps anymore and that could save millions of dollars for the state.

    Godfather.
    Fucking ACLU would parachute their lawyers into Kentucky as soon as the legislation passed.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • JOEJOEJOEJOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,619
    edited January 2011
    Godfather. wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    The concept sounds logical but it would open the states to lawsuits for discrimination. It would also be costly to implement. It is logical but not feasible.

    That's what I think too...

    And it's not really going to stop abuse, is it? I mean, from this article it sounds like you need to pass the test to be eligible, but after that, you don't get tested again. I know people who did what they had to do to pass employment drug tests before, but went back to smoking or whatever afterwards. So unless you are testing people like monthly or whatever, it's pointless. And at 750,000 x $30, we are talking about $22.5 million to implement what seems like an ineffective program.

    do you guys think that they're looking at this from another angle ? if the drug dealers and addicts have to piss test they may not go after food stamps anymore and that could save millions of dollars for the state.

    Godfather.

    Well said, Fred!

    Good laws are made to deter people from commiting the related crimes.
    Post edited by JOEJOEJOE on
  • samsonitesamsonite Posts: 210
    Jason P wrote:
    Fucking ACLU would parachute their lawyers into Kentucky as soon as the legislation passed.

    :lol:
    grace and peace
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    do you guys think that they're looking at this from another angle ? if the drug dealers and addicts have to piss test they may not go after food stamps anymore and that could save millions of dollars for the state.

    Godfather.[/quote]

    you might not be saving any money because people have to realize that if your an addict you will do whatever you have to do to get that drug. that may mean robbing, killing etc also, these addicts will still have drug but now not have an income which means their health will get worse and that means more emergency room visit which =more money spent.

    I think the better approach is more Harm reduction based. work with the addicts to try to stop or reduce use. this has worked in many countries such as Canada and Europe. I work with people with mental health and addiction issues and i can tell you first hand from my experience that Harm reduction does work for most people.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Jason P wrote:
    The concept sounds logical but it would open the states to lawsuits for discrimination. It would also be costly to implement. It is logical but not feasible.

    That's what I think too...

    And it's not really going to stop abuse, is it? I mean, from this article it sounds like you need to pass the test to be eligible, but after that, you don't get tested again. I know people who did what they had to do to pass employment drug tests before, but went back to smoking or whatever afterwards. So unless you are testing people like monthly or whatever, it's pointless. And at 750,000 x $30, we are talking about $22.5 million to implement what seems like an ineffective program.

    I don't know how they could do random testing but I'm all for drug testing every time one gets paid food stamps.

    Otherwise, how DO you crack down on the system abusers? I mean, all you have to do to get long term social security disability benefits is hire a lawyer, and he'll win you benefits! It's all so crooked...
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    another question, would alcohol be included for testing? what drugs would they be testing for. what if an HIV person comes to them and smokes Pot so that he can eat, would this law make the person stop smoking pot? and if yes is that something we want?
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    If i were a drug addict on food stamps and they inacted this law i would find a soup kitchen or join a church to get food, but i would not stop using.
  • samsonitesamsonite Posts: 210
    like most issues discussed here, or anywhere else for that matter, this is really complicated. at first glance it seems like a great idea (to me), but when we start to consider all that would go into implementing this it becomes a little less genius.

    the real downer is the impact this kind of legislation will have on the children of the addicts.

    :(
    grace and peace
  • yokeyoke Posts: 1,440
    makes sense to me.. I get random tests done at work all the time. We call it the Piss wagon, and it just shows up, you fail your fired.
    Thats a lovely accent you have. New Jersey?

    www.seanbrady.net
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    This is a fantastic idea.
  • KDH12KDH12 Posts: 2,096
    drug testing is pretty expensive

    this is a bad idea

    however I am one for drug law changes towards decriminalization
    **CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I understand what you're trying to get at with this idea, but in all honesty, it's discrimination. The notion that people are poor or less fortunate in life solely because of drugs or their own lack of determination is drastically flawed to say the least. Secondly, why should people be forced to go through hoops to get something simple as access to food simply because some others in society have the inkling or bias that they have drug issues? To make a simple comparison, how many jobs in our society require regular drug testing if at all? This is something that is not done much if at all, and even if it is, it's bargained through unions as some necessity. Everyone in society is not made to feel discriminated or belittled through drug testing or similar simply because there's a few bad apples, so why is it ok to group a section of people in society in need/access to food?? Even if in good intentions, the idea is completely misguided.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • Another question I have is for parents who fail a test, then what happens to their family? The kids already have crappy parents, now they are going to suffer more with no food or a place to live?

    And while the state withholds welfare programs from these people, other social services are going to have to come in and deal with the mess left because of this, so it would still cost the taxpayers.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    Unfortunately, because of the few who ruin it for the many, some type of regulation with these programs - unemployment, welfare, food stamps - is necessary. Fraud is a serious problem and this may be a way to decrease its occurrence.

    I am as socially liberal as anyone; I believe in these programs. Tax me and give to the poor (but please wait until I graduate and get a job). However, I cannot stand it when these programs are taken advantage of because of the reckless, irresponsible behavior of those who want to live off of these programs. If a drug test will weed out the abusers - of drugs, of these programs - and ensure that the needy, especially children, will be the beneficiaries of these programs, then so be it.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Why not? I don't see anything wrong with this. If you want a handout, you should abide by the rules to get it. Heck, I'd even like them to have to submit a financial report monthly as to what they spent the money on.

    But while we're at it, let's also drug test all politicians and government officials who are responsible for taking money from others and re-distributing it.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    know1 wrote:
    Why not? I don't see anything wrong with this. If you want a handout, you should abide by the rules to get it. Heck, I'd even like them to have to submit a financial report monthly as to what they spent the money on.

    But while we're at it, let's also drug test all politicians and government officials who are responsible for taking money from others and re-distributing it.
    :clap: :thumbup:
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    again i will ask, what proof do we have that this would in fact save money for the taxpayer and the government.

    what drugs will they test for? and what drugs won't they test for and why not?
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    This is the biggest no brainer in the history of Earth.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    fife wrote:

    what drugs will they test for? and what drugs won't they test for and why not?

    What difference does it make? I'm guessing meth, pot, coke, heroin, etc. Is there a problem with that? Why should I hold down a job and have to take drugs tests but the people that won't lift a hand to contribute and will be taking my tax dollar not have to drug test?
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    unsung wrote:
    This is the biggest no brainer in the history of Earth.

    do you mind to explain why?
  • MoonpigMoonpig Posts: 659
    unsung wrote:
    This is the biggest no brainer in the history of Earth.

    hmm, I disagree, I believe tighter restrictions on who can purchase firearms in America would qualify as above statment
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    unsung wrote:
    fife wrote:

    what drugs will they test for? and what drugs won't they test for and why not?

    What difference does it make? I'm guessing meth, pot, coke, heroin, etc. Is there a problem with that? Why should I hold down a job and have to take drugs tests but the people that won't lift a hand to contribute and will be taking my tax dollar not have to drug test?

    what job do you have that makes you have drug test if you don't mind me asking? yes i have a problem with that. if you read another post i wrote i asked the question about if a person is HIV + and needs pot so that they can eat so that they can take down food. how about for cancer patient.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    fife wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    fife wrote:

    what drugs will they test for? and what drugs won't they test for and why not?

    What difference does it make? I'm guessing meth, pot, coke, heroin, etc. Is there a problem with that? Why should I hold down a job and have to take drugs tests but the people that won't lift a hand to contribute and will be taking my tax dollar not have to drug test?

    what job do you have that makes you have drug test if you don't mind me asking? yes i have a problem with that. if you read another post i wrote i asked the question about if a person is HIV + and needs pot so that they can eat so that they can take down food. how about for cancer patient.


    Nuclear power.

    Doctor prescribed scripts would be exempt in my book. Back alley and trailer park scripts would not.
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    [

    What difference does it make? I'm guessing meth, pot, coke, heroin, etc. Is there a problem with that? Why should I hold down a job and have to take drugs tests but the people that won't lift a hand to contribute and will be taking my tax dollar not have to drug test?[/quote]

    what job do you have that makes you have drug test if you don't mind me asking? yes i have a problem with that. if you read another post i wrote i asked the question about if a person is HIV + and needs pot so that they can eat so that they can take down food. how about for cancer patient.[/quote]


    Nuclear power.

    Doctor prescribed scripts would be exempt in my book. Back alley and trailer park scripts would not.[/quote]

    that cool but in this report it doesn't show any exception and that my problem. the other problem i have is that i don't believe that this will save money.
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    Another question I have is for parents who fail a test, then what happens to their family? The kids already have crappy parents, now they are going to suffer more with no food or a place to live?

    And while the state withholds welfare programs from these people, other social services are going to have to come in and deal with the mess left because of this, so it would still cost the taxpayers.

    Im going to assume that the kids will either live with other family members or taken into a group home setting. Another reason i don't like this law. i don't see how just saying to people "stop doing drug" or "you will not get money" actually helps. like i have said before, I know alot of people addicted to drug and if this bill came into law they would not stop using. they might start pulling tricks which increases their chances of getting an STI like HIV. they will start to rob people and hence again increase their chance of getting put in jail. this is a very complex issues that's needs more thought than saying hey just stop giving them money.
Sign In or Register to comment.