Mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients

[Unkotare]

Brownback signs bill that requires welfare, unemployment recipients to be tested for drugs

TOPEKA — Calling drug addiction a “scourge in Kansas,” Gov. Sam Brownback signed into law Tuesday a bill to test welfare and unemployment recipients suspected of using illegal drugs.

“This is a horrific thing that hits so many people,” he said. “What this effort is about is an attempt to get ahead of it and, instead of ignoring the problem, start treating the problem.”

The drug testing bill lets the Department for Children and Families require urine tests of any welfare recipient suspected of using illegal drugs. That could be triggered by a person’s demeanor, missed appointments or police records.

Opponents of the bill said that may leave the decision open to people’s biases. But the bill was swiftly approved by the House 106-16 and backed by the Senate on a 29-9 vote.

Senate Vice President Jeff King, R-Independence, called it “the most treatment-focused drug testing bill in the entire country.”

Any person who is tested and failed, can request a second test and be reimbursed for that test, which runs about $50, if they test clean.

Welfare recipients who fail the test will lose their benefits until they complete a drug treatment and job skills program. That’s paid for by federal welfare funds. A second failed test will result in a year-long loss of benefits. A surrogate can apply for benefits on behalf of children whose parents fail a drug test and lose benefits.

Senate Bill 149, effective July 1, also bans anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from getting welfare for five years. Those convicted a second time lose benefits for life.

The testing program for unemployment recipients is similar, although Department of Labor officials will require employers who usually drug test job applicants to submit a list of people who applied and didn’t get a job because they failed a pre-employment drug screen.

The testing, already required of the governor and several other top state officials, now also extends to House and Senate members suspected of illegal drug use.

Brownback signs bill that requires welfare, unemployment recipients to be tested for drugs | Wichita Eagle

When farmers get tested for drugs for all the taxpayer parasitism they engage in, we'll know this isn't based on racism and heartlessness.

So, you don't like to...eat?

 

[Michelle420]

In some states Pot is legal.

If someone shows up late and drunk but passes a drug test they will still be eligible.

 

[Unkotare]

When farmers get tested for drugs for all the taxpayer parasitism they engage in, we'll know this isn't based on racism and heartlessness.

So, you don't like to...eat?

That brings up another good point, why are only certain types of welfare requiring drug testing.

They aren't.

 

[initforme]

Test the CEO's who get million dollar bonuses as they drastically cut their workers pay. Try that too

 

[Unkotare]

That brings up another good point, why are only certain types of welfare requiring drug testing.

They aren't.

So those so those receiving welfare known as farm subsidies are getting tested?

Farm subsidies are not the same as welfare.

 

[dblack]

They aren't.

So those so those receiving welfare known as farm subsidies are getting tested?

Farm subsidies are not the same as welfare.

They're both ways for the corporatists in power to stir up support by handing out favors. What's the difference?

 

[Unkotare]

Farm subsidies are not in place to support individual farmers, but to support agriculture in this country in general. That individuals do benefit from being involved in agriculture is circumstantial.

 

[Unkotare]

So those so those receiving welfare known as farm subsidies are getting tested?

Farm subsidies are not the same as welfare.

They're both ways for the corporatists in power to stir up support by handing out favors. What's the difference?

Conspiracy Forum > that way.

 

[dblack]

Farm subsidies are not the same as welfare.

They're both ways for the corporatists in power to stir up support by handing out favors. What's the difference?

Conspiracy Forum > that way.

Wow... you don't see how such programs are pandering for votes? Really? That's a "conspiracy theory" in your view?

 

[dblack]

They're both ways for the corporatists in power to stir up support by handing out favors. What's the difference?

Conspiracy Forum > that way.

Haha, so it is a conspiracy that politicians give tax funds to interests that support them? Holy shit, I thought that was the definition of politics.

Would you like to borrow my tin-foil hat?

 

[Unkotare]

Farm subsidies are not in place to support individual farmers, but to support agriculture in this country in general. That individuals do benefit from being involved in agriculture is circumstantial.

Income assistance is not in place to support individual citizens, but to support are certain basic level of income in this country. That individuals do benefit from being below the poverty line is purely circumstantial.

You see, you're just playing word games, your logic can be applied to rationalize any redistributionist socialist welfare program.

Farm subsidies fit the dictionary definition of welfare.

So you don't like to eat. Got it.

 

[Unkotare]

I hope your childish, mistaken 'righteousness' tastes good, kid. If you had your way, you'd end up dreaming of eating "the poison that comes out of these huge corporate farms" while you choke down your mercury cakes from China. Do yourself a favor and try to think outside the bumper-stickers, kid.

 

[Unkotare]

Your bumper-stickers are proud of you.

 

[Unkotare]

Have fun living somewhere else. Don't write, don't visit. We'll be fine without you.

 

[candycorn]

So another state is going to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to save a few thousand dollars by kicking a couple of pot smokers off of welfare. The stupidity continues. More blaming the poor for all of our problems.

so they can buy pot and drugs, but not feed themselves....of course you're too stupid to see the dishonesty in that.

3 questions though the likelihood of a serious response is so low, I'm not sure why I ask them:

Have you ever known an alcoholic?

Did he or she want to become an alcoholic?

Could he or she have done something more beneficial for themselves with the money they spent on alcohol?

----

I fail to see where taking away the family's only source of income is "good for the kid" by the way.

 

[auditor0007]

So another state is going to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to save a few thousand dollars by kicking a couple of pot smokers off of welfare. The stupidity continues. More blaming the poor for all of our problems.

so they can buy pot and drugs, but not feed themselves....of course you're too stupid to see the dishonesty in that.

I don't want my taxes wasted on companies that supply the drug tests when this becomes a long term cost to taxpayers. Of course you're too stupid to see that period. Talking about stupid, you are about as stupid as they come, but that's another story.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So another state is going to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to save a few thousand dollars by kicking a couple of pot smokers off of welfare. The stupidity continues. More blaming the poor for all of our problems.

so they can buy pot and drugs, but not feed themselves....of course you're too stupid to see the dishonesty in that.

3 questions though the likelihood of a serious response is so low, I'm not sure why I ask them:

Have you ever known an alcoholic?

Did he or she want to become an alcoholic?

Could he or she have done something more beneficial for themselves with the money they spent on alcohol?

----

I fail to see where taking away the family's only source of income is "good for the kid" by the way.

1- yes i have known several folks who have become chemically dependent

2- not sure what you mean by that

3- of course but only the person can decide to do that

4- if you read the article the state is not "taking away" the money from the children

someone else will administer the monies for the needs of the children

 

[sfcalifornia]

Because we need more people in jail!

Dave Chappelle - Gotcha, bitch! (Original Scene) - YouTube

from what i read

they are not interested in putting anyone in jail

they are however interested in

being somewhat assured that the monies

go to the benefit of the children

and not some drug dealer down the street

Especially since children are the intrinsic reason most welfare programs exist. It is hard to make sure children get the direct benefit of the money when we know oftentimes they don't.

The problem is that the cost of the drug testing will far exceed the money saved. Has to be a better way.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Because we need more people in jail!

Dave Chappelle - Gotcha, bitch! (Original Scene) - YouTube

from what i read

they are not interested in putting anyone in jail

they are however interested in

being somewhat assured that the monies

go to the benefit of the children

and not some drug dealer down the street

The problem is that the cost of the drug testing will far exceed the money saved. Has to be a better way.

i am not convinced of that

i have had to have folks tested for certain contracts

and it usually runs about 80 dollars

the state certainly doesnt think so

since not all people will be tested

it may cost more for the handful of cases

where a guardian ad litem has to be appointed

however in the mean time the children

will get the benefits the people of the state want them to have

 

[sfcalifornia]

from what i read

they are not interested in putting anyone in jail

they are however interested in

being somewhat assured that the monies

go to the benefit of the children

and not some drug dealer down the street

The problem is that the cost of the drug testing will far exceed the money saved. Has to be a better way.

i am not convinced of that

i have had to have folks tested for certain contracts

and it usually runs about 80 dollars

the state certainly doesnt think so

since not all people will be tested

it may cost more for the handful of cases

where a guardian ad litem has to be appointed

however in the mean time the children

will get the benefits the people of the state want them to have

Multiply 80 dollars times the number of welfare recipients.

Now subtract the number of welfare recipients actually doing drugs.

Does the benefit outweigh the cost?

I'd google it but I have to go to bed. I'll check it out tomorrow.