• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

My home state finally tries to do something right

RadiclDreamer

Diamond Member
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...ss.benefits/index.html
(CNN) -- If Craig Blair gets his way, anyone filing for unemployment or food stamps must show that they are drug-free. He's a state lawmaker in West Virginia who has introduced a bill to require random drug testing for benefits and lays out his case on a Web site called notwithmytaxdollars.com.

Blair and his supporters say drug use is rampant and taxpayers are growing alarmed with how the government is spending their money.

"The message that we're trying to send is, first of all, we need to respect taxpayers and how their monies are spent," the Republican said. "And drug addiction is in epidemic proportions, and not only in West Virginia but throughout the United States."

His bill would require random drug testing for any government assistance: welfare, jobless benefits or food stamps.

Someone who failed the drug test would get the benefits and 60 days to clean up. If he failed the next test, he would lose benefits for two years.

"It seems ironic that welfare and unemployment are both designed to get you back to work and everything, but how is that possible if you're on drugs?" Blair asked.

Lawmakers in 10 states are considering some type of legislation to tie the expansion of safety-net spending to random drug testing. Similar measures in Michigan and Arizona have failed, either struck down by the courts or found to be too expensive.

amFIX: Should people be drug tested before getting benefits?

Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Law Reform Project, calls it "typical political theater."

He says the measures will be challenged in court and struck down. Random drug testing is costly, and he called such measures "cruel" during a recession.

"If anything, [you'd think] people would be more compassionate now that people have lost jobs," Boyd said.
'American Morning'
Start your day with the 'Most News in the Morning'
Weekdays, 6am ET
see full schedule »

But as the recession tightens its grip, momentum is growing in a handful of states to put strings on the vast expansion of safety-net spending.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 10 states (Florida, Arizona, Hawaii, California, Illinois, Iowa, Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia and New York) are considering some form of legislation requiring random drug testing for food stamps, jobless checks and other state entitlements.

It could affect millions of Americans who are turning to expanded benefits signed into law as part of the economic stimulus package.

According to the Labor Department, a record 5.6 million people from all walks of life collect jobless checks, and the government says that almost 32 million now use food stamps.

Ron Haskins of the centrist Brookings Institution takes issue with lumping jobless benefits with other state benefits.

"Unemployment insurance really is not a welfare program. It's an insurance program, which means that they've paid into the program each month they've had earnings," Haskins said. "Unless we want to cancel insurance policies because someone doesn't pass a drug test, I think that's really quite a mistake."
Video Watch lawmakers who want government assistance recipients to take random drug tests »

Critics also say that these measures don't address drug treatment, the costs of administering the tests or privacy concerns, and that they could prevent drug users from seeking benefits.

But lawmaker Blair said he has been inundated with support for his bill and says epidemic drug use and a worsening economy means it's time for some "tough love."

It's the intersection of several issues -- drug abuse, the recession and bailout overload -- and has generated passionate debate among CNN viewers.
Don't Miss

* Blog: amFIX
* Where the jobs are

Angie: "If we're going to drug test American citizens who receive taxpayer-funded services, then I'm assuming these drug tests will be administered to the CEOs of AIG, Citi, Wells Fargo and Bank of America as well. Shouldn't the CEO, who receives trillions of taxpayer dollars, be held to the same standard of accountability as the unemployed?"

Ron: "Monies would be better spent on cutting out the sources. The concerns over Mexico's drug cartels would be better invested than random screening of welfare recipients. ... Address the problems, not the symptoms."
advertisement

Bob: "I get more than a little disturbed when I read that unemployment benefits are considered by some right-wingers to be 'taxpayer-funded handouts.' Handouts? Really? Hmmmm. Seems to me that most people pay, oh, I don't know, unemployment taxes when they are working so they have a safety net if they lose their jobs."

Albert: "Not unless they intend to offer rehab/recovery/counseling if applicants test positive. Will they be screening for alcoholism or gambling addiction? What about nicotine addiction?"

Tami: "I'm in favor. I've also been drug tested for my job. A stipulation for receiving unemployment benefits is that you are actively seeking employment. A person can't be too serious about their job search if they are high."

But Blair said, "You've got to keep in mind to that there is only a limited supply of money out here, and this is not going to hurt anybody that's not doing illicit or illegal drugs. And the fact is that if we can get this people off of the drugs and make it so they're work-ready, that will help us in West Virginia."

Cliffs for the Lazy

1. I drug test to work
2. You should be drug tested to receive benefits while sitting around on your ass.
 
At least some politicians aren't idiots. Unlike Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon or Arizona governor Jan Brewer.
 
TRIES is the operative word. The liberals are not going to stand for this and will either find a way to defeat it of simply not comply if it actually becomes law....kind of like they deal with illegal immigration.
 
I REALLY like this idea. We don't need to be giving money to drug addicts, that's just feeding their addiction. Not to mention the fact that if I want to get a job I have to submit to drug testing, why should it be different for people trying to get government money?

The point of these checks is to help people who are hard working but lost their job due to economic issues. Your supposed to be using them money to get by as you look for new employment, not to feed your drug habit when you have no intention of ever being a useful member of society.
 
mandatory contraceptives for every welfare check please.

As Adam Carolla says: "Take the hand thats reaching for a handout and put a norplant in it"
 
While I agree, in part, with the spirit of the law, I don't know that it would be particularly beneficial. Many individuals who need food stamps and other forms are governmental assistance do have significant drug problems; one way for them to work towards solving said problems is by establishing regularity and relative financial security (to an extent) in their lives. Without any form of assistance, what exactly are these people supposed to do while attempting to become clean?

Edit: I would prefer to see that receipt of assistance is contingent upon active participation in an approved substance abuse treatment program--one that is empirically-supported and can provide some sort of time line with regards to treatment goals.
 
I don't have a problem with drug testing for food stamp benefits, I do have a problem with it for unemployment benefits.
 
Originally posted by: Ronstang
TRIES is the operative word. The liberals are not going to stand for this and will either find a way to defeat it of simply not comply if it actually becomes law....kind of like they deal with illegal immigration.

They gotta support their base, don't you know.
 
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
I don't have a problem with drug testing for food stamp benefits, I do have a problem with it for unemployment benefits.

Why one and not the other? Obviously they're different beasts, but what if someone could get a job if they were clean, but fails the drug test at that job? That person's drug use just extended their unemployment.
 
I'm all for this if they first decriminalize marijuana.

Either THAT, or include random spot checks for alcohol intoxication, which would only be fair, since you can't do your job drunk any better than you can do it stoned.

Yeah, lets see how far THAT flies. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: Perknose
I'm all for this if they first decriminalize marijuana.

Either THAT, or include random spot checks for alcohol intoxication, which would only be fair, since you can't do your job drunk any better than you can do it stoned.

Yeah, lets see how far THAT flies. :roll:

Not only that, but unemployment isn't a handout, it's *insurance*. It's been payed into by your employer. If you're going to use the no drug standard, it should be used for all insurance. Pre-screening drug test before a doctor will see you, and a drug test to get your broken windshield fixed...
 
I really have no problems with this, except the fact that marijuana is currently considered a drug. 😉

Drug testing to receive government benefits is one thing I can understand. I mean, the government should be able to mandate any rules it wishes when it comes to handing out free money.
 
Originally posted by: Ronstang
TRIES is the operative word. The liberals are not going to stand for this and will either find a way to defeat it of simply not comply if it actually becomes law....kind of like they deal with illegal immigration.

which group granted amnesty to all the illegals a few years back? oh yeah thats right the cons.
 
Originally posted by: Eli
I really have no problems with this, except the fact that marijuana is currently considered a drug. 😉

Drug testing to receive government benefits is one thing I can understand. I mean, the government should be able to mandate any rules it wishes when it comes to handing out free money.
I tend to agree, but even if legislation like this passes it will probably get struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.
 
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: Eli
I really have no problems with this, except the fact that marijuana is currently considered a drug. 😉

Drug testing to receive government benefits is one thing I can understand. I mean, the government should be able to mandate any rules it wishes when it comes to handing out free money.
I tend to agree, but even if legislation like this passes it will probably get struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

How can people argue they have a constitutional right to break the law?
 
Punishing those displaying a symptom of a problem is a great idea. I especially like how they could get piss drunk from dawn to dusk and still collect since alcohol is perfectly legal, sounds incredibly effective.
 
I think it's a good idea.

Also it should be a requirement to display full proof that you really are unable to work. Too many people abuse government services for the unemployed such as food stamps and welfare.
 
Originally posted by: Eli
I really have no problems with this, except the fact that marijuana is currently considered a drug. 😉

Drug testing to receive government benefits is one thing I can understand. I mean, the government should be able to mandate any rules it wishes when it comes to handing out free money.

Well, I haven't smoked pot in probably 6 or 7 years now, and agree that it didn't harm me in the least using it... however, for me it is more about the expense of the "hobby" then the drug aspect of it.

Really, people on welfare shouldn't be having cable tv, shouldn't be smoking cigarettes, having cell phones, etc... they are getting welfare because the government says they aren't earning enough to live on, and so thus they shouldnt be spending non-handout money on things they can live without.
 
Yeah! Let's cut food stamps so the children of addicts can starve as well as deal with loser parents. Good idea.
 
Back
Top