Comments about ‘Require drug tests’

As long as we require Wall St. bankers and auto company execs who received bailouts to take the same tests, it sounds fine to me.

"Why should it be unconstitutional to expect the people who are receiving our money to do the same?...If they want the money they should have to be drug free."

I'm not aware that it is unconstitutional to expect people to take a drug test before receiving welfare assistance. The fact is that many states have passed or are currently considering legislation to do that very thing. But inherant in this suggestion is the belief that the vast majority of welfare recipients would not pass a drug test. And that is a fallacy perpetuated by the opponents of our government safety net.

I also find it interesting what happened in Indiana last week. A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers. "There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed which led me to have to then withdraw the bill", said Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville) sponsor of the original welfare drug testing bill.

As usual, different rules for different economic classes. So what's new?

ok, yes, everyone who receives government money should be required to take a drug test. You know of course drug test are not free, who will pay for the test? Someone who has proven poverty?
I did find you list lacking however. Why is it only welfare to the poor that is listed.
drug test all those who receive farm subsidies, drug test everyone who received bailout money, drug test all oil company executives, drug test all those who receive FEMA assistance. Drug test everyone who has a government subsidized morgage. Drug test everyone who receives a government grant, drug test everyone who has a government contract, Drug test everyone who has goverment subsidized flood insurance, Drug test all government employees: politicans, teachers, policeman, fireman, accountants, social workers, janitors ect.
Should we also drug test everyone on social security and medicare?
My guess is it will cost a whole lot of money, and we will find no single economic group has a higher percentage of drug use.

I wonder if the writer has thought about whether the cost of drug-testing every recipient of federal aid wouldn't far exceed the savings from denying aid to the few who might be caught. Drug-tsting isn't free, after all. I suspect she suffers from the stereotype that all needy people are lazy, immoral, law-breaking, drug-dependent low-lifes.

And who pays for the testing? More government spending, on a program that really doesn't have much to do with helping people in need. And if a person is addicted to drugs, we won't help them? Ultimately it is heartless and cruel.

Florida's drug testing has yielded a net savings of 40,000 dollars (savings from denying welfare - cost of drug tests) for a program that's about 150 million. So are we that interested in saving something like .025%?

Please check what happened in Florida, they did this already. Welfare recipient pays for drug test, if they pass the test is free is not; no assistance
Guess who ended up paying for A LOT of drug tests? Florida did, because surprise surprise the poor were abe to pass drug tests. This is easy to find and a quick google will show the costly results of Florida's miscalculation that all poor people were high on drugs.
Note there are some posters on this board who think the same of the poor and will want this to happen. Besides the fact that its wrong to takes someone's fluids, it won't have the effect you think.

When Utah can pass a law requiring businesses to E-verify employees,
I'll consider what you said.

Meanwhile,
Might I suggest we just legalize it, and tax it.

95% of your gripe would then magically disappear.

They recently implemented such a drug testing plan in Florida. The lawmaker who passed the bill claimed that recipients of welfare and food stamps were more likely than the general public to use drugs. The results after the first year: 2% of recipients failed drug tests (vs. 9% failure rate among the general population). Total savings to the state: -$200,000. That's right, the state lost $200,000 on the program.

Suppose someone fails a drug test under this proposal. What's next? The people are unlikely to simply disappear. It's more probable that you'll see them on the street, sleeping in public parks and doing whatever they need to do in order to survive. They will continue to need our attention, probably at a higher cost. No, it isn't fair, but who's willing to trade places?

When we require all that receive government handouts or subsidies to be tested then we can talk but as they found out in Florida the current governor has personal connections to the drug testing company and this law was born from ALEC. Virtually every cent spent on these safety nets are returned into the economy. Can we honestly say that about the business loopholes that are disguised as incentives?

It is not cost effective, but heartless and cruel? Hardly.

Apparently Patricia is unaware of Florida. They tried this, and it ended up costing the state more to administer the tests than the actual savings they received by denying benefits.

Patricia like many repubs, rely on assumptions rather than facts. They assume everyone on welfare is lazy and doesn't want to work. Truth? Most people have tried repeatedly to get a job. They're on welfare out of desperation. Patricia believes that a lot of people are on drugs who are abusing their government handouts. Truth? Less than 3% of those on government assistance use drugs. More truth? It costs more to administer the tests than the savings made by the state.

This letter is a great illustration of why it is a bad idea to make laws based on prejudice and not the facts. As so many other posters have pointed out thanks to the states that have actually passed these types of horrible laws we now have strong evidence that this type of blatant prejudice is completely without merit. I was very frustrated by this letter but happily refreshed that so many of the commentaries afterwards clear get the failure of the letter writers logic.

@owl

do you have some evidence to support that it is cost effective and not just based on cruel and inaccurate stereotypes?

I think I may have misunderstood you Owl if so I am very sorry.

Sounds like you're just sore because someone may be getting something your're not.

Rush Limbaugh is the biggest drug addict anywhere. But they are precription drugs. Do you realize how many people are in prison for marijuana charges. The war on drugs didnt work. Legalize pot. Congress should be reqired to take drug tests. they are completely out of it. Now Patrica, go take your medicine.

Everyone who gets tax payer public assistance should be drug tested?

Ok.

Every CEO who got a bail out.

Every member of Congress who gets tax payer healthcare.

Form a line!