2bltap Loc: Move to the Mainland

MICHIGAN TO BEGIN DRUG TESTING SOME WELFARE RECIPIENTS

by WARNER TODD HUSTON
26 Dec 2014
Lansing, MI609
On Friday, the state of Michigan took the step to implement a mandatory drug test for recipients of state aid who authorities suspect are taking illegal drugs.

Michigan’s Republican Governor, Rick Snyder, signed House Bill 4118 and Senate Bill 275, authorizing a one-year pilot program that will be implemented in three counties.

“We want to remove the barriers that are keeping people from getting good jobs, supporting their families and living independently,” Snyder said in a statement. “This pilot program is intended to help ensure recipients get the wrap-around services they need to overcome drug addiction and lead successful lives. We’ll then have opportunity to assess effectiveness and outcomes.”

The law allows authorities to drug test aid recipients who are thought to be taking illegal drugs. A positive result for illegal substances can result in termination of welfare for recipients or rejection for aid for new applicants.

The bills were heavily opposed by state Democrats, but Republicans control both the state House and Senate, resulting in easy passage.

Opponents of the initiative said that similar laws in other states have not been proven to save states money.

To all here on OPP, I submit this controversially topic for discussion. In my opinion, I think this is very good idea. The reason for my agreeing with this move by the Michigan Legislature, should be followed by all states as I'm sure we can all agree that there is rampant misuse and abuse of this and other "So called entitlement programs". For those who may disagree with this please remember "WE" are all paying for these programs through our hard earned taxes. Shouldn't we be able to stop the abuse of our money? Those also against this argue money is not being saved. Is that really the point? Your thoughts please.


Semper Fi

Loki Loc: Georgia

Absolutely. There should be drug testing for all entitlements, including food stamps. Perhaps random, after everyone gets tested initially.

jaydee

Thanks for the post. Very fitting & good timing.
My thoughts is, its a very needful plan. I've noticed as a whole, that the states that have passed it prior to this one mentioned here, is the fact that non usually ever mention it, & certainly not the opposition, what you mentioned here, is the fact that it is the tax payers money & the recipients should be held accountable, and certainly law abiding, when accepting these basic benefits. Accepting benefits while in violation of the law, like illegal drug use or distribution to our kids is just another double negative against we the people. So thank you for bring this out.

Good day.

2bltap Loc: Move to the Mainland

Thank you both for your response. I feel that this is an important issue to discuss. I don't know why others have not brought this up before. Perhaps someone has and I missed it. Perhaps it not PC enough for some. Who knows. All I know is that it affects all of us.

Semper Fi

grace scott

It does affect all of us, and should be done. It has the added benefit of giving jobs to those responsible for and those doing the testing.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

You know this arose because a politician's wife/family was invested in drug testing and stood to make a lot of money off the state, don't you?

I agree that people should be held accountable for their drug use, and that intervention/rehab should be available. But this law does nothing to further abstinence from drugs. Just the opposite; those with drug problems, having lost housing/support, will likely be driven further into their addiction.

We should find another way.

Armageddun Loc: The show me state

Not only is it a way to hopefully stop welfare abuse it is a way to possibly help get many off drugs and change the direction of their lives to become responsible citizens.

The helping hands do not seem to be really helping but enabling. There will always be those who are honestly in need but there are many who have made depending on handouts a way of life.

We had a man come through our food pantry one day and received probably over 100 dollars worth of food. The next day he was back attempting to steal one of our air conditioners.

I don't mean to say all who get help are like this but the methods we are using to try to improve lives has many short comings.

grace scott

There is always a hidden agenda, isn't there.

WhosetheBoss Loc: Arkansas

Sure, right after we start random drug testing on all elected officials. I understand your argument, but what happens to these people after they get labeled and kicked out the program. They have no other option but to then become criminals. At some point we have to have some sort of plan that makes people productive members of society. Many people on "welfare" end up there from hospital bills and bankruptcy and many of these people are on drugs, prescribed by doctors which are addicting, and therefore you end up with good people there with problems.

jaydee

Your compassion on the unfortunate is admirable. And somewhat justified. However if you and I were presenting their case on their behalf, what proof would we have that their need is very hugh. Governing bodies have to have proof that the need is wide spread enough that it deserves a fair evaluation. They need stats.

Good day.

eden

Agreed. This has the flavor of the War on Drugs, a poorly thought out policy that drove people on the margins to the bottom of the poverty cycle. If the concept seems so attractive why not extend it to the coddled corporations that get subsidies and massive tax breaks. Welfare is welfare whether it is food stamps or a government bailout because your company practised corporate greed instead of sound conservative fiscal policies. Line up all the CEO's and CFO's of these companies and force them to take drug tests as a condition to receiving tax payer corporate welfare. I see no distinction......

bobby118

drug testing and fingerprints on file.....anoither one...bet you didnt know that hundreds of thousands of homeless have their monthly checks sent directly to the local liquor stores where they maintain an account.....with a running tab

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

While it is a good idea, other states have tried to enforce it only to be stuck down as unconstitutional~~

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article4261889.html


TALLAHASSEE
A federal appeals court on Wednesday dealt another blow to Gov. Rick Scott’s crusade to conduct drug tests on welfare applicants when it upheld a lower court ruling that the practice was unconstitutional.

The unanimous ruling from a bipartisan panel of judges concluded that the state failed to show any evidence as to why it was necessary to force applicants seeking Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to surrender their constitutional rights as a condition of receiving the aid.<snip>



“We have no reason to think impoverished individuals are necessarily and inherently prone to drug use, or, for that matter, are more prone to drug use than the general population,” the court said in its 54-page ruling.

Proponents hailed the decision, which came just two weeks after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case, and predicted it would have broader impact in protecting the rights of people receiving a wider range of government benefits — from Bright Futures scholarships to driver’s licenses.

“This should be the end of the road for the governor’s crusade,” said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, which sued the state. “The opinion says that people cannot be forced to surrender constitutional rights as a condition of any government benefit — driver licenses, library cards, student loans and farm subsidies.”


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article4261889.html#storylink=cpy


http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2014/04/22/good-news-supreme-court-rules-against-sweeping-drug-tests/

You don’t win them all, but once in awhile you win one. And in this case, it really matters.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to hear an appeal by Florida Governor, Republican and p**********l-candidate wannabe Rick Scott. Scott, since 2011, has been trying to mandate random drug tests for some 85,000 state workers because, yeah, drugs are bad or something. Scott’s executive order did not apply only to employees, such as drivers or pilots, whose duties might in fact be severely affected by drug use. Everybody, from receptionists to scuba divers, would be subject. By refusing to reopen the case, the Supreme Court agreed that Scott’s order was so broad as to violate Constitutional protections against unwarranted search and seizure.

Scott issued a statement saying state employees “should have the right to work in a safe and drug free environment, just like in any other business.” The governor noted that portions of the case are still being debated in Miami federal court and that he would “continue to fight” for expanded employee drug testing despite the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case.

How Did the Supreme Court Get Involved Anyway?

The interesting thing is that this issue was put on the Supreme Court’s doorstep at all. A lower court already conclusively said no, sweeping random drug tests are not Constitutional. Done, next issue please. The state of Florida didn’t want to let the tests go, and sought to appeal to the Supreme Court, hoping they might say yes when all the lower courts had already said no. The thing is that lots of people want their cases heard by the Supremes, and so there is a weeding out process. Basically, you have to first ask the Court to take your case. Such asking is done quite formally, via a petition, called a writ of certiorari, or simply a cert. Through the cert process, the court sets its own agenda. Some 10,000 certs are submitted in a typical year.

Typically, fewer than 100 of those 10,000 petitions are chosen to move forward for a possibly precedent-setting decision. However, only a tiny number of all the certs filed are initiated by the government; on average, just 15 in a Supreme Court term. Tough odds. The bottom line is if the Supreme Court chooses not to hear from case, the lower court decision stands. That’s what happened with Florida, and Scott lost. Again.

This ruling effectuates what will ultimately happen when other states move forward with it and are challenged.........

bobby118

if the welfare people feel this is too intrusive.........they should stand up for what they believe...DONT TAKE THE MONEY

waltmoreno

Drug testing isn't nearly enough. I like what the young Texas lady wrote a few years back to a local newspaper which saw fit to publish her letter:

PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, wh**ever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can V**E! Yes, that is correct. For you to v**e would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from v****g while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to v**e, then get a job.