Comments on: Bill wants to test welfare recipients for alcohol, drugs

By: vhoozer

vhoozer — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 06:57:55 +0000

I just dont think we want to subject a whole class ( in this case, the poor) of citizens to government intrusion. Mark is right it has been tried before and failed. In Michigan they only found 3% of those tested to have hard drugs (not marijuana) in their system. Hard drugs are easily cleansed out of the system, marijuana is harder to cleanse. And this was at great expense to Michigan.
I am also confused about its goal. Is it to reduce the number of people on welfare or to help them get off drugs?
Our biggest welfare checks go to corporations like GM, Wells Fargo or Haliburton. Maybe they should be held to some kind of higher standards.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:13:45 +0000

This has been tried in other states and what has been the outcome? The program costs more than it saves. It is expensive and not effective. Expansion of government for no real gain, great policy!

By: BillyH

BillyH — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:27:30 +0000

Again I disagree with you. In my occupation we are subject to random urinalysis. That is a condition of employment. Does that mean I’m being picked on or demoralized? If welfare recipients want a free handout then it’s not hurting them at all to be tested. Just like at work, if you test positive…no more paychecks or in the welfare world, no more freebies.

By: vhoozer

vhoozer — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:02:39 +0000

Drug testing welfare recipients implies that they are more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population. According to the ACLU, 70% of all illicit drug users ( and higher for alcohol users) ages 18-49 are employed full time.
Drug testing does nothing to stop drug use, but can be demoralizing to those tested. I also believe it may violate the 4th amendment.
It can also be argued that this policy leans too heavy on ethnic groups who may have a higher percentage of welfare recipients.
I’m all for reducing welfare handouts but not in this way.

By: foreign_observer

foreign_observer — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:54:50 +0000

Testing for drugs & alcohol is not a bad thing however, I’d like to see it applied to legislators first – along with strict term limits.

By: BillyH

BillyH — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:36:57 +0000

Can you please tell me how we are kicking a person when they are down by telling them to be drug free and sober? I do believe it is illegal to use drugs whether you are taking handouts or not!!!

By: franks

franks — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:17:49 +0000

What are you scare of Vhoozer? If you are getting a handout from my taxes (I don’t consider these entitlements), you should be subject to drug and alcohol testing. Not too many employers will hire these people if they are on drugs or constantly intoxicated Seems to me that this will help to get people off public handouts. Good Job to the legislature for getting this right!

By: Kearbear

Kearbear — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:34:33 +0000

Keep Government out of people’s homes and people’s lives? Then keep government money out of supporting them. If people are willing to accept government checks then they should be required to meet certain requirements, among those requirements, a person should be required to prove they are drug free.

By: vhoozer

vhoozer — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:37:55 +0000

HB16 is a dangerous bill. Fraught with possible corruption and government overreach. Its a small baby step from there to include obese citizens or a number of other human maladies to be tested for, for they may also render them unemployable or state assistance may “fuel” their addiction.
While i’m not a big fan of easy welfare ( 11 states now have more people on welfare than they do employed) there is no honor is kicking someone when they are down.
Lets keep government out of our homes and private lives.