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.
Craig Blair says unemployment, designed to get people back to work, is impossible if the recipient uses drugs.
“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…
Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Drug Law Reform Project, calls it “typical political theater…If anything, [you’d think] people would be more compassionate now that people have lost jobs,” Boyd said.
Random lie detector tests for elected officials, members of Congress?
I would be willing to pee in a cup for food stamps soon as those legislating this requirement, daily take the Mine Mental State Exam and display no loss of cognitive capibilities.
How about a random pee test for all politicians, as well as a random IQ test, and check up from the neck up?
With drugs being illegal, nothing wrong with this other than food stamps should be provided no matter what. Other benefits, not as compelling.
Only emphasizes that drugs should be legal and ALL INCUMBENTS SHOULD BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE.
in theory, this sounds like a good idea
in reality, this just means more starving drug users that will be breaking into your homes to steal your stuff so they can get food and drugs
I’ve got no problem with it at all. So long as you’re living on taxpayer money, the taxpayer, and by extension their legal representatives, the government, has a right to tell you what you can do with the money. Don’t like it? Get off the public dole.
The new Republican ethic: Get in line for your RFID chip. Now.
So, it’s okay to dictate terms to companies who take taxpayer $ but not individuals?
This is why they should reduce welfare, and have it run as locally as possible. You’re less likely to misuse charity if you have to face the people giving you the money. If it’s just a bureaucrat giving you you’re money, then it’s just an entitlement.
For once I actually agree with one of these seemingly ridiculous laws. If the person can afford drugs, my taxes should NOT be paying for their food. Let them eat first, then and only then can they get their drugs.
Man. This discussion here illustrates exactly the beauty of the two party system.
It’s like opposite day, with the right wingers arguing for greater government intrusion (excuse me, they’re calling them “protections” in this post), and the left wingers arguing for greater personal freedom.
The mind blows.
(My own personal ideology, the war on drugs is a joke and a waste of time and money, and this is just another Howitzer being deployed to the battlefield. While I certainly sympathize and agree that state resources are limited, I’d much rather see people being fed rather than locked up in jail because they hit a positive on a drug test when they just wanted to pay this month’s rent. Any belief that these tests will never result in a person being put in jail shows a mind that is either naive, or has never had a run in with how our criminal justice system works.)
#8
If you reject these “chemical heads” from being able to get services that allow them to eat, do you really think they going to give up their addiction and get a job? Perhaps theyll just starve? No. If you dont support these people by allowing them the necessities for life, they will just find other means to get them. Mostly by breaking into YOUR house and stealing YOUR things.
Oh and it’s actually quite possible to both be on drugs and have a productive work day. Just ask the biggest druggie of them all: Rush Limbaugh.
# 14 Alex said, “Oh and it’s actually quite possible to both be on drugs and have a productive work day.”
Irrelevant. If I’M paying someone, I get to decide…
You’re supposed to prove you’re trying to find work to get most of these benefits. You can’t get hired if you can’t pass a pee taste-test. You should then pass the same test for benefits to prove you’re trying. Pretty straightforward and reasonable.
Cow-Patty, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath, Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop, Pretend Constitutional Scholar, Fake California Labor Law Expert, Pseudo Military Historian, Phony Climate Scientist, and Real Leading Troll Extraordinare,
Irrelevant. If I’M paying someone, I get to decide…
When you run a company and hire people, then yes you get to decide. If you don’t want those using drugs then fine. If someone doing drugs doesn’t want to work at your business because of your views, then, voluntarily, they don’t have to.
BUT, you have no right to decide that ALL citizens are required to take any type of test. And that includes whether they will work someone else. This not YOUR money. It is OUR money that was paid as a condition of employment. The Federal Law requires only that you be attempting to find work. There is no other means test allowed.
This representative is putting more emphasis on punishing people than he is on helping find the guy work. Being tough on crime has only filled the jails and done nothing to help those addicted.
#12 Its not opposite day, that’s exactly how the two parties operate.
The conservative world view is that humans are inherently evil and therefore cannot be trusted, hence the need for this kind of gestapo BS.
The liberal world view is that humans are inherently good, and should be left alone.
Good common sense bill. If you have money for drugs you have money for food. Next…
>There is no other means test allowed.
Got a link?
Can you still trade food stamps at 10 cents on the dollar for drugs? That used to be the case. I am not paying for anyone’s drugs. Lets go back to giving poor people surplus cheese and powdered milk.
#13 They already break in your house to steal money to buy drugs.
I have no problem with requiring people to pass a drug test if they want to get money from taxpayers. I don’t want my tax dollars going to pay for someone’s illegal drugs.
# 19 ArianeB said, “The liberal world view is that humans are inherently good, and should be left alone.”
You forgot one: The lib left believe that they should be able to steal your money and give it to whom ever they like.
There, complete, more or less…
Whatever you do, don’t do something that might take the person off welfare.
# 18 Mr. Fusion said, “This not YOUR money.”
Wrong.
8
Yes, it values liberty of the individual above the state…
With true liberty there are consequences…and if one freely chooses to be a chemical head…they should pay the consequences…
True lovers of Liberty like yourself would view drugs being illegal as a violation of said liberty. But, you’re not a liberty lover at all. Just a dummy.
As for the rest… If you pay into a system, you should be able to get the money out of it. Who’s to say these people were NOT paying into the tax system for years before requiring it…
# 28 Named said, “As for the rest… If you pay into a system, you should be able to get the money out of it. ”
Good point. We need to track input & payout and make sure it is even.
29,
Even won’t cut it. Just like your “health” insurance. You pay into it, but your output is always vastly higher. That’s why it’s “insurance”. It’s basically gambling, but you only “win” when you’re down and out.
This is just a cynical ploy to pit the foolish citizens against each other and make it look like the politicians are “doing something.” How many members of Congress are criminals again?
# 30 Named said, “Even won’t cut it. Just like your “health” insurance. You pay into it, but your output is always vastly higher.”
Then it is obviously not economically feasible. The gov’t can’t perform magic. I agree, scrap welfare & gov health care.
#19, “The liberal world view is that humans are inherently good, and should be left alone.”
Then please explain why it is the Liberals who are screaming the most about how bad all this deregulatory push has been. Obviously, people who favor less regulation are the ones who assume that people are good enough to not need their shoulders constantly looked over.
You have your world view generalizations backwards it seems.
How about this, those who refuse to pee in a cup will just have their benefits taxed 90%
#35 ROFL!
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – It’s not too late, EMMIGRATE! Facist bastards! Anyone who isn’t ‘APT’ doesn’t have a right to survive. I imagine a John Carpenter ‘Escape from..’ future for the USA, just a bunch of assholes and the people who fear them.