PDA

View Full Version : Local Missouri to Begin Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients


KILLER_CLOWN
07-14-2011, 10:57 PM
Joe Harris
Courthouse News Service

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Some federal welfare recipients will be subjected to drug testing or face losing their benefits in Missouri. Gov. Jay Nixon signed the bill into law Tuesday. 


Under the new law, if there is reasonable suspicion that someone receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program is using illegal drugs then a drug test can be ordered. If the test comes back positive, or if the person refuses to take the test, they could lose benefits for 3 years. 


The person may receive benefits if he or she enrolls in a drug treatment program and does not test positive for 6 months. The person's dependents could receive benefits.


Opponents say the law unfairly targets a small group of people who get federal aid. Supporters say it ensures that government money is being used as intended and not for drugs.


The law passed easily through the Legislature. The House approved it by 113-34 vote and the Senate by 29-5.


Missouri is not alone in drug testing welfare recipients. Florida began mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients on July 1.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/missouri-to-begin-drug-testing-for.html

Saul Good
07-15-2011, 07:12 AM
Nice work, Mizzou. Why has it taken this long to do something so obvious, though? Either way, its better late than never. Hopefully the rest of the country falls in line.

LiveSteam
07-15-2011, 07:16 AM
Way to go Mizzou.
Your a trend setter I hope.

philfree
07-15-2011, 07:22 AM
Joe Harris
Courthouse News Service

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Some federal welfare recipients will be subjected to drug testing or face losing their benefits in Missouri. Gov. Jay Nixon signed the bill into law Tuesday. 


Under the new law, if there is reasonable suspicion that someone receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program is using illegal drugs then a drug test can be ordered. If the test comes back positive, or if the person refuses to take the test, they could lose benefits for 3 years. 


The person may receive benefits if he or she enrolls in a drug treatment program and does not test positive for 6 months. The person's dependents could receive benefits.







Opponents say the law unfairly targets a small group of people who get federal aid. Supporters say it ensures that government money is being used as intended and not for drugs.


The law passed easily through the Legislature. The House approved it by 113-34 vote and the Senate by 29-5.


Missouri is not alone in drug testing welfare recipients. Florida began mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients on July 1.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/missouri-to-begin-drug-testing-for.html

Maybe I should buy stock in Stat Flush.

Luke
07-15-2011, 07:31 AM
I was a state employee for over a decade. When I first started I knew many who used the evil hemp. Over the course of time the State began "random" drug testing. Several folks I knew lost their livelyhood. :deevee:

I would like to see cannibas legalized personnely, hard narcotics not so much. Maybe Missouri will lose its ranking as a leader in meth production by enacting this law.:clap:

talastan
07-15-2011, 09:23 AM
While I'm not for more drug related laws, this law is just common sense IMO. Why give money to someone who has money but decides to spend it on something else. Anything that holds people more self-responsible has my approval. :thumb: Good job Missouri!!

Radar Chief
07-15-2011, 10:30 AM
My problem with this is <0.

Cave Johnson
07-15-2011, 10:42 AM
Without getting into the merits of this, the devil is in the details. Who pays for testing and rehab, the state or those profligate welfare recipients?

I certainly don't want more tax dollars down the rathole that is the war on drugs.

Saul Good
07-15-2011, 10:48 AM
Without getting into the merits of this, the devil is in the details. Who pays for testing and rehab, the state or those profligate welfare recipients?

I certainly don't want more tax dollars down the rathole that is the war on drugs.

I'll submit that testing and rehab is cheaper than welfare for junkies who will never become productive members of society.

A bullet would be cheaper still if money is your only concern.

philfree
07-15-2011, 10:54 AM
Without getting into the merits of this, the devil is in the details. Who pays for testing and rehab, the state or those profligate welfare recipients?

I certainly don't want more tax dollars down the rathole that is the war on drugs.

Instead of paying their welfare will be paying more for social services who start taking kids away from their parents because they test hot. Those funds will probably come out of state funds too.

I don't know if this is good or not.

Cave Johnson
07-15-2011, 10:59 AM
I'll submit that testing and rehab is cheaper than welfare for junkies who will never become productive members of society.

A bullet would be cheaper still if money is your only concern.

The legislators who put this bill forward know as much as you do about the cost of this program, how it will be implemented, and the proposed "savings". In short, it's designed to appeal to simple-minded know nothings such as yourself who can't get beyond their belief that drugs and poor people are bad.

I can pretty much guarantee you it will be overturned in court. Missouri legislators tend to write shitty, unenforceable bills.

Such proposals have been kicking around the Legislature for years, yet the legislation offers no guidance about what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" of illegal drug use or how it is determined. The law also is silent about the kind of training or qualifications a state employee must have before rendering such a judgment.

The legislation provides that recipients or applicants who test positive will be referred to drug treatment. But that is an empty promise. Mental health budgets have been stripped in Missouri. The drug treatment programs that remain are overwhelmed with applicants.

The Oversight Division of the Committee on Legislative Research has no idea how much any of this will cost — other than that it is going to be very expensive.

And there is no estimate, much less any guarantee, for the 'savings" the state would achieve by throwing people off the welfare rolls.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/article_2d307a9d-0cdc-548c-8e25-7c30304b1b30.html#ixzz1SC5WRYM9

RNR
07-15-2011, 11:01 AM
I think this should have been a requirement for years. Also it needs to be temporary assistance and not permanent income~

Bump
07-15-2011, 11:06 AM
this should spark an outrage of 80% of that state.

BigMeatballDave
07-15-2011, 11:20 AM
Awesome. I hope all states do this.

Predarat
07-15-2011, 11:37 AM
Well done Missouri!

Huffmeister
07-15-2011, 11:38 AM
The legislators who put this bill forward know as much as you do about the cost of this program, how it will be implemented, and the proposed "savings". In short, it's designed to appeal to simple-minded know nothings such as yourself who can't get beyond their belief that drugs and poor people are bad.

For a second there I thought you were talking about Obamacare.

vailpass
07-15-2011, 11:48 AM
[QUOTE=Pittsie;7750116]The legislators who put this bill forward know as much as you do about the cost of this program, how it will be implemented, and the proposed "savings". In short, it's designed to appeal to simple-minded know nothings such as yourself who can't get beyond their belief that drugs and poor people are bad.[QUOTE]

Kind of "when did you stop beating your wife" characterization isn't it?

FWIW, as long as they are illegal drugs are bad and the government should take necessary steps to ensure they aren't financing illegal activity.
Of course, I'd like to see the whole welfare thing go away and be replaced by something more manageable and less comfortable for the recripients, something that motivates people to use it only when needed and for as short a time as possible.

Radar Chief
07-15-2011, 12:02 PM
Kind of "when did you stop beating your wife" characterization isn't it?

FWIW, as long as they are illegal drugs are bad and the government should take necessary steps to ensure they aren't financing illegal activity.
Of course, I'd like to see the whole welfare thing go away and be replaced by something more manageable and less comfortable for the recripients, something that motivates people to use it only when needed and for as short a time as possible.

Make them work for it.
Unless they’re a quadriplegic they can pick up trash alongside the highway.

vailpass
07-15-2011, 12:04 PM
Make them work for it.
Unless they’re a quadriplegic they can pick up trash alongside the highway.

Absolutely, there's a good start. In large urban areas maybe a government food dispensary instead of giving them a coupon book or whatever they use to buy doritos and steak/trade for drugs, etc.
They actually get food.

Cave Johnson
07-15-2011, 12:05 PM
Kind of "when did you stop beating your wife" characterization isn't it?

He just said we should shoot junkies. I'm not the one making him look subhuman.

Chief Faithful
07-15-2011, 12:08 PM
Make them work for it.
Unless they’re a quadriplegic they can pick up trash alongside the highway.

The Supreme Court ruled a long time ago you can make people work for their welfare, something about modern form of salvery.

Radar Chief
07-15-2011, 12:09 PM
He just said we should shoot junkies. I'm not the one making him look subhuman.

Actually he didn’t say “should”, he left it open as a cheap alternative just in case money is enough of a concern.

Radar Chief
07-15-2011, 12:13 PM
The Supreme Court ruled a long time ago you can't make people work for their welfare, something about modern form of salvery.

FYP since I’m pretty sure you meant “can’t” but regardless I think I remember that now that you mention it, and it’s a shame since no one is being forced to work. It’s an exchange of money for work, kind like the rest of the job market.

Chief Roundup
07-15-2011, 12:38 PM
The Supreme Court ruled a long time ago you can't make people work for their welfare, something about modern form of salvery.

Uh don't necessarily know the different classifications between welfare and food stamps, but I have an in-law that has to work so many hours a month or he doesn't get his food stamps.
This is in Arkansas.

I agree good for Missouri!
I have always thought that it should be workfare instead of welfare. I understand there is a small percentage of people that are incapable of doing anything but that is a very small percentage.

nstygma
07-15-2011, 12:46 PM
here's another view

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/10/3005795/bill-targeting-needy-families.html

Posted on Sun, Jul. 10, 2011
Bill to drug-test Missouri aid recipients is costly and meanspirited

By ALICE KITCHEN
Special to The Star


Missouri’s General Assembly recently passed legislation designed to drug-test applicants or recipients of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for low-income Missouri families. We are asking Gov. Jay Nixon to veto this legislation, House Bill 73, because it is unjust, meanspirited, unnecessary, costly and incredibly burdensome to our already overworked state staff.

There are many reasons this is bad legislation and bad public policy. In the first place, it is punitive and targets our most vulnerable citizens. To be eligible for assistance, you have to be very poor and have children. That means a family of three can have a yearly income of no more than $4,584.

The legislation is discriminatory in that it targets needy recipients because they get a state subsidy. There are many populations of less-needy citizens who get state subsidies but do not fall under this law. Elected officials, farmers, individuals with state contracts and some business owners receive subsidies from the state. Furthermore HB 73 requires drug testing of those suspected of using controlled substances, not the more abused drugs of alcohol and prescription drugs.

If the person tests positive, drug treatment is expected right away.

Yet the legislation does not provide for the availability of treatment programs throughout the state.

Currently where public or nonprofit drug treatment programs exist there are usually waiting lists. Many of these programs are underfunded.

And then there is a requirement for state staff to report recipients who test positive on a drug test or refuse to take a drug test to the Children’s Division for suspected abuse or neglect.

This is problematic because the current definition does not include this as a reason to suspect abuse or neglect.

Children’s Division staff will be spending time on these reports that do not rise to the level of the state statute when more serious cases that need immediate attention could be delayed.

Furthermore, the cost to fully implement this legislation could be as high as $6.7 million. The state budget already has a shortfall of $50 million to $60 million, not including this expense.

Lastly, state workers in the Family Support Division already work with recipients on social obstacles such as mental illness, drug/alcohol abuse and domestic violence to connect them to resources to alleviate problems and promote stability.

This legislation is misguided.

It leaves open too many contingencies that are not addressed. What happens to those who are willing and ready to go to treatment but can’t for a lack of available slots? Do these recipients continue to receive aid while waiting to get treatment, and does this program trump others who are already on the waiting list?

Vulnerable children caught between their parent’s behavior and highly judgmental elected officials have the most to lose.

The only entities that stand to benefit are the drug-testing companies.

The bill is meanspirited and an embarrassment to our citizens.

It reminds me of the quote: “the justice of a society is not measured by how it treats its best but rather how it treats the most vulnerable among them.”

Alice Kitchen of Kansas City is the founder and past chairwoman of the Kansas City Task Force on Drug Affected Families and a is member of the Missouri Association of Social Welfare.

go bowe
07-15-2011, 01:00 PM
nice editorial but i don't think the governor will veto it...

vailpass
07-15-2011, 01:07 PM
He just said we should shoot junkies. I'm not the one making him look subhuman.

He said nothing of the kind and you are smart enough to know that.

Otter
07-15-2011, 04:30 PM
here's another view

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/10/3005795/bill-targeting-needy-families.html

Posted on Sun, Jul. 10, 2011
Bill to drug-test Missouri aid recipients is costly and meanspirited

By ALICE KITCHEN
Special to The Star


Missouri’s General Assembly recently passed legislation designed to drug-test applicants or recipients of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for low-income Missouri families. We are asking Gov. Jay Nixon to veto this legislation, House Bill 73, because it is unjust, meanspirited, unnecessary, costly and incredibly burdensome to our already overworked state staff.

There are many reasons this is bad legislation and bad public policy. In the first place, it is punitive and targets our most vulnerable citizens. To be eligible for assistance, you have to be very poor and have children. That means a family of three can have a yearly income of no more than $4,584.

The legislation is discriminatory in that it targets needy recipients because they get a state subsidy. There are many populations of less-needy citizens who get state subsidies but do not fall under this law. Elected officials, farmers, individuals with state contracts and some business owners receive subsidies from the state. Furthermore HB 73 requires drug testing of those suspected of using controlled substances, not the more abused drugs of alcohol and prescription drugs.

If the person tests positive, drug treatment is expected right away.

Yet the legislation does not provide for the availability of treatment programs throughout the state.

Currently where public or nonprofit drug treatment programs exist there are usually waiting lists. Many of these programs are underfunded.

And then there is a requirement for state staff to report recipients who test positive on a drug test or refuse to take a drug test to the Children’s Division for suspected abuse or neglect.

This is problematic because the current definition does not include this as a reason to suspect abuse or neglect.

Children’s Division staff will be spending time on these reports that do not rise to the level of the state statute when more serious cases that need immediate attention could be delayed.

Furthermore, the cost to fully implement this legislation could be as high as $6.7 million. The state budget already has a shortfall of $50 million to $60 million, not including this expense.

Lastly, state workers in the Family Support Division already work with recipients on social obstacles such as mental illness, drug/alcohol abuse and domestic violence to connect them to resources to alleviate problems and promote stability.

This legislation is misguided.

It leaves open too many contingencies that are not addressed. What happens to those who are willing and ready to go to treatment but can’t for a lack of available slots? Do these recipients continue to receive aid while waiting to get treatment, and does this program trump others who are already on the waiting list?

Vulnerable children caught between their parent’s behavior and highly judgmental elected officials have the most to lose.

The only entities that stand to benefit are the drug-testing companies.

The bill is meanspirited and an embarrassment to our citizens.

It reminds me of the quote: “the justice of a society is not measured by how it treats its best but rather how it treats the most vulnerable among them.”

Alice Kitchen of Kansas City is the founder and past chairwoman of the Kansas City Task Force on Drug Affected Families and a is member of the Missouri Association of Social Welfare.

Wow! I mean WOW!!!

I did not see an article like this coming. Shocked and blind sided are the only words I can think of to describe my feelings right now.

Just wow! Someone get me a paper bag while I lie down, I'm beginning to hyperventilate.

Saul Good
07-15-2011, 04:47 PM
Instead of paying their welfare will be paying more for social services who start taking kids away from their parents because they test hot. Those funds will probably come out of state funds too.

I don't know if this is good or not.

In the short term, it may cost more. In the long term, we won't have a generation of fuck-ups who were raised by poor people on drugs.

Q: What do children who are raised by poor people on drugs generally grow up to be?

A: Poor people on drugs.

Saul Good
07-15-2011, 04:49 PM
He just said we should shoot junkies. I'm not the one making him look subhuman.

If you're trying to prove that people who oppose this are dumb, you're doing a remarkable job.

Then again, the idea of shooting people who take our tax money to purchase drugs isn't completely without merit.

vailpass
07-15-2011, 05:32 PM
Wow! I mean WOW!!!

I did not see an article like this coming. Shocked and blind sided are the only words I can think of to describe my feelings right now.

Just wow! Someone get me a paper bag while I lie down, I'm beginning to hyperventilate.

LMAO
You mean this didn't inspire confidence that this would be an unbiased article?

By ALICE KITCHEN
Special to The Star......

Alice Kitchen of Kansas City is the founder and past chairwoman of the Kansas City Task Force on Drug Affected Families and a is member of the Missouri Association of Social Welfare

nstygma
07-15-2011, 06:52 PM
Someone I know on WIC and food stamps was complaining to me a few months ago about Obama, saying he was going to require drug testing to receive assistance. So I asked if she would quit smoking weed, and she said she'd rather give up the food stamps, she sells half of them anyway :(
Plus, I think she spends more on cigarettes and alcohol monthly than weed and whatever else she's in to.

Saul Good
07-15-2011, 06:53 PM
Someone I know on WIC and food stamps was complaining to me a few months ago about Obama, saying he was going to require drug testing to receive assistance. So I asked if she would quit smoking weed, and she said she'd rather give up the food stamps, she sells half of them anyway :(
Plus, I think she spends more on cigarettes and alcohol monthly than weed and whatever else she's in to.

I feel bad for her.

nstygma
07-15-2011, 07:09 PM
I feel bad for her.
i do too. I've tried to help but I guess I don't know how.

Saul Good
07-15-2011, 07:37 PM
i do too. I've tried to help but I guess I don't know how.

Have you considered shooting her in the face?

nstygma
07-15-2011, 08:37 PM
Have you considered shooting her in the face?would that take out the enablers too?

Okie_Apparition
07-15-2011, 08:52 PM
So they get to save the bennies & get 6 months of rehab paid for ROFL
That'll teach 'em & save taxpayers monay

KILLER_CLOWN
07-15-2011, 09:12 PM
would that take out the enablers too?

No, much like his other stances we should only blame those whom take what's given to them.

Otter
07-15-2011, 10:37 PM
No, much like his other stances we should only blame those whom take what's given to them.

The welfare/safety net programs were created with good intentions but like everything else humans come in touch with they're abused. I have ZERO problem with this and think it should be implemented nation wide.

When you can't take care of yourself and forcing others to see to your welfare it's like living with a parent or guardian. "As long as I'm paying the bills...". I'd even be willing to go so far as alcohol included (I know the short duration that's testable for btw). This is a tough love time and I'm willing to give all the love till they get back on their feet then they can do bong hits and Jager bombs all they want.

What MO has to do at this point is look at the consequences of their actions and what is going to become of the people they cut off. I'm too tired to go that deep but either way safety nets aren't meant to be a way of life in a functional society. They are there to pick up when your down and get you back on your feet, not free a pass to a lifestyle.

Otter
07-15-2011, 10:46 PM
So they get to save the bennies & get 6 months of rehab paid for ROFL
That'll teach 'em & save taxpayers monay

There's the crux of the problem.

You would have to give a choice of next step, soup kitchen then next step streets or jail. You can't coddle people who take the path of least resistance as a way of life and expect them to change.

mikey23545
07-15-2011, 10:51 PM
Without getting into the merits of this, the devil is in the details. Who pays for testing and rehab, the state or those profligate welfare recipients?

I certainly don't want more tax dollars down the rathole that is the war on drugs.

Isn't it amazing how concerned about government spending liberals become if they're afraid of something that might put brakes on the runaway welfare state?

ClevelandBronco
07-15-2011, 11:04 PM
Drugs make some people incapable of making rational decisions, and some drugs do that to more people than other drugs. At any rate, I doubt that many will choose not to use drugs because of this law, and I expect the greatest harm will be done to the children of drug users rather than to the drug users themselves.

On the other hand, a large fraction of those children are already fucked for life as it is.

I have no idea how we can afford it, but we need a massive treatment, recovery and rehabilitation system. Massive.

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2011, 11:05 PM
Isn't it amazing how concerned about government spending liberals become if they're afraid of something that might put brakes on the runaway welfare state?

Isn't it amazing how concerned about taxes free-spending conservatives become when...they're afraid of something that might put brakes on their runaway self-absorbed, self-aggrandizement, and narcissistic "what about ME" focus? Afterall, the Gubment is da debil---and buidnessi is de angel. Private is ALWAYS better, according to the "deluded"...just sayin'. Heh.

In other words, the 2001 Bush, post-9-11 tax CUTS of 2001, MUST BE extended into perpetuity. Forever, and Ever...Amen. And Amen. Just sayin'....

Otter
07-15-2011, 11:07 PM
Isn't it amazing how concerned about taxes free-spending conservatives become when...they're afraid of something that might put brakes on their runaway self-absorbed, self-aggrandizement, and narcissistic "what about ME" focus?

In other words, the 2001 Bush, post-9-11 tax CUTS of 2001, MUST BE extended into perpetuity. Just sayin'....

You guys (not just you and me too sometimes) need to put aside your party lines and start thinking for yourself and what's best for you and yours. The politicians certainly have.

ClevelandBronco
07-15-2011, 11:08 PM
You guys (not just you and me too sometimes) need to put aside your party lines and start thinking for yourself and what's best for you and yours. The politicians certainly have.

He works for the government. He is thinking about what's best for him and his.

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2011, 11:13 PM
You guys (not just you and me too sometimes) need to put aside your party lines and start thinking for yourself and what's best for you and yours. The politicians certainly have.

And if you think for a NY minute the Repubs and the privileged elite, as represented and articulated by FOX TV and the right wing nutjob dittohead radio douche-bags and their mindless sheeple listening drones...will ever, EVER, in a million years, THINK for "themselves" and advocate or DO for the country what is best....you are nothing more than a Ditto-head-"You're a GREAT American, Sean" right wing radio groupie.

Period. Just sayin'..... :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
07-15-2011, 11:21 PM
He works for the government. He is thinking about what's best for him and his.

Your "I hate those who chose a better retirement, and benefits, thank I...was able to demand" schtick has become lame, and worn.

Only douche-bag tea-bagging "Republicans" share your pathetic, lame, and immarture view of the public sector. That's "okay" though, cause the apple don't fall far from the tree. Seriously. Just sayin', Mr. King of the douche-bag types.

Have a great weekend, Mr. Koval.

Otter
07-15-2011, 11:23 PM
And if you think for a NY minute the Repubs and the privileged elite, as represented and articulated by FOX TV and the right wing nutjob dittohead radio douche-bags and their mindless sheeple listening drones...will ever, EVER, in a million years, THINK for "themselves" and advocate or DO for the country what is best....you are nothing more than a Ditto-head-"You're a GREAT American, Sean" right wing radio groupie.

Period. Just sayin'..... :hmmm:

You read me like a book. It's like you look into my soul kotter.

dirk digler
07-15-2011, 11:46 PM
I don't necessarily have a problem with the bill but they better properly fund DMH unlike in years past where they keep cutting and cutting.

And these same genius just cut the Roads\Bridges program in half to $600 million. MO has some of the worst roads in the country yet they gut the program and hundreds of people will be out of work. Great job dumbasses.

Taco John
07-16-2011, 01:03 AM
And if you think for a NY minute the Repubs and the privileged elite, as represented and articulated by FOX TV and the right wing nutjob dittohead radio douche-bags and their mindless sheeple listening drones...will ever, EVER, in a million years, THINK for "themselves" and advocate or DO for the country what is best....you are nothing more than a Ditto-head-"You're a GREAT American, Sean" right wing radio groupie.

Period. Just sayin'..... :hmmm:


Dude, you fucking voted for Bush. What are you preaching about?

mikey23545
07-16-2011, 02:44 AM
Isn't it amazing how concerned about taxes free-spending conservatives become when...they're afraid of something that might put brakes on their runaway self-absorbed, self-aggrandizement, and narcissistic "what about ME" focus? Afterall, the Gubment is da debil---and buidnessi is de angel. Private is ALWAYS better, according to the "deluded"...just sayin'. Heh.

In other words, the 2001 Bush, post-9-11 tax CUTS of 2001, MUST BE extended into perpetuity. Forever, and Ever...Amen. And Amen. Just sayin'....

What the fuck are you babbling about, you fucking public sector, tax-teat sucking parasitic drunkard? LMAO

Go have another on me! (Well, me and all the other tax-payers you should feel beholden to, not superior to.)

I hope you at least have the decency to feel ashamed of yourself in the morning when you sober up...

Okie_Apparition
07-16-2011, 05:43 AM
They will get reimbursed for gas/bus pass & grandma will get a check to babyset. Some politician will get a kick back & it will be scammed by the users. Those that fail have their kids go to foster care & the courts get even further backlogged It will end up costing more but the butthurt taxpayer will feel empowered

RNR
07-16-2011, 07:22 AM
The welfare/safety net programs were created with good intentions but like everything else humans come in touch with they're abused. I have ZERO problem with this and think it should be implemented nation wide.

When you can't take care of yourself and forcing others to see to your welfare it's like living with a parent or guardian. "As long as I'm paying the bills...". I'd even be willing to go so far as alcohol included (I know the short duration that's testable for btw). This is a tough love time and I'm willing to give all the love till they get back on their feet then they can do bong hits and Jager bombs all they want.

What MO has to do at this point is look at the consequences of their actions and what is going to become of the people they cut off. I'm too tired to go that deep but either way safety nets aren't meant to be a way of life in a functional society. They are there to pick up when your down and get you back on your feet, not free a pass to a lifestyle.
~

RNR
07-16-2011, 07:35 AM
The legislators who put this bill forward know as much as you do about the cost of this program, how it will be implemented, and the proposed "savings". In short, it's designed to appeal to simple-minded know nothings such as yourself who can't get beyond their belief that drugs and poor people are bad.

We have a failed system that has created families that have grand parents, parents, and kids and their kids living off the tax payers dime. It should be set up as limited one time assistance. As has been mentioned this should have never been allowed to become a lifestyle. Screw anyone who has a problem to submitting to a drug test (the same test most of us paying their way take at work) to receive assistance~

Chiefshrink
07-16-2011, 08:13 AM
this should spark an outrage of 80% of that state.

:clap:LMAO

Chiefshrink
07-16-2011, 08:15 AM
:thumb:What the **** are you babbling about, you ****ing public sector, tax-teat sucking parasitic drunkard? LMAO

Go have another on me! (Well, me and all the other tax-payers you should feel beholden to, not superior to.)

I hope you at least have the decency to feel ashamed of yourself in the morning when you sober up...

BINGO:clap:

You do know he is Saul Alinsky's nephew

RNR
07-16-2011, 08:38 AM
What the **** are you babbling about, you ****ing public sector, tax-teat sucking parasitic drunkard? LMAO

Go have another on me! (Well, me and all the other tax-payers you should feel beholden to, not superior to.)

I hope you at least have the decency to feel ashamed of yourself in the morning when you sober up...

You forgot to add just sayin~

RNR
07-16-2011, 03:53 PM
http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7289&Itemid=1

Welfare law requiring drug tests deemed ‘obnoxious’










Written by DAPHNE TAYLOR




Special to South Florida Times

WEST PALM BEACH — President Barack Obama has not placed the African-American community high on his priority list.


And a bill that Gov. Rick Scott signed into law requiring welfare recipients to undergo drug testing is an “obnoxious” piece of legislation.

That’s the view of one of the country’s leading intellectuals who slammed the Democratic president and the Republican governor in a South Florida Times interview.

Julianne Malveaux, economist, author, and commentator and president of Bennett College in Greensboro, N.C., was interviewed Saturday prior to giving the featured address at a West Palm Beach Delta Sigma Theta sorority function.

“It was an exciting, stunning and astounding moment when President Obama was elected, but once the dust settled, he has to do the job of governing, and he has many constituents that he is answering to but, at the moment, the African-American community does not seem to be as high on the list as it might,” Malveaux said, citing alarming unemployment figures among blacks.

“I understand the many pressures that President Obama feels and, yes, he was elected as president by all of us, and, yet, I wish that he would pay more attention to the African-American community,” she said.
Malveaux commended the president for focusing on the “women’s agenda,” which, she said, was particularly helpful to African-American women. She also commended his healthcare initiative.

“So we have lots to celebrate and we have lots to encourage our brother to address,” she said.

Malveaux had no kind words, however, for Scott, and his signing of legislation requiring welfare recipients to pay for and submit to drug testing, a law that takes effect July 1.

“Which drug-testing company does he have a contract with?” Malveaux asked, clearly agitated.

“When things like that occur, that’s obnoxious. Will he take the drug test and pay for it himself? Will he ask the Legislature to do that? That kind of thing gets me very, very, angry.” She continued: “You cannot pick on a recipient population and impose your racist and ignorant assumptions on them. They should not have to pay for drug testing nor should they have to take a drug test – unless there’s a reason.

“Just randomly you’re going to test people because they’re on public assistance? Will we test people because they’re on Social Security? Will we test people because they’re veterans? Or, then, just test the Legislature and start with the State House.”

Later in the evening, Malveaux was guest of honor and gave the keynote address at the Deltas’ “Women of Excellence” program. The sorority honored local women for their achievement in the arts, education, business, health, college, humanitarian, and outstanding organization.

Malveaux was presented the key to Riviera Beach, a predominantly black waterfront city that neighbors West Palm Beach, by Councilwoman Pro Tem Billie Brooks in the absence of Mayor Bishop Thomas Masters, who was with his ill mother.

More than 500 guests attended the elegant affair held at the Palm Beach County Convention Center. Nova Southeastern University’s Palm Beach Campus was among the businesses that gave support to the function.
“We have so many alumni who are members of the sorority, who are graduates of Nova Southeastern’s master’s and doctoral programs,” said George E. Dungee, campus director.

Dungee said the historically black Bennett College is located in his hometown.

“I know the campus very well,” he said.

Nerissa Edden, event coordinator, said the sorority was honored to have Malveaux as the featured speaker, saying, “She is such a powerhouse and a wealth of knowledge.”


Malveaux autographed copies of her book, Surviving and Thriving 365 Facts in Black Economic History at the event.

mikey23545
07-16-2011, 04:14 PM
"That’s the view of one of the country’s leading intellectuals who slammed the Democratic president and the Republican governor in a South Florida Times interview."

LMAO

“I understand the many pressures that President Obama feels and, yes, he was elected as president by all of us, and, yet, I wish that he would pay more attention to the African-American community.”

In other words, she wants a racist payoff.

“You cannot pick on a recipient population and impose your racist and ignorant assumptions on them."

LOLWUT? Since when are people on welfare a race?

“Just randomly you’re going to test people because they’re on public assistance? Will we test people because they’re on Social Security? Will we test people because they’re veterans?"

She is actually convinced that Social Security, Veteran's benefits and welfare are equivalent? Is she trying to reinforce the old stereotype of blacks having lower IQs than whites?

RNR
07-17-2011, 06:38 AM
"That’s the view of one of the country’s leading intellectuals who slammed the Democratic president and the Republican governor in a South Florida Times interview."

LMAO

“I understand the many pressures that President Obama feels and, yes, he was elected as president by all of us, and, yet, I wish that he would pay more attention to the African-American community.”

In other words, she wants a racist payoff.

“You cannot pick on a recipient population and impose your racist and ignorant assumptions on them."

LOLWUT? Since when are people on welfare a race?

“Just randomly you’re going to test people because they’re on public assistance? Will we test people because they’re on Social Security? Will we test people because they’re veterans?"

She is actually convinced that Social Security, Veteran's benefits and welfare are equivalent? Is she trying to reinforce the old stereotype of blacks having lower IQs than whites?

I laughed pretty hard when I read that also. She is the female Jessie Jackson~

philfree
07-17-2011, 06:59 AM
here's another view

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/10/3005795/bill-targeting-needy-families.html

Posted on Sun, Jul. 10, 2011
Bill to drug-test Missouri aid recipients is costly and meanspirited

By ALICE KITCHEN
Special to The Star


Missouri’s General Assembly recently passed legislation designed to drug-test applicants or recipients of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for low-income Missouri families. We are asking Gov. Jay Nixon to veto this legislation, House Bill 73, because it is unjust, meanspirited, unnecessary, costly and incredibly burdensome to our already overworked state staff.

There are many reasons this is bad legislation and bad public policy. In the first place, it is punitive and targets our most vulnerable citizens. To be eligible for assistance, you have to be very poor and have children. That means a family of three can have a yearly income of no more than $4,584.

The legislation is discriminatory in that it targets needy recipients because they get a state subsidy. There are many populations of less-needy citizens who get state subsidies but do not fall under this law. Elected officials, farmers, individuals with state contracts and some business owners receive subsidies from the state. Furthermore HB 73 requires drug testing of those suspected of using controlled substances, not the more abused drugs of alcohol and prescription drugs.

If the person tests positive, drug treatment is expected right away.

Yet the legislation does not provide for the availability of treatment programs throughout the state.

Currently where public or nonprofit drug treatment programs exist there are usually waiting lists. Many of these programs are underfunded.

And then there is a requirement for state staff to report recipients who test positive on a drug test or refuse to take a drug test to the Children’s Division for suspected abuse or neglect.

This is problematic because the current definition does not include this as a reason to suspect abuse or neglect.

Children’s Division staff will be spending time on these reports that do not rise to the level of the state statute when more serious cases that need immediate attention could be delayed.

Furthermore, the cost to fully implement this legislation could be as high as $6.7 million. The state budget already has a shortfall of $50 million to $60 million, not including this expense.

Lastly, state workers in the Family Support Division already work with recipients on social obstacles such as mental illness, drug/alcohol abuse and domestic violence to connect them to resources to alleviate problems and promote stability.

This legislation is misguided.

It leaves open too many contingencies that are not addressed. What happens to those who are willing and ready to go to treatment but can’t for a lack of available slots? Do these recipients continue to receive aid while waiting to get treatment, and does this program trump others who are already on the waiting list?

Vulnerable children caught between their parent’s behavior and highly judgmental elected officials have the most to lose.

The only entities that stand to benefit are the drug-testing companies.

The bill is meanspirited and an embarrassment to our citizens.

It reminds me of the quote: “the justice of a society is not measured by how it treats its best but rather how it treats the most vulnerable among them.”

Alice Kitchen of Kansas City is the founder and past chairwoman of the Kansas City Task Force on Drug Affected Families and a is member of the Missouri Association of Social Welfare.

The drug testing may sound good to many but it would really just cause more problems then it would solve. That said we need less government intervention.

RNR
07-17-2011, 07:09 AM
The drug testing may sound good to many but it would really just cause more problems then it would solve. That said we need less government intervention.

Add we need to cut how long people are allowed to collect it~

philfree
07-17-2011, 07:12 AM
Add we need to cut how long people are allowed to collect it~

I agree.

JonesCrusher
07-17-2011, 09:30 AM
Help the helpless, screw the clueless.

RNR
07-17-2011, 09:43 AM
Help the helpless, screw the clueless.

When you enable someone to become totally reliant on welfare you are not helping them~

Reaper16
07-17-2011, 10:01 AM
The state of MO has been slashing DMH money for years. Without true support for rehabilitation services this plan is going to be a disaster.

I have to imagine that local politicians can't be that happy about this, seeing as how crime rates are going to increase.

RNR
07-17-2011, 10:04 AM
The state of MO has been slashing DMH money for years. Without true support for rehabilitation services this plan is going to be a disaster.

I have to imagine that local politicians can't be that happy about this, seeing as how crime rates are going to increase.

This is something that I agree must be addressed by every state~

philfree
07-17-2011, 10:08 AM
Most of the people that get caught by a test will probably be pot smokers. Do they need really need rehab? They'll just be run through the ringer at the cost of the tax payers.

RNR
07-17-2011, 10:12 AM
Most of the people that get caught by a test will probably be pot smokers. Do they need really need rehab? They'll just be run through the ringer at the cost of the tax payers.

You have to pass a drug test to get most any job. If someone is in a situation they have to take welfare and they still smoke pot I would think they have a problem~

philfree
07-17-2011, 10:26 AM
You have to pass a drug test to get most any job. If someone is in a situation they have to take welfare and they still smoke pot I would think they have a problem~

If everyone on welfare had to take a pee test it would be hard to catch anyone. If they know when it's coming they'll be ready. I can see government officials ring the bell with their little pee test kit. "Suprise"

RNR
07-17-2011, 11:17 AM
If everyone on welfare had to take a pee test it would be hard to catch anyone. If they know when it's coming they'll be ready. I can see government officials ring the bell with their little pee test kit. "Suprise"

All I am saying is it needs to be fixed because it sure as hell aint working now~