NC Senate approves drug testing for welfare

[3rd&48ers]

NC Senate approves drug testing for welfare

RALEIGH, N.C. — The N.C. Senate approved a bill Wednesday that would require people applying for public assistance to pass a drug test and would require local Department of Social Service offices to conduct criminal background checks on applicants, according to WRAL.
The drug test requirement calls for applicants to pay for the test and bans anyone with a positive test from receiving benefits for a year, unless they can show they have completed a substance abuse treatment program and can pass a subsequent test.
Under current law, DSS offices may ask someone if they’re a fugitive or conduct a criminal background check, but they are not allowed to share that information with local sheriffs or other law enforcement agencies.
According to WRAL, the House version of the bill called for social service workers to call law enforcement if someone applying for Food and Nutrition Assistance, what many people call food stamps, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which are cash payments, is found to have an outstanding warrant. The Senate version says the Social Services Commission will draft rules for what information will be shared with law enforcement.
Senators voted 43-6 in favor of House Bill 392, which will now head back to the House for a final vote on changes to the measure.
http://myfox8.com/2013/07/10/nc-sena...g-for-welfare/

[KChiefer]

Best part is the end when he asks the official to pee in a cup and the guy thinks he shouldn't have to. Why not? He gets money from tax payers also...

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state’s net loss? $45,780.

"That’s not counting attorneys and court fees and the thousands of hours of staff time it took to implement this policy," Newton said.
The law also didn’t impact the number of people who applied for benefits.

The findings don’t ruffle supporters of the law, who say that its primary purpose is to make sure taxpayer money doesn’t supplement drug use.


http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/2...ests-cost.html

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/2...#storylink=cpy

Needs Repeating.

More information about why everything about this Policy is based off of lies.

Drug testing proponents like to argue that there are large numbers of drug users going on welfare to get money to support their habits. The claim feeds into long-standing stereotypes about the kind of people who go on welfare, but it does not appear to have much basis in fact.

Several studies, including a 1996 report from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, have found that there is no significant difference in the rate of illegal-drug use by welfare applicants and other people. Another study found that 70% of illegal-drug users between the age of 18 and 49 are employed full time.

Drug-testing laws are often touted as a way of saving tax dollars, but the facts are once again not quite as presented. Idaho recently commissioned a study of the likely financial impact of drug testing its welfare applicants. The study found that the costs were likely to exceed any money saved.

and

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that the drug testing was an unreasonable search. The state can impose drug tests in exceptional cases, when there is a public-safety need for them (as with bus and train operators, for instance). But the Fourth Amendment does not allow the state to diminish “personal privacy for a symbol’s sake,” the court said.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/08/29/dru...#ixzz2YjrHqWKd

[Loneiguana]

I don't understand why conservatives support this.

Increases the Size of Government.
Increases Government reach into the lives of private citizens.
Increase Government Spending.

Does Conservative contempt for poor people really outweigh their supposed small government ideals?

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

Best part is the end when he asks the official to pee in a cup and the guy thinks he shouldn't have to. Why not? He gets money from tax payers also...

I love that segment.

Can't drug politicians who are supported by the Public's dime.
Can't drug Corporations who take subsides.
Can drug test poor people.

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

The only problem is that they can spend it on alcohol. We cant become the nannies. We are not their parents.

What needs to happen is they don't get their act together, make some positive changes in their life's, take some classes/training.....then we put a limit on how much government assistance they can get in a year and or in a lifetime. Its a hand up not a hand out. If you are not trying to get off the tax payer dime, then you can be a slacker on the charity dime.

Ahh, so glad to hear you say that!

That means we shouldn't be supporting their freeloading asses with welfare, right?

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

Ahh, so glad to hear you say that!

That means we shouldn't be supporting their freeloading asses with welfare, right?

90 percent of people on government entitlements go to the retired, disabled, or members of working households.

It is just a myth that people on welfare are freeloading.

[Bowel Movement]

Originally Posted by scott free

only problem i see is that people doing the hard stuff like crack and meth only need three days to get it out of their system, seems like it might be pretty easy to beat the system.

three days sober can feel like 3 years to some of those people

[Bowel Movement]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

90 percent of people on government entitlements go to the retired, disabled, or members of working households.

It is just a myth that people on welfare are freeloading.

i used to work with a 350 lb. "disabled" woman that's now "retired" at 50 and receiving medicare (don't ask me how) for a "bad knee" that only became bad because she ate herself to 350 lbs. and refused to lose weight

and my Grandma is friends with another "disabled" 400 lb. woman that gets the state to pay for her apartment, car, gas, food, bills and health care because she's "disabled" because she ate herself to 400 lbs.

and my gf used to live with a 40 year old woman WITHOUT ANY KIDS that wasn't obese that lived off WIC (WOMEN, infant and children) stamps for 2 years before my gf got sick of her trying to get out of paying rent with her tax dollars and kicked her out

[FishingRod]

While there are no doubt plenty of people taking advantage of the system, testing is a waste of time and money. It costs more than it saves and while it might kick a few people off for smoking pot, I think it is safe to assume our prescription drug abusers would be free to continue on their merry way because, after all they have a prescription.

[Ace Gunner]

boy -- this will really put the nail in the coffin of drug users -- all hail the WOD

(there is nothing conservative about any of this bag of lies)

[ptlyon]

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking

three days sober can feel like 3 years to some of those people

No kiddin! Tell me about it!

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking

i used to work with a 350 lb. "disabled" woman that's now "retired" at 50 and receiving medicare (don't ask me how) for a "bad knee" that only became bad because she ate herself to 350 lbs. and refused to lose weight

and my Grandma is friends with another "disabled" 400 lb. woman that gets the state to pay for her apartment, car, gas, food, bills and health care because she's "disabled" because she ate herself to 400 lbs.

and my gf used to live with a 40 year old woman WITHOUT ANY KIDS that wasn't obese that lived off WIC (WOMEN, infant and children) stamps for 2 years before my gf got sick of her trying to get out of paying rent with her tax dollars and kicked her out

If you believe someone is gaming the system, then report them through the proper authorities.

But your anecdotal evidence is not a bases to believe the majority of people who receive help do not need it.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

Ugh, again.

Ruled unconstitutional by courts in other states.
Welfare is not justification for a search and seizure without evidence.

Does not save money.

Only a small fraction of people failed.

There is no evidence that people on welfare abuse drugs in large numbers.

You can say the exact same thing about DUI checkpoints.

- it completely ignores the 4th amendment, and you can't not go through it in other words take another route in efforts to not go through it.

- it doesn't save money....in fact it's a giant waste of money and resources.

- out of the entire night of stopping and harrassing hundreds and hundreds of people depending on where it's at, only a handful or 2 are generally arrested, and sometimes it's on something else other than alcohol like a warrant or driving on a suspended license.

- No evidence?? All the evidence you need is to just take a trip down to your local 7/11 and look at the clowns that hang around the store at night. Let's not be stupid here. The reason why some people are below the poverty level is because they're stupid and made bad decisions growing up. Some may be technically out of their hands...tough shit it's not my problem and I don't think I should have to pay for someone else's food unless I choose to.

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

You can say the exact same thing about DUI checkpoints.

- it completely ignores the 4th amendment, and you can't not go through it in other words take another route in efforts to not go through it.

- it doesn't save money....in fact it's a giant waste of money and resources.

- out of the entire night of stopping and harrassing hundreds and hundreds of people depending on where it's at, only a handful or 2 are generally arrested, and sometimes it's on something else other than alcohol like a warrant or driving on a suspended license.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

- No evidence?? All the evidence you need is to just take a trip down to your local 7/11 and look at the clowns that hang around the store at night. Let's not be stupid here. The reason why some people are below the poverty level is because they're stupid and made bad decisions growing up. Some may be technically out of their hands...tough shit it's not my problem and I don't think I should have to pay for someone else's food unless I choose to.

This is just stupid and factually wrong.

[theelusiveeightrop]

Will never pass in current form. If it does, ACLU will challenge in court for years.