Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients!

[AlternativeSolutionsPlus]

Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

 

 

Cash assistance recipients who are suspected of drug use can be tested under a bill approved today by the house, 71-37.

 

HB 5223, sponsored by Rep. Jeff FARRINGTON (R-Utica) puts the Department of Human Services (DHS) in charge using "reasonable suspicion" to determine if a welfare recipient is using drugs. The $50 cost of the drug tests will be deducted from a recipient's cash assistance benefits if the test is negative. If positive, the recipient will be removed from the cash assistance program for a period of at least six months and the state pays for the test (See "Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients Moves," 5/15/12).

 

Farrington added three amendments to the bill, several of which had been proposed by Democrats. He said his amendments added reporting, clarified language to ensure privacy and offer a free treatment program through Medicaid for those who want help.

 

"We believe for those who want to help themselves, this is truly a step in the right direction," he said.

 

The bill also calls for reasonable suspicion, as determined by DHS, for the drug testing, he said.

 

Farrington urged support for the bill, saying it aims to use taxpayer dollars efficiently and follows a principle brought up by constituents who ask why they have to take a drug test to get a job yet someone on assistance does not have to be tested.

 

He noted that if someone on cash assistance tests positive for drugs, they can still receive food assistance and medical care through Medicaid.

 

Rep. Tom MCMILLIN (R-Rochester Hills) offered an amendment to tie-bar the drug testing of welfare recipients to his bill that would require drug testing for "corporate welfare."

 

"I think it's very important that we are consistent. Welfare is welfare," he said.

 

His amendment was not adopted without a vote.

 

Democrats offered nearly 20 amendments, all of which were struck down without a vote.

 

Reps. Alberta TINSLEY-TALABI (D-Detroit), Fred DURHAL (D-Detroit), Maureen STAPLETON (D-Detroit), DianSLAVENS (D-Canton Twp.) and Rashida TLAIB (D-Detroit) offered the amendments, which ranged from aiming to give treatment to those who test positive for drugs to requiring legislators to undergo drug tests. Other amendments aimed to exempt people who tested positive due to prescription drugs and exempt people age 65 and older from the tests.

 

Talabi said the state must "take care to protect the children who through no fault of their own find themselves victims."

 

"Let's not further victimize children by denying them the assistance they need and deserve from this state," she said.

 

Tlaib said legislators should be held to the same standard because they also receive public dollars.

 

"I've heard people say to me that with all of the things that go on in this chamber we must all be on drugs," Tlaib said.

 

Rep. Vicki BARNETT (D-Farmington Hills) also proposed an amendment that would have required DHS to document behavior, action or other causes before a drug test. It failed without a vote.

 

Rep. Lisa HOWZE (D-Detroit) spoke against the bill on the floor. She talked about her childhood, growing up with a single mother of five children who was on food stamps.

 

She asked her colleagues to imagine what it would do to the self-esteem of someone busy trying to provide for their children if they had to take time out of their schedule to take a drug test.

 

Rep. Dave AGEMA (R-Grandville), speaking in support of the bill, said he had to undergo drug tests while he was in the military and when he was a commercial pilot.

 

"Taxpayers for years have been frustrated by welfare recipients who have money for drugs, but not for food," Agema said. "Taxpayers deserve to know if their money is being used on drugs. If you have money for drugs, you have money for necessities, and you should not be on assistance."

 

Rep. Shanelle JACKSON (D-Detroit) asked people to think about the children. She said the legislation shows a lack of understanding for "the reality for a lot of the families receiving FIP assistance."

 

She said legislators should go back to the drawing board on the concept.

 

House Majority Floor Leader Jim STAMAS (R-Midland), in a rare move, spoke in support of the bill. He said that it is about the children, and any parent on drugs is not being the parent they need to be.

 

http://www.mirsnews.com/capsule.php#31470

[drdali138]

Hmmm, worried about mmj implications here.

Of course the proposed amendment requiring legislators to take drug tests is struck down without a vote.

[greenbuddha]

All politicians should be required to take drug tests upon taking office.

 

If this was required, you'd see a DRASTIC change in attitudes in Lansing.

 

Don't forget to vote in November !!!

[Dr. Bob]

Excellent, fine someone already on the edge of financial solvency $50 because some aid worker decides to be a jerk. Penalize those legally taking medications with the loss of support for their families. Take millions from families to catch the 1/10 of 1% of welfare receipients using their checks to buy drugs.

 

87% of non custodial parents in Michigan that are behind on child support are in that situation due to economic hardship, loss of job, and unresponsiveness of the courts to adjust the support to a level that is reasonable given the economic realities (ie the same realities the family would deal with if there was no divorce). Yet every one of those 87% are, by definition, guilty of a 4 year felony. MCL 750.165 is a strict liability FELONY. You are either current or you are guilty. That law is called the 'deadbeat dad' law so often talked about by Mike Cox. Now you know the truth, but try and get a rep to vote for a revision to make it a little more human and in touch with reality.

 

Like the deadbeat dad law, this is one of those things that let reps say they are hard on a group that isn't popular in the media. Drug kingpins aren't on welfare. And the guy that just lost his union job at GM (but can't even get a hearing to revise his support for months) isn't a criminal. But passing a law against both looks good in the papers and on a rep's website.

 

Dr. Bob

[Croppled1]

Excellent, fine someone already on the edge of financial solvency $50 because some aid worker decides to be a jerk. Penalize those legally taking medications with the loss of support for their families. Take millions from families to catch the 1/10 of 1% of welfare receipients using their checks to buy drugs.

 

87% of non custodial parents in Michigan that are behind on child support are in that situation due to economic hardship, loss of job, and unresponsiveness of the courts to adjust the support to a level that is reasonable given the economic realities (ie the same realities the family would deal with if there was no divorce). Yet every one of those 87% are, by definition, guilty of a 4 year felony. MCL 750.165 is a strict liability FELONY. You are either current or you are guilty. That law is called the 'deadbeat dad' law so often talked about by Mike Cox. Now you know the truth, but try and get a rep to vote for a revision to make it a little more human and in touch with reality.

 

Like the deadbeat dad law, this is one of those things that let reps say they are hard on a group that isn't popular in the media. Drug kingpins aren't on welfare. And the guy that just lost his union job at GM (but can't even get a hearing to revise his support for months) isn't a criminal. But passing a law against both looks good in the papers and on a rep's website.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Good morning , this subject has come up a few times but I don't think anyone captured and explained the reality of it so well .

[Dr. Bob]

CPU showed them the cost and the data from Florida months ago. Just not a cost effective program- cost of the testing vs savings to the program by cutting off the positives. Guess they solved the problem by shifting the cost to the receipient, saved the state some money, and got their 'tough on welfare finaced drug sales' plug in the media.

 

Dr. Bob

[Mememe]

So tobacco and caffeine users can get kicked off of cash assistance now? If they see you smoking, you get drug tested and dropped from the program? That would only be fair.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Mememe

[Dr. Bob]

Sorry, doesn't have the glamour of kicking drug abusers off the rolls. Not as sexy politically. Not only doesn't it generate sound bits, but coffee drinking smokers have a BIG voting block. Much easier to target the less than 2% of the population with a card. Maybe 10% if you count their direct family and friends. That is why we need the support of the rest of the voters when we want something.

 

Fair? really?

[+Malamute]

Actually CPU went way further than just explaining the Florida stats. We pointed out that Michigan already lost this argument in Federal court once. We killed the first "welfare testing" bill in 2011. They have now come back with a new improved bill that makes the testing "non mandatory" and only suspicion based. They already have a law that basicly allows them to do such tests. They can drug test a Mom with a crack baby. They can drug test someone absuing their children etc.

 

But now, the decision will be more laid on someone pushing a pencil at a desk. This is for "cash assistance" only as well. Before it would have covered food aid and medicaid. So yea.

 

We will fight it still.

 

Again, this is one of those things CPU does "behind the scenes". We find legislation that people do not realize may effect them as medical cannabis patients. And seeing how about 40% of patients recieve "aid", this was/is a major deal.

 

Yea i know... "CPU you are killing patients and throwing them under the bus." O wait! That was the OLD 3MA.

 

Glad to be of help.

[Dr. Bob]

Sorry I outed it Mal, but it was relevant. It will be beaten.

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

EVERYONE that receives a check from the state should be tested.

 

Every judge

Every PA

Every police officer

Every elected official

 

TEST THEM ALL

[cristinew]

breath test would be the kicker

[Ms Chocolate]

It's time for lawmakers to follow the same rules they want to place on everybody else

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/poor-pee-ple

[Kingdiamond]

Expect more of this countrywide if Mitt (The Antichrist) Romney wins the election .

[Budz-4-U]

If MMJ was changed to Schedule II, would it then be cause for alarm ? What about pills ? What about alcohol ?? Just saying.

[Reaper]

EVERYONE that receives a check from the state should be tested.

 

Every judge

Every PA

Every police officer

Every elected official

 

TEST THEM ALL

breath test would be the kicker

You two hit the nail on the head. Why is this not consider discrimination against the poor? Rich people who receive money from the state=no drug test. Poor people who receive money from the state=drug test. I would like to know which legislators are against drug testing themselves. That alone would tell me who to vote for in Nov.

[+Malamute]

I just oppose all drug testing in general. What a corrupted corporate system that is. I can understand in cases of rape and incest,....o wait, i mean like Pilots and Cruise ship captains, people that have the live of many in their hands at once.

 

But yea... Oppose all drug testing.

[peanutbutter]

 

 

You two hit the nail on the head. Why is this not consider discrimination against the poor? Rich people who receive money from the state=no drug test. Poor people who receive money from the state=drug test. I would like to know which legislators are against drug testing themselves. That alone would tell me who to vote for in Nov.

 

Put that amendment into the bill and the law makers will vote it down.

[peanutbutter]

If MMJ was changed to Schedule II, would it then be cause for alarm ? What about pills ? What about alcohol ?? Just saying.

 

Schedule one is a lie and so is schedule 2.

 

A single cannabinoid has been approved by the FDA, as a food additive.

 

They approved it as a food additive before they realized it was a cannabinoid.

 

And that would be the result of every cannabinoid tested in the plant .. safe period. useful period.

[GregS]

It is little doubt unconstitutional. Reasonable suspicion, itself a twisted and wierd reason for a search, is used in police confrontations, where an officer will say that it was necessary to protect his/her safety (see Terry v Ohio). The courts, IMCO abused their duty in that case, and the dissenting opinions are very much pointed. Now these fools in the State Assembly are trying to expand an already out of control debasement of our civil rights into policy issues. I do not expect it to pass a court challenge, unless the idiots at the COA decide it. Then the SC will have to biitch slap them again. It could very well be heard in Federal Court. Howaboutit youse lawyers out there?

 

A college professor and practicing prosecutor instructed classes that I attended regarding the ins and outs of Fourth and Fifth amendment rights. He was tickled to explain how civil rights regarding search, seizure, and self-incrimination have evolved. It is apparent that those issues have been hammered home hard by law enforcement, and the end is not in sight. The police state will keep on keeping on, and press citizens, who are referred to as "the azzholes," into corners until we realize it clearly enough and take the fight to them.

 

And these right wingers argue against a "nanny state???" They are so full of schit. If only they would float away.

Edited June 9, 2012 by GregS

[peanutbutter]

Test the right wingers also ..

[peanutbutter]

Remember .. the little old ladies that made alcohol illegal were wired up on cocaine.

[purklize]

The $50 cost of the drug tests will be deducted from a recipient's cash assistance benefits if the test is negative.

 

So it allows them to arbitrarily take $50 from the person? Even if that person tests negative and "did the right thing" they still get penalized? Unbelievable.

[murdock]

All politicians should be required to take drug tests upon taking office.

 

If this was required, you'd see a DRASTIC change in attitudes in Lansing.

 

Don't forget to vote in November !!!

(And let's not forget all the contractors through out the state, an why stop at drug test let's do Breathalyzers before they all start work ! )