E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA Tennessee lawmaker says it may be time to start drug-testing members of the General Assembly.
State Rep. G.A. Hardaway, D-Memphis, told TV station WMC that lawmakers should have to take the same drug test if they impose one on welfare recipients.
Hardaway said he has heard from his constituents.
"They said to me, 'how do we know y'all aren't on drugs?'" Hardaway told WMC. "I thought, well, you don't."
He said the voters had a valid point, and he plans to file his General Assembly drug test bill if the welfare drug test issue surfaces before lawmakers, which is likely.
The second session of the 107th General Assembly will convene Jan. 10.
State Sen. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, who plans to file a drug-testing bill, says in his own blog last week that he "would have no problem with being tested myself."
Opponents of the proposed bill say it will cost too much and would be illegal, but Campfield has said his bill will avoid the pitfalls of cost and legality and will result in the state saving a substantial amount of money, not spending more.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- $6 billion-a-year ethanol subsidy dies -- but wait …
- Boot Hezbollah from Twitter or we sue, group says
- Family to honor Alcatraz escapees with a trip back to The Rock
- Increase in short sales give market a little breathing room
- No snow? Big problem for US ski resorts
Leave a Comment:
A government employee with an ounce on common sense? How can this be? With a development like this, makes me think maybe the Mayans were onto something.
I agree. I work for the government and have to take a drug test for employment. Why not our representatives?
Common sense? Nah - he's just trying to get around the arguement that if they aren't willing to take it, they shouldn't be trying to force it upon the poor.
I'll guarantee you that if this passes, he WON'T be taking any drug tests. It's all for show, not for substance.
nobody should have to take a drug test. invasion of privacy and unnecessary search.
Really?-3308028 - Nobody will be forced to take a drug test. It's definitely not an invasion of privacy or unnecessary search/seizure. It's simply that IF you want to get free money from taxpayers (welfare), then you would have to take a drug test. If you don't want to take a drug test, no problem, just don't expect free money.
They should have to take drug tests. They should have the same healthcare as the gander. They should have to take lie detector tests, like law enforcement. They should have to fill in time sheets weekly and publish it on the internet. They should campaign on their time off at night and on the weekends, after the work is done. All i've seen Obama do is play golf and campaign, that seems to be the MO of all of the politicians, they should have to justify their jobs like everyone else that works seems to have to do. They work for us and they should start acting like it.
rich people like politicians are all on prescription drugs and alcohol anyway, so it won't matter.
The totalitarian bend this country has taken over the last decade or so is quite frightening...
drug testing for non-convicts- wow, this is freedom
Maybe I like my representative on drugs, maybe a coke addled rep is one that does a better job, gets more done. Who is anyone to tell me I can't vote for a rep that does drugs. I can vote for a convicted felon, even one that's currently in prison, but we don't let felons in prison receive welfare benefits. It's an irrational comparison of apples to oranges.
This is foolishness whether it applies to welfare recipients or office holders. You never commit tremendous resources based on a theory. Do random tests in a few different areas and different age groups to support this theory first. If we had done so in Florida, we would have saved millions of tax dollars and useless legislation. Political grandstanding is to be expected. To commit scarce resources without testing tells me you had an agenda other than the one you proposed.
Figures a democrat would propose this. The GOP has the do as I say not as I do mentality, and they never want to eat the dog food they dish out to others.
Let's just hope they don't implement an intelligence test, the GOP would get clobbered in the legislature!
maybe we should test CEOs from companies too, all govt contractors, heck, why not everybody in Amerika? Frankly, why not outlaw tobacco (kills about 1/2 million a year) and alcohol too.
Unfortunately, drug tests don't screen for self-centered idiocy.
Here's one that applies:
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our
troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and
love of power." - P. J. O'Rourke
If they're going to raise the bar then do it right. These folks are hired by voters and work for the public, so while they're busy with drug & alcohol testing, which in essence amounts to character screening and background investigations, they should also be subject to checking their credit history, unpaid taxes & liens, criminal history, drivers license + motor vehicle record, and residency requirements. Then make the info readily available to the public.
if poor people are going to be given money for no reason other than being poor and not wanting to work thne a drug test is in order. Their money should not go to drugs and if they are GIVEN FREE MONEY why cant we put conditions on it. You have to meet conditions to make a pay check, why not them? As far as the rest of your illogical rant you cant spend money on credit history, they arent borrowing money, its a gift, i mean entitlement.
I have to say I agree with Ryan. If the government is going to hand out welfare money which is supposed to be for getting people back on their feet during tough times then there should be some conditions on it. Money that is meant to be for food, clothing and shelter should not be spent on narcotics. Why should tax
payers fund someone’s addiction?
Each case of testing the poor or unemployed for drugs (and I am aware of several over the years) has resulted in percentages of drug use that are 1/2 to 1/3 the percentage of drug use found in the general population or about 3.5 % for the welfare recipients (in other words, 96.5% of recipients are drug free). The idea that welfare funds are going to wide spread drug use is a patently false stereotype of the poor and unemployed.
Florida was the most recent state to test for such things I am aware of and it spent millions of dollars to implement a completely useless program based on public misconceptions of the poor. Your attitude is similarly flawed and flagrantly disregards the constitutionally guaranteed right to be secure in your person and not subject to unreasonable searches.
Drug testing of employees in occupations that have a public safety component makes some sense, otherwise it does not. Your premise on this sort of thing is essentially a mentality of "blaming the victim".
CULHEATH,,,Thank you for an intelligent response, we need to address real tangible problems, not out of proportion hype, ,,,, drug test are very expensive , need new infrastructure to administer, only will feasibly find people who may smoke an occasional joint because most everything else clears out of urine in 4-7 days,,and , if you want to find real drug users,, you would have to do more sophisticated testing ,ie blood /hair, , then when you find them OMG, we would be legally bound to get them into a treatment program,??? and what about alcohol?? the biggest problem maker??? We need jobs and health care!!!
culheath,
Care to reference source data on the several drug tests you site? I'm sure you're aware, given your obvious knowledge of statistics, that 79.45% of all statistics are made up.
As for drug testing the TN legislature, which this article is about, I'm all for it!
Equity- Most of that information is public record.
I think it's a great idea to drug test anyone who receives a taxpayer funded paycheck. I am drug tested because I receive a taxpayer funded paycheck, so why not those receiving public assistance? It's not right to allow those living off the tax payer to use my our money to purchase drugs. If they have enough money for drugs after buying food and other essentials, we are paying them too much.
I'll even go a step further. In addition to drug testing, I'm all for mandatory community service. There is too much trash on the roads, too many children to teach to read, animals in shelters that need tending, visitor centers to run, etc. Even if it's just 20 hours a week, it's better than zero hours of work for a paycheck.
Also, the amount someone receives from welfare needs to be less than working a full time minimum wage job. That might motivate them to do something with their lives other than get fat off the public trust.
Sven
Here you go.
And here's another:
And one more, for the skeptics:
#.Tv3G-1awWrI
So much for the 'All welfare recipients are drug addicts' mantra.
I can name by name 6 people within 5 blocks of me that sell their EBT benefits for 50 cents on the dollar for drugs and alcohol. We do not have a drug/alcohol screening progrm for welfare in our state.
I know there are many people who are decent human beings that need the help, but there are many who take advantage of the system.
Now Culheath, are the lower alcohol/drug rates by your claims a result of lower actual use or the fact that those being tested knew it was coming and abstained? An argument could be made either way and the fact is we will never know.
Ryan4All,
You may want to try reading Equity4All's post again, this time slow down and actually read each word so that you can have an actual understanding if what he is talking about. If you read his post again, you will realize that he is not talking about the people on welfare. He is talking about the elected officials and his point is that if regular Americans have to get drug tests, background checks, and credit checks for a job, why not the politicians. His point is very valid. I understand the welfare hate Ryan more than you will ever now from a personal experience in my life but don't savage Equity4All when that wasn't even what they were talking about. If you want to have a further discussion on welfare abuse, please let me know. I can give you an education on that subject that no professor at any top notch college could ever give you.
Florida tried drug testing with 96% clean rate. I know there are others
Todd... What do you do that you get tested on a regular basis? I know they do pre employment screenings but there are only a FEW jobs (outside of the military) that they can LEGALLY test for drugs outside of an event or indication you may be using.
Brad,
Politicians are typically picked apart by the press and their opponents. While they don't get drug tests, every other aspect of their lives from birth to the present is served up on a silver platter for public consumption. Equity4all is ignoring that fact. I can't think of a single president in the past 30 years whose life wasn't laid bare on the news shows from Reagan to Obama for example.
It's one of the reasons I think some great people that would do a wonderful job in public office will never run for one. They simply don't want their lives picked apart.
MDrn,
Care to provide the secret decoder glasses for your invisible links?
If you can name them why don't you? Turning a blind eye to it only adds to the problem overall.
Why stop at drug testing? Let's weigh them too that way obese people can't get their food fix at MickeyD type establishments. What about alcohol? Or having kids -- lord knows poor people shouldn't have children if they can't afford them so they should be tested for contraception too!
This Legislator is a LOON if he believes a drug test is going to cure the welfare problem, whereas the taxpayers will simply end up paying in other ways where it comes to the police, courts and/or prison when they're forced to rob or prostitute themselves, potentially spreading deadly diseases to unsuspecting victims, to get their next fix. All he will succeed in doing is exchanging one problem (welfare) for another (criminal activity)---trust me welfare is a heck of a lot cheaper!
We as a society need to find better ways to deal with poverty. Just handing people money or drug testing them doesn't address the core of this societal issue that has plagued humans around the world for centuries. I do believe welfare (taxpayer assistance) should always be "temporary" and _repaid— by doing some form of community work such as cleaning parks, mowing school lawns, etc. while also being actively enrolled in school (if they don't have a diploma or GED); receiving job training; or actively looking for work as a pre-requisite to receiving this assistance. This would go much further to reducing any so-called welfare abuse than conducting an expensive drug test.
Ryan---until you walk in someone else's shoes you shouldn't be so judgemental. People don't purposefully become poor, or want to be poor, nor are they all on drugs! Count yourself LUCKY if you or your family haven't had to face harsh economic circumstance because right now there are a lot of highly educated people who have lost their jobs, homes and dignity by asking for government assistance due to such! Don't think you're special as there may come a day you might need a "safety net" and hopefully the _working taxpayers— won't force you to be drug tested just to make sure you're POOR simply because you lost your job due to to "outsourcing" and unable to obtain another one due to a recession. Poverty doesn't only afflict the poor, uneducated or underpriviledged---it can affect anyone at anytime, including you, due to circumstances beyond theirs or your control.
sven ... there's no need for the sarcasm. Newer users are restricted from posting links on NewsVine. No matter how often you TRY to post links as a new user they will always be redacted from the post.
I guess I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt then. Yeah, more sarcasm. I'm bad that way.
Culhealth, from personal experience through life, I would have to disagree with you on that one. I'd like to see your sources, but most welfare recipients i've come across sit at home and do drugs all day instead of looking for a job. Maybe it's a California thing, the welfare state, but 3.5% is a flat out laughable statistic. They are drug testing the sewage in neighborhoods with high welfare concentrations, and you'd be amazed at the results. Nothing should be free in life, especially not taxpayer money, the taxpayer worked hard for it.
here's the Florida test results facts:
www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/
@ True American,
Not that I doubt your personal experience based anecdotal evidence, but it is nevertheless not really the same as an overall science based study of the situation. I have anecdotal evidence myself from past social work dealing with the poor and my evidence leads me to a completely different assessment than yours.
Paul Simon has a tune that includes the lines:
"...still a man hears what he wants to hear
and disregards the rest"
I think we are all pretty much subject to our own preconceptions. There's a lot of stereotypes about the poor that my experience has shown me are completely false. Wide spread drug use and baby producing welfare single moms driving Cadillacs are two of them.
Who says I haven't reported them? Besides there used to be more around here until they got busted for various substance abuse charges.
Most lawmakers should be able to call in their vote. Take for instance the other day when Boehner would not allow them to vote in the affirmative for the tax decrease extension. Two days or so later, Boehner had them vote and pass the Bill. In the meantime, it cost us Taxpayers a lot of money to have those elected officials sit around doing nothing. I say, let's have all those elected officials that are there sitting like wallflowers (I suspect 75% or more) sit back home and do something constructive locally. If and when they need to cast a vote, they can get a text message telling them when, where and how to vote.
um NO.. they are paid whether they are working or sitting around with their heads up their cracks.
Um, couldn't you also state that if we have the technology to allow lawmakers to 'phone in' their votes... couldn't we extend this to the general electorate? Wouldn't it be nice if registered voters could bypass the corruption of the House of Lords.. cough, cough, I mean the Congress and just let people vote on issues American Idol style? And before anyone starts screaming about uninformed voters, we already have that. Most congressmen and congresswomen have their aides cliff note the legislation to them and then simply vote however their party bosses direct them to. Lets put the vote back in our hands. As far as drug testing legislators... do it. I've joined 3 branches of the military (Marines 97-00, Navy 00-04, and Army 10-present) and its odd that after having passed such a rigorous screening for a voluntary service, we still get drug tested regardless of our status as enlisted or officer. Equality is equality. Probable cause is probable cause. Economic conditions are not an adequate or ethical reason to throw out the rule of equality and probable cause. That is unless your a dictator, fascist, or religious fanatic that believes that only your view of the world is correct and everyone else must be punished for 'failing' to see it. If so, then I apologize. Sorry.
Makes you wonder: Is he serious, or is he just making it look good, knowing it won't pass a vote?
All elected officials should be drug tested on a regular basis.
ALL municipal AND government workers should be drug tested DAILY. That includes ALL police.
Now that is a complete waste of money. This law if ever comes to fruition is going to cost the millions they are trying to save.
Well thought out by the politicians!!
As for those of you that want this to happen it's your money their spending that could be used on other useful things like improving the roadways thereby making more jobs. Drug testing will only make one person/company rich, the one that gets the state contract.
Now that is a complete waste of money. This law if ever comes to fruition is going to cost the millions they are trying to save.
Well thought out by the politicians!!
As for those of you that want this to happen it's your money their spending that could be used on other useful things like improving the roadways thereby making more jobs. Drug testing will only make one person/company rich, the one that gets the state contract.
I do work for the government (military) are you really suggesting we need to be drug tested daily? Are you high?
Wow, I have the munchies :-)!!
Another money-maker for the so-called "war on drugs" which has been proven to be a bigger money-sucker than public assistance. Some legislator's friend owns labs...or maybe it is a legislator himself or his wife or brother or "uncle" who owns one!
What's next? Require all assistance recipients to wear uniforms? These legislators need to go home if all they can find to do is to fill their time with this kind of vindictive legislation meant to whittle away at public assistance and make the recipients feel like criminals - they feel badly enough to even need assistance!
The gossips and myths about those who need help need to stop.
if they are doing drugs, they are criminals. And you are crazy to think these idiots in the ghetto feel bad for being on assistance.
We have Ryan here proudly displaying the typical "Group Think" FoxNews Talking Points of Republican Wannabees.
I just love the people who say, "We need to get America back to Work!". They are almost always the ones who never did a days work in their lives or served in Uniform. They get other people to do it and laugh behind their back while they are the ones raking in the real Bucks.
Mitt Romney, his Five Sons and Newt Gingrich come to mind. They are all Draft Dodgers and none of them look like they ever did a days worth of Manual Labor in their Lives, yet they sit back and take Pot Shots at those who get Minimum Wage while sitting in their Air Conditioned comfort demonizing them. They go on to make millions off of Book deals and Lucrative Lobbying Contracts with Freddie Mac all along getting other poor shmucks to do all the Dyeing and Dirty work that is beneath them.
Ted- Just to be clear, you feel it is OK to provide assistance to folks in need but do not want to put checks and balances in place to make sure that the benefit is not abused? It’s OK to be a government funded junkie? I am not a Republican or a Fox news watcher. Rather I am a typical taxpayer that is
getting tired of all the usual business that people feel is OK. Enough is enough. If you want the benefits than there shouldn’t be an issue with basic requirements instead of all you have to do is breathe air and are able to walk to your mailbox.
Hey ted, I bet you saw at least one harry potter movie. Which means you contributed to money leaving the US. And you probably drive a foreign-made vehicle. Again the buck leaves the US. Meanwhile you choose to ridicule Newt and Mitt for their dollar making capabilities, and just for the record you're being hypocritical of these two as I'm certain you know neither and are just judging based on appearance.
Ryan,
I'm with you on your comment about them feeling bad. Maybe 2% or 3% do but the rest think it's normal. If you're raised generation after generation on the Government plantation that's all you know. The Dems that run the urban areas all across the US depend on it like the welfare recipient depends on his/her check and government cheese. The media doesn't even question it. It's become a fact of life like snow is cold and water is wet. I hold all of the Left Wing Progressive/Liberals responsible for the plight of the inner city poor.
Scapegoating a group of people is not going to get the economy going in a Democracy, it worked in Fascist Germany but the outcome was not desirable.
Bringing Jobs back from overseas will. Granted some people do abuse the system, but many others are in this position through no fault of their own as some would like everyone to believe otherwise.
There are Laws that protect Americans from unlawful search and seizure and that does include a persons body. The Democratic point here is that if one is to be searched, there must be evidence. To search people based on the fact that they are on assistance is too broad and is against the law.
Republicans need to stop trying to Scapegoat people that were not responsible for the Financial Melt Down and pursue the ones who created this mess in the first place.
They get paid a Handsome Government Salary to do this along with Gold Plated Benefits and they are the real failures to the Taxpayers.
Who will be the Next Group to be Scapegoated by Republicans? They went after School Teachers, Policeman, Firefighters and the list goes on and on.
You could be the Next Scapegoat and in a Bad Economy the Possibility does exist...
Ted....I guess that you never fly because of the TSA (Thousands of Sexual Assailants) because it is a direct violation of the 4th amendment ...You know the one that guarantees you the right against unlawful search and seizure....yes? And yet it is done thousands of times each and every day.
Drug tests for the welfare recipient should at best be random, as well as for Food stamps, section 8 housing and the like. Furthermore I would like to see welfare as a limited entitlement...say 10 years on a reducing scale where each year the recipient gets less and less until at the ten year mark their benefit is done and cannot be repeated.
How typical for Republicans to attack the Worker Bees instead of the idiot who wanted to see what happens when you spray the Hive with insecticide...
I would be happy if John Boehner received a daily Sobriety test. OK John, close your eyes and touch your nose.
Did you even read the article? It was a Democrat who brought it up! It was the second sentence of the article!
John, Read it again. The Democrat is against it, the Republican wants to follow through on the Scapegoating.
You are right! He is CLEARLY against this bill!
Try again John.
I tell you what Ted, YOU explain to me what in this article upholds your assertion.
PLEASE!
I find it quite disturbing that not only do law makers who take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States they seem eager to further erode the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments but it seems like fewer Americans even know or understand the content of those rights when outrage is replaced by complicity.
Sad and difficult days ahead-and hardly anyone sees it coming...
4th ammendment died when our police were trained to circumvent it whenever possible.
all goverment employees should be tested. police, fire, librarians, politicians, park distric, all of them. its my tax dollars and i dont want to pay for a drug addict to work for me. it about time it is suggested...now its time to act!!
I can't be screened to be on public assistance, but, have to submit to screening as a condition of employment?
What's wrong here?
I just love the people who say, "We need to get America back to Work!". They are almost always the ones who never did a days work in their lives or served in Uniform. They get other people to do it and laugh behind their back while they are the ones raking in the real Bucks.
Mitt Romney, his Five Sons and Newt Gingrich come to mind. They are all Draft Dodgers and none of them look like they did a days worth of Manual Labor in their Lives, yet they sit back and take Pot Shots at those who get Minimum Wage while sitting in their Air Conditioned comfort demonizing them. They go on to make millions off of Book deals and Lucrative Lobbying Contracts with Freddie Mac all along getting other poor shmucks to do all the Dyeing and Dirty work that is beneath them.
ted - Obama has eliminated many people from even looking for a job. Do you think if unemployment was lower the economy might improve? Or do you believe more government handouts are the answer?
Joyce -- the economy was tanking in 2006 BEFORE Obama was elected in 2008...do you just make this stuff up? The US citizenry suffers from "Short Term Memory Syndrome" as it can never seem to remember when something happened or even WHO was in Office WHEN it happened.
This bill is a waste of taxpayer $$$. An expensive drug test will not cure or cut down on welfare problems, as it will be exchanged for a criminal ones when they're forced to engage in activitites such as panhandling, robbery or prostitution to get their next fix...the problem just doesn't "go away". FYI, this could also potentially cost taxpayers a heck of a lot more in policing, courts and throwing them in prison ($45K) v. a small welfare check ($8k) based on annual outlays if one would take the time to do the math. Sadly, too many Legislators and the voting public don't have the capacity to think critically about such complex subjects and believe passing a law directed at every social or govenment ailment will magically "fix it". It's no wonder we continue to create more problems than we seem to solve....BIG sigh.
I'd like Joyce to explain to me how Obama has expanded welfare... I don't remember anything about that being passed...
Yes, SpryLynnx, 2006 was the year the DEMOCRATS took over Congress...coincidence? Methinks NOT!
This proposed bill sounds fair to me but only if the Lawmakers that legislate it are subject to the same requirements as the citizen .
This is not " their " country , it is " our " country and they merely work for us .
I agree. ALL welfare recipients should be drug tested. That means ALL of the bankers that recieved welfare, ALL of the Saudi's that we sell weapons to, ALL governments that we send money to, AND EVERYONE THAT PAYS TAXES. Then we should execute ALL registered republiCOns.
Please put down you keyboard and go take your meds
otherBob.
The Statement is true, the BANKSTERS were bailed out with Taxpayers Dollars on George W. Bushes watch.
That my friend is Welfare in Reverse.
Privatize the Profits and Socialize the Losses.
It is not only Undeniable, it is indefensible...
Uh oh. If the prez can "do a little blow" and still be prez why waste time and money? It's the cool thing to do now. Maybe they should just have more beer summits and add "a little blow" to them to set a good example for the next generation of kids. Isn't that what this is all about?
Show the next aspiring group of high-schoolers you can succeed to any level with drugs and alcohol at the taxpayers expense. Oh, and don't forget the immoral behavior too....
You are demonstrating that the power of zero is a big fat ZERO?
We should drug test with a time machine - everyone's whole life...
If you ever did drugs, were even in the room exposed to others doing drugs, if you ever saw drugs on TV, if you lived down the street from someone who looked like he could possibly be related to someone who used to do drugs...
THE TESTS SHOW LESS THAN 3% POSITIVE -- GET IT? NO DRUGS! COMPRENDE SENOR?
Oddly enough they say it would cost too much and be illegal to test them. Is it free and legal to test everyone else?
Exactly what I was thinking. How can it be cost prohibitive to test our elected officials, and at the same tme be profitable to test all welfare recipients? The only answer is that they count the welfare not paid as profit, the motive for the testing citizens is to deny them welfare. There is no such motive for elected officials, so some of our elected officials have apparently concluded bigotry is a good thing?
85% of Americans are on some type of drug...nuf said
What good will testing the bums in office do.
I am sure most are on a prescribed "Happy Pills" from their doctors..
Besides it's not like they will make it public knowledge if they were on drugs anyway...
The system is rigged for the 1%, nothing will change until the 99% force change
You're so insightful and full of facts, it's amazing. This 99% @!$%# is extremely old by now-as it's obvious the OWS crews have zero intellectual plans to create any sort of change. They're most detailed thought is "tax the rich" or something like it. The main problem being they have basically zero representation in any office-kind of key to our system of government. Get off your ass, find a job-any job, make money and contribute to society and stop acting like you're owed anything. Do something for yourself instead of relying on the rest of us. When Americans became so lazy and entitled I don't understand...it's pathetic.
How about a law requiring our public officials to actually show up and do their job, you know..... actually vote on things and improve the quality of American life. A fine for missing days at work as a public official would be nice as well. Who knows we might actually start gettings things done.... but wait that would be bad for politics
The only thing that will happen by drug testing welfare recipients is more kids will go hungry. Also, I am totally against testing those who are eligible for unemployment. Those people WORKED to EARN that benefit. There is no reason to drug test them other than to create yet another class of criminal.
Suggesting that respresentatives take a drug test is not the point, they work and don't recieve public assistance. The bottom line is that too many people are receiving these benefits and are not using them for the purpose it is attended. I see alot of people in the grocery store asking other shoppers if they can use their EBT card in exchange for cash. It's shameful, yes i agree with grug testing welfare recipients. If it's against your rights i suggest find a job and get off welfare!!!!
Yes they do get money from the tax payers and a whole lot more of it.. just like the poor wretches they want to vilify. Our fearless leaders are always looking to score points on the backs of the poor and downtrodden, don't believe the lies as long as they get money from contributors to say something is bad that is who they follow.
Life liberty and pursuit of happiness only pertains to those in the upper elite..if your poor you become a second class citizen dependent on what ever you can get to make it thru the day...this is not a free country its owned by the 1% and the 1% owns all the politicians. So you can reason this anyway you want to but that's the basic truth..and someone will benefit from this drug testing money someone who donates to politicians will profit from this and guess what they also want the poor to pay for the drug test so you see its all a scam tied into a scare tactic battle cry to save money that will in the end be wasted on something else maybe they can just finance more prisons to put the drug taking poor into ..and those who are found to be on drugs and are poor do they get tossed in the gutter to die is that what you want? Do you want civil unrest,misery undo suffering on poor wretches then you are a phony American smug and complacent, arrogant much like the old slave plantation owners of a by gone era with no human compassion except for your own riches. Shame on all of you who agrees with this conservative tactic...Let them eat cake or mudd.
wow, I'm glad I don't live in your world.
That occured to me as well. Those on welfare are unlikely to have health insurance, so any postive test would likely not be the result of a legal prescription. While our elected officials likely would test positive for prescribed drugs. Frankly I don't care if the drugs are prescribed no not, do I really want an individual representing me when they are taking controlled substances like morphine? I think not. The cost of testing should be burdened by each of our government representatives themselves. No cost to the tax payer.
I'm proudly Republican, and a gov. employee
I get randomly drug tested at work, and I believe all gov. employees should be tested randomly, including elected ones.
As far as the cost of drug testing, it's not so much as you might think, they have cups that you don't have to send to a lab, you just pee in it, and in a couple minutes it gives you a pos. or neg. for 7 different drugs, the problem is, who is going to do the testing? the probation office? already overworked understaffed, the welfare office? same same...
They should also test the anti-gay righties to see if they're gay. Michelle's husband Marcus comes to mind.
you seem to be really infatuated with him, maybe you should look in the mirror.
Sounds like your handle is more of an offer then a statement.