Missouri House to consider welfare drug testing bill.

[Seedersandleechers]

Missouri House members are set to consider legislation to require drug tests for welfare recipients.

The bill requires the Department of Social Services to develop a testing regimen for applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Tests would be given to people whom state officials reasonably believe have used drugs.

Recipients who test positive for drugs would be ineligible for benefits for one year. But the children of adults who test positive could continue receiving their benefits through a third party.

House leaders planned to consider the legislation Wednesday.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/26/2611017/missouri-house-to-consider-welfare.html



This bill is to be debated today. Some of the comments after the article are deplorable.

[Brickbat]

1. I approve of this

if the house members are also tested.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Recursion]

7. TANF (assuming that's what is meant by "welfare") isn't "free money" either

It has work requirements. Remember 1996?

[MattBaggins]

11. Yes they are

[FiveGoodMen]

10. I don't.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Brickbat]

12. Just a little reductio ad absurdum, is all.

[toddwv]

2. I have no problem with this.

They should also tack on a requirement that adult recipients have at least a high school education or are working (within a reasonable time frame) to get one.

[antigone382]

14. What about adults who are mentally or physically disabled?

What about adults who are on prescribed pain medication (for legitimate reasons) which look exactly like heroin on a drug test?

What about the cost of developing and maintaining this system, such as training and retaining trained medical professionals (not cheap), medical supplies (very not cheap), data collection and storage (probably not as expensive as other things but definitely not free), and the inevitable legal appeals and challenges that are going to take place (way not cheap) after instituting such a law?

What about the necessity to increase the size and scope of law enforcement, in response to likely increases in crime, as people try to get their basic resources some other way?

On the whole, doing an actual cost-benefit analysis, a law like this is a much greater expense than the system it is trying to replace.

[Erose999]

4. Recieving welfare is not probable cause for the state to assume one is on drugs or involved in

criminal activity. This violates the 4th amendment, does it not?

[Recursion]

6. Only if they were criminally charged if they pop positive

Still, this is an idiotic idea.

[Lance_Boyle]

8. Clearly it is not, and the article (even the blurb quoted in the OP) spells that out.

A reasonable suspicion that a person receiving welfare is using drugs (which could trigger testing) might come from arrest records. But the proposed law is clear about requiring reasonable suspicion, not wholesale testing of every welfare recipient.

[Loki]

5. And the next big question Missouri

Who will pay for the drug testing,monitor the collection, perform the screenings and make sure the results are accurately reported? Perhaps the tooth fairy? I will again suggest that all Republican lawmakers undergo a monthly colonoscopy until a functioning brain is found.

[My Good Babushka]

9. It's going to be an enormous waste of money and manpower

The number of drug users among welfare recipients is no greater than the drug use in the general population. And then what kind of treatment are they going to offer the few drug addicts that they find?

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. I've been in favor of drug testing the legislature for some time now

Many of them behave as if they're on drugs.