Marketplace
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
|
|
Fair ~ River stage: 36.64 Falling Saturday, November 7, 2009 |
RSS
 Print
 Email link
 Respond to editor
 Read comments (23)
 Share link
Crowell bill would require drug testing for public assistance recipientsFriday, February 29, 2008State Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, introduced a bill Wednesday that would require drug testing for people receiving benefits from the Missouri Department of Social Services Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. In a prepared statement Crowell said his reason for filing the bill was so that "the people utilizing these funds are not abusing this service, and are really trying to improve their quality of life." The program provides assistance to needy families with children by promoting job preparation, work and marriage, according to a news release from Crowell's office. From the news release: Sen. Crowell's legislation would require participants and otherwise qualified applicants for Temporary Assistance to participate in a drug screening program. Any participant or applicant that tests positive for a controlled substance would be declared ineligible for the program for three years. Those who test positive will also be referred to a substance abuse treatment program. "A drug problem is a serious affliction that needs to be dealt with, and I want to make sure that help is available to these individuals," said Sen. Crowell. "However, I don't think drug users should be able to receive state funds that could possibly feed their habit." After being introduced on the Senate floor, the bill is referred to a Senate committee where public testimony is heard and the legislation is discussed. Comments  Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
|
Enter your email address to subscribe to our mailing lists:
|
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
Google
Good Job Jason.
I think anyone who recieves state or federal assistance should be tested randomly. Any employee of the state or federal government is subject to random drug testing. If they test positive, they could lose thier job therefore they lose thier check. The same should go for those recieving funds, use drugs lose your check.
I have to take a drug test at my job and I work for a living. Why haven't we been doing this for years? Thanks Jason!!!
I wonder how much pharmaceutical money this will net Crowell? Those with chemical dependencies who are on government assistance are FAR more likely to simply change which drugs they choose to use than they are to either quit using or quit cashing checks. Being that prescription drug usage would be the primary beneficiary of such a law that industry has an obvious financial incentive.
I don't like my tax money going to addicts, but drug testing for a dozen or so groups of easy testable drugs among the thousands of classifications of drugs is a silly approach. I guess Crowell never took enough chemistry classes to learn there are a near infinite number of chemicals that can get you high as a kite. In all likelihood chemical abusers will just be pushed to more dangerous substances; besides most of the pharmaceutical drugs virtually all hallucinogenic & inhalant class drugs are either impossible or at least prohibitively expensive to test for.
I think all the law makers should be tested for drugs and alcohol!Civil Liberties right out the window!Whats next?Mandatory VD testing!
I thought this was a good idea when I saw it on a news program not long ago being proposed as "RJ's Law" in California.
I commend Crowell for getting this in the works.
Go Crowell! It's about time we get some sensible legislation enacted! I'm glad the program also promotes job preparation!
I still believe they could get more work progams in place as opposed to just handing money out.
Greywolf, Yeah they never see the "big" picture. Even though I don't agree with folks abusing drugs, this will be what will happen. That drug addicted mother will NOT apply for assistance or will be denied. Who does it really harm? Her children. This program is for "Needy Families." Sure, you'll prevent the drug addicted parent from getting assistance, but in the process you will starve his/her kids.
I'm pretty sure that such a law would or could be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the working man is drug tested, he loses his job and his kids starve.
I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be near as many people on welfare.I know quite a few people that are on welfare and are total druggies and alcoholics.It burns me up.I'll have to work the rest of my life to support all these low lifes that's just too lazy to get off their dead-beat butts and work for what they get.
What a concept. Most of us who do work have been subjected to drug testing for years. The time has come for accountability from welfare recipients. Of course, they know we certainly feel for their children and believe me they use that knowledge well. I have seen some of the best welfare recipients in action-they know exactly what they are doing. If they worked as hard at a job as they do at avoiding work-no telling how far they could go in the work place. Thanks Jason for making a stand for the tax payers of Missouri.
I applaud State Senator Jason Crowell for taking this important stand. Why should drug tests not be required? A person can be rejected for acceptance to jobs sensitive in nature, so why should our tax dollars subsidize illegal drug usage. Persons in sensitive postitions, such as police officers, officers of the courts, school teachers/administrators and so on can be removed/fired if tested positive for drugs. Great work Senator Crowell. I wish you luck in bringing your bill into law, but I expect a big fight from many, including the ACLU who will probably argue that how a recipient spends tax subsidies is of no concern to Missouri tax payers.
We need federal laws like this! I'm tired of our tax money going to support drug habits, and alcoholics. As far as their children are concerned, there are quite a few people on waiting lists to adopt children that will accept them and give them a proper home where they will not grow up with good role models instead of dead beats.
Greywolf
Then those users can certainly use those civil liberities to go out and get a job and quit living/getting high off my tax dollar. This is common sense law and should have been around long ago.
I agree with the drug testing for lawmakers. It should also apply to judges and governors, the president, and other executive branch officials. They are each taking a lot bigger paycheck off the public treasury than people on public assistance.
As for the drug addicts who get a welfare check, cutting off their check might seem like the right thing to do. But if you think about it, most of those people are not going to be willing or capable of getting and holding down a job anyway. If they no longer get a welfare check will they suddenly get straightened out? Not likely. Most will do what it takes to support their drug habit which includes all sorts of crimes. The sensible approach would be enforcement of the drug laws and mandatory treatment. Some might then have at least a chance of getting straightened out and eventually be off public assistance.
The other thing I see wrong with this testing(especially since the government would be running it) is that it would likely cost more for the testing than what was saved by denying benefits to those who tested positive. Something like this No Child Left Behind business where the schools have to spend tons of money for testing materials and the emphasis is on teaching children how to take tests instead of how to actually learn.
Long past due.
Compassion and caring should be extended by family and churches where it is donated. Not by the government where it is taken from the public by politicians who hustle votes by promissing a bag of weed for every deed (better known to people who actually work for a living as taxation without representation). The government should PROTECT the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not PROVIDE life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Oh well "Who is John Gault"?
Ayn Rand would have been proud!!
Cost really isn't the issue here. A Narc-Tec five panel costs less than three bucks. Much more will be saved and tax dollars would be less likely spent on drugs. This should really have no opposition. As for the points coffeelover attempts I would submit that we have laws against stealing and "all sorts of crime" too. It is not my obligation as a tax payer to provide subsistance for someone whom is not "willing" to work. Debt is 9.65 Trillion and rising.
this law should be enacted for atleast the most dominant illegal drugs.meth,pot,herion,ectasy ...so on.to start off with.
if they are found dirty they may only recieve assistance if they complete the required rehab program and have random testing afterwards.
not only does this help those adults but may stop this horrible cycle of welfare.
there are many that need assistance for a short time of crises,which is what it was designed for.not for people to stay on it for years on end.
not only does it hurt the economic side of things it also has favored more people into laziness,bad morals,drugs as a result the children learn these things, and ... oh look there we go with the whole cycle all over again.
and oh wait what about the divorce rate?
hmm lets see,would a spouse up and leave with the children if they didnt have welfare to take them in anytime they didnt want to deal with lifes problems.i dont think so!!!
so its all just a huge circle that keeps getting bigger and bigger . when it all started out just to help the people in short term need to get them back on there feet.
good luck with this bill.i hope it can be passed in some manner.i do not think we need to overcomplicate things by adding a few thousand chemicals in this bill. i think if you hit the most abused top 12 u would make a HUGE difference not only in the economy but in society.remember its a circle, lets start a new circle of morals,hard work,and family.its taken many years now to make this circle, it will take a long time to undo this unfortunate abused system that was meant to help.
boopunn73: All the drugs you listed are not among the standard 5 tested for. MDMA/Ecstasy is not typically picked up without a much more expensive extended test (though since a certain percentage of black market Ecstasy either contains amphetamines or is straight up amphetamines that is mislabeled some users might get picked up). LSD, GHB, Mushrooms, Roofies, Ketamine etc... are not ever going to be picked up by any sort of cheap testing. Things like Oxycotin, Vicodin, Valium, Percocet, Phenobarbital, snorting Ritalin or Dexedrine while they all can be tested for are not in the standard tests and even if they were how much additional effort does it take to figure out who has legitimate prescriptions for those or not?
Besides which drugs make up the "most abused 12" will change as soon as their would be widespread testing for them. Users aren't attached to only smoking 100% pure crack for example, but to the physical high it gives them. If another substance can provide a similar high and is available to them they will use that instead. All widespread drug testing would do is provide the right market incentives to supply users with a slightly different assortment of drugs. Was crack cocaine or meth very popular 30 years ago? They both certainly existed back then, but few people bothered with them. Times change and popular drugs change.
Right now there are probably 3 or 4 government check cashers whose substance of choice is alcohol or prescription drugs for every current one that uses drugs picked up in a standard drug test. Best case all this law would do is shift a few folks from group B to group A.