Kentucky lawmaker wants random drug testing for welfare recipients

[babylonsister]

Kentucky lawmaker wants random drug testing for welfare recipients

By Jack Brammer at 12:00am on Jan 17, 2011 — [e-mail] Modified at 6:52am on Jan 17, 2011


FRANKFORT — A state lawmaker wants random drug testing of adult Kentuckians who receive food stamps, Medicaid or other state assistance.

Those who fail the test would lose their benefits under House Bill 208, filed by Rep. Lonnie Napier, R-Lancaster.

Napier's proposal has won the backing of powerful House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, but critics say it would stigmatize welfare recipients and possibly harm their innocent children.

"I'm not a hard-hearted guy," said Napier. "I believe there is a need for public assistance for those who need it, but I understand some are using these funds to buy drugs."

Napier said the goal "is to get people off drugs."

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/01/17/1600950/kentucky-lawmaker-wants-random.html#ixzz1BJaRhrWg

[rfranklin]

1. In all fairness, legislators should be given drug tests and ...

be evaluated for alcohol addiction.

[Angry Dragon]

3. +1000

I was thinking the same thing

[tinymontgomery]

12. Agree

K and R

[Lucky Luciano]

14. LOL!

[Odin2005]

2. Criminalizing poverty. Ugh.

[fascisthunter]

4. idiots... punishing people doesn't work!!!!

[notadmblnd]

5. How about random drug testing for lawmakers?

[JitterbugPerfume]

6. someone I love is an addict

and I wish it were that simple. addiction is a complex problem.

[pinboy3niner]

7. I wonder how Napier would like it...

...if we investigated what he's spending his taxpayer-funded state salary on? And if we cut off his paycheck if we find some things there that we don't like. Porn? Drugs? Alcohol? We could form a Morality Committee to come up with some arbitrary rules!

[BlueIris]

8. Yes, because the threat of random drug tests is going to stop addiction.

Or magically make someone who can't afford food be able to buy food.

[bluestateguy]

9. A few states have gone the route of fingerprinting welfare recipients

Massachusetts (a William Weld thing) and Texas are two examples. They spent more money on fancy fingerprinting and tracking equipment than anything that they MIGHT have saved rooting out a few cases of welfare fraud. Bottom line is it cost them more money in the end.

[Fumesucker]

18. But that money went to well placed private contractors to provide the equipment..

Hence it wasn't "wasted" in the view of the politicians.

Only when money goes to actual poor people is it wasted.

[rasputin1952]

10. If there will ever be a break in the substance abuse situation around

this nation, it will not come from criminalization of poverty, but only through a several step approach, to include, (but limited to), gainful employment, decriminalization of non-violent drug offenses and education. Even then, there will always be a problem, for even the wealthy and well educated are susceptible to substance abuse.

The main thing to remember is that one of the reasons drug abuse is prevalent is because there is money to be made and as long as it is a criminal offense, the expense will go with the risk involved in procuring and distributing the substance. The same held true during the Prohibition Era, it not only did not work, it actually filled the coffers of organized crime allowing it to expand dramatically.

To be sure, I don't want a crack addled individual driving a school bus or anything else for that matter, but in this case, the driver, being employed would not be susceptible to the law proposed. Only the destitute would be affected, and treatment would not be an option, only jail or prison, and one must add the expense of foster children taken from their parents and passed out to people that will take a check for watching over the children at often a minimal level.

Essentially, this is a remarkably stupid piece of legislation that has consequences far beyond the limited view of how to deal with problems than this clown ha.

[Statistical]

13. +100. Education, education and education.

Your other points are right on the money.

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it actually served to fund organized crime.
Why would politicians think it would work for another addictive substance.

Some % of the population will always use drugs, and some % of that will abuse them. As long as you have human nature that isn't going to change. We can only hope to minimize that number, and provide treatment (which also will only "recover" some % of the addicted). Penalties won't change that.

[rasputin1952]

19. I recall many years ago when I was stationed at Ft Polk, LA...

on a country road I found a combination gas station, liquor store, gunshop and laundromat all attached to each other. All I could think of was, "at least the people that stop here had clean clothes after they died further down the road".

My point is, it's as if no one thinks, "what can possibly go wrong". I am amazed and amused that the clamor of the masses, after being suitably stirred up by any of a myriad of social problems, gets politicians to address said social issue, inevitably there are serious negative results.

Terrorism is another one of the issues that riles people up, and because of the acts of some madmen, at a horrible cost to the country in human lives, there was a sudden jolt to the conservative view that more stringent laws were required. The part no one seems to have thought of was that individual Liberty would be serious curtailed, and that is precisely what happened. There are now entities that go entirely unregulated and devoid of any due process of law that are gleening vast amounts of information on people that would never once in their lives have anything to do with a terroristic threat. Very few of us with reason were heard above the din of, "protect us!". The government these people so love to despise was now their savior, and they were willing to pay the price with their Liberty, and the blood of our sons and daughters... never accomplishing the mission of getting bin-Laden.

We are, quite often, our own worst enemies.

[Lint Head]

11. So. Spend more money to fight the lost drug war and no money to

help people in unfortunate situations. These cretins are sick!

[sarcasmo]

15. Engler tired this in Michigan back in the 90's and it didn't fair to well for him.

[Javaman]

16. Okay, suppose these random drug test happen...

so if someone is found positive, what does that mean?

"Under the proposal, adults on welfare who test positive for drugs would lose their assistance. They could get it back by passing a drug test at a later date determined by the state."

And what exactly do the people who get "kicked off" going to do between times? Will they get proper treatment to get off the drug? will they then be put into a rehab and get job training?

did it ever occur to this asshole napier that some people, after living in crushing poverty for so fucking long have no hope and turn to drugs or alcohol?

Rather than condemn a whole section of Ky pop, perhaps asshole napier could try to come up with a way to prevent people from having to go on welfare? Like attracting businesses to KY or jobs training or just anything to help people in poverty?

in the mean time, he need to shut the F up and stop criminalizing the poor.

repukes are great on sound bites but really shitty on reality.

jackass napier needs to be fucking poor.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Since so many of our lawmakers behave as if they're on drugs

let's test them also.