Welfare drug testing signed into law - GA

[E-man930]

While I am against any sort of welfare period this is at least a step in the right direction for my home state.

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/17468692/georgians-must-pass-drug-test-to-get-welfare-benefits

[TAZ]

I agree with the idea, but I foresee a lot of crying, race baiting and class warfare references followed by law suits and an eventual dismissal of the law as unconstitutional. I'd love to see it stand and spread around the country with the holes of weeding out as many POS oxygen thieves raiding my wallet each year as possible.

[Scoby]

I'd love to see SC follow suit.

[Reagans Rascals]

how can anyone even begin to argue against this?

I think the same should be done with anyone receiving federal student aid... we pay taxes for you to get an education... not get high on the gubments dime

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

THats awsome I hope it works out well and can be used as an example for others states

[SHIVAN]

It's a good step, but it will be botched in no time.

[R/Tdrvr]

Florida tried to pass a similar law, until the ACLU got involved. It was shot down. :rolleyes: Won't be surprised one bit if the same happens here.

[austinN4]

how can anyone even begin to argue against this?
They already are - read the story behind the link. BTW, it is our dime(s), not the government's.

[SteyrAUG]

I'd rather see mandatory birth control.

[Reagans Rascals]

They already are - read the story behind the link. BTW, it is our dime(s), not the government's.

precisely why I prefaced it with "we pay taxes for you to get an education"....

they fail to understand that the money they are receiving isn't coming from some fictional change purse the government filled with its own endeavors... the money comes from we the people

I'd just really like to know... how can one argue that drug testing those on welfare or receiving any government assistance in any way shape or form shouldn't be allowed...

I mean literally, what is their arguement? Invasion of privacy? Its not private if you are claiming you can't work and are receiving tax funded subsistence, while engaging in acts that prevent you from obtaining a job in the first place...

Its not illegal for jobs to drug screen... why is any government program to be considered different... I am literally astonished

what litigation is there to bring against this.... what actual legally defensible argument could there possibly be to stop this from occurring?

if you have fallen on hard economic times... how do drugs factor into that?.... so because you are poor you should be allowed to do drugs? and therefore since you are indeed poor and cannot afford to buy both drugs and food... then Uncle Sam should cover the difference?

[warpigM-4]

I am all for it if the working Class has to pee in a cup to get a job and keep it then the scum sitting on their ass should have to jump through even more hoops in my eyes .

But i am sure it will be a up hill battle with the race card being pulled and everyone screaming it is a violation of their civil rights :rolleyes:

[mtdawg169]

Proud to be a Georgian. Now if they just would have passed the suppressor hunting bill....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[austinN4]

Not to divert the OP, but there is some justice occasionally - very rarely, but occasionally:

Amanda Clayton, Michigan Lottery Winner Who Used Food Stamps, Charged With Welfare Fraud
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/amanda-clayton-michigan-lottery-winner-food-stamps_n_1431777.html

Back on topic - I wonder what a drug test would have turned up?

[Sensei]

how can anyone even begin to argue against this?

I think the same should be done with anyone receiving federal student aid... we pay taxes for you to get an education... not get high on the gubments dime

Interestingly, many of the opponents are libertarians who see the testing as a violation of the Constitution's 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. Keith Larson is a libertarian talk radio personality in Charlotte (News Talk AM1110 / 99.3 WBT) who has spent a fair amount of time discussing the issue, and is very much opposed to the testing. While Ron Paul has never addressed the issue specifically, many "analysts" believe that he would oppose the testing based on his opposition vote on HR 4550 in 1998 that called for drug testing federal employees (see last paragraph of this article http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/what-would-president-ron-pauls-drug-policy-look-like/253620). To be fair, it is very likely that Paul would also vote against federal welfare IF it ever came before his desk.

As for me, I'm very much in favor of the testing. I believe that the 4th Amendment only applies to drug testing if one operates under the assumption that welfare is a right.

[Grizzly16]

I love the idea of it but fear it is much easier to cheat on drug tests than people realize. Add to that the glut of extra tests that will be performed under this law and you are set up to spend more money on tests while having very little positive impact on welfare money being used for drugs.

[CarlosDJackal]

[HEAVY SARCASM] This is racism!! This is just another attempt by "the man" to maintain his control over the masses.[/HEAVY SARCASM]

[Moose-Knuckle]

Good on them, I don't think it will go anywhere once the NBPP sets up camp and gets air time and Jesse and Al start another circle jerk.

[Armati]

I think the same should be done with anyone receiving federal student aid... we pay taxes for you to get an education... not get high on the gubments dime

Here, here!

And, let's not stop there. We should also have mandatory drug testing for ALL govt employees, contractors, politicians and anyone else who gets a govt check.

Strangely, most politicians are very much against having their own urine tested.

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

[Reagans Rascals]

Here, here!

And, let's not stop there. We should also have mandatory drug testing for ALL govt employees, contractors, politicians and anyone else who gets a govt check.

Strangely, most politicians are very much against having their own urine tested.

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

awesome clip..... gotta love the double standard...

if the part time employee washing dishes in the deli at a Kroger grocery store has to be submit to a drug screening.... how can those who are passing the laws not be subjected to the same thing...

[Quiet-Matt]

I know some folks here that are going to be Up-Set! :haha:
I think I'll call now and give em a hard time.

[HES]

Interestingly, many of the opponents are libertarians who see the testing as a violation of the Constitution's 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. Keith Larson is a libertarian talk radio personality in Charlotte (News Talk AM1110 / 99.3 WBT) who has spent a fair amount of time discussing the issue, and is very much opposed to the testing. While Ron Paul has never addressed the issue specifically, many "analysts" believe that he would oppose the testing based on his opposition vote on HR 4550 in 1998 that called for drug testing federal employees (see last paragraph of this article http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/what-would-president-ron-pauls-drug-policy-look-like/253620). To be fair, it is very likely that Paul would also vote against federal welfare IF it ever came before his desk.

As for me, I'm very much in favor of the testing. I believe that the 4th Amendment only applies to drug testing if one operates under the assumption that welfare is a right.

And this libertarian disagrees with him and those with him. No one forces you to accept taxpayer funded assistance. You have no right to it. If you want the assistance, then you need to jump through hoops.

Of course this side steps the fact that I have a hard time with providing benefits.

Now here is one argument I can get behind so far as being against this. It was reported that Florida's efforts were not cost effective. It was reported that the state spent more in screenings than they were losing to violators. I am dubious as I do not believe that many were tested, but it it were true, then I would be against it for that reason.

[Sensei]

And this libertarian disagrees with him and those with him. No one forces you to accept taxpayer funded assistance. You have no right to it. If you want the assistance, then you need to jump through hoops.

Of course this side steps the fact that I have a hard time with providing benefits.

Now here is one argument I can get behind so far as being against this. It was reported that Florida's efforts were not cost effective. It was reported that the state spent more in screenings than they were losing to violators. I am dubious as I do not believe that many were tested, but it it were true, then I would be against it for that reason.

Agreed. The way I see it, welfare is a privilege - not a right. There are many privileges that we enjoy but must sacrifice some personal liberty in the process. For example, people must submit to some level of medical screening to have the privilege of a driver's license or joining the military. The police can even randomly drug test you at DUI check points if you choose to exercise the privilege of driving on public roads. We also submit to security screening if we choose to fly. I really don't see how the privilege of living off the public dime is any different. Having said that, a number of libertarians oppose diver's licenses, DUI checkpoints, and airport screening.

As for the cost effectiveness, I can't image that it's not effective provided that all drugs are disqualifiers (not just hard stuff). That's right, I'd kick them off all public assistance for blowing positive for nicotine, alcohol, THC, etc. Where the hell do get the time to drink booze and smoke cigarettes while living off public assistance and Medicaid?

[Armati]

The police can even randomly drug test you at DUI check points if you choose to exercise the privilege of driving on public roads. We also submit to security screening if we choose to fly.

That logic would argue that you should actually be drug tested before you are issued your licence for that 'privilege'. And, you should have to provide a urine sample at any traffic stop, or any other govt check point like TSA. Using govt services should not mean you must surrender your right to privacy.

I can assure you, your average right wing gun owner will rue the day they surrendered this much power over to the govt.

[Sensei]

That logic would argue that you should actually be drug tested before you are issued your licence for that 'privilege'. And, you should have to provide a urine sample at any traffic stop, or any other govt check point like TSA. Using govt services should not mean you must surrender your right to privacy.

I can assure you, your average right wing gun owner will rue the day they surrendered this much power over to the govt.

Most of us believe in proportional intervention based on the degree of risk posed by one's utilizing privileges vs. intrusion in private affairs. For example, the DMV only checks your vision when you get a license. However, the police can use more invasive tactics when we choose to go a step further and actually drive on public roads. However, this intrusion is proportional to the public risk posed by intoxicated drivers abusing their privilege. On the other hand, you will not see wide spread urine drug screens at airport check points because they don't determine the degree of intoxication (they are qualitative tests) and there is trivial risk to passengers posed by intoxicated flyers provided that the intoxicated individual is not so inebriated to be an obvious threat to safety. In other words, there is an element of common sense to the laws which are best kept at a local level.

[Armati]

Right, basic risk management.

And the hazard we are trying to mitigate with drug testing for welfare?

Again, under the guise of managing risk, gun owners could easily find themselves subjected to drug testing, vision test, and other medical qualifications. The Argument of Utility:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Under this model, gun owners could EASILY be asked to submit to the same medical qualifications the DOT requires of long haul truckers. Be careful what you wish for.

Yeah, it's cool and all to ask those dead beat ghetto bunnies to pee in a cup to get their welfare check. That will not be so cool when Obama and the Justice Brothers are demanding CCW holders to do the same.

[montanadave]

Now here is one argument I can get behind so far as being against this. It was reported that Florida's efforts were not cost effective. It was reported that the state spent more in screenings than they were losing to violators. I am dubious as I do not believe that many were tested, but it it were true, then I would be against it for that reason.


As for the cost effectiveness, I can't image that it's not effective provided that all drugs are disqualifiers (not just hard stuff). That's right, I'd kick them off all public assistance for blowing positive for nicotine, alcohol, THC, etc. Where the hell do get the time to drink booze and smoke cigarettes while living off public assistance and Medicaid?

While I realize the reporting of the NYT is viewed with more than a little skepticism by many members, here is a portion of an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?hp) published yesterday:

"From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order [Scriven issued a temporary injunction to halt the testing pending adjudication of its constitutionality]— 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases."

To lanesmith's point, my understanding is that the drug testing screened only for illicit drugs. This would exclude alcohol or nicotine and, I assume, anyone testing positive for opioids, benzos, or amphetamines would by given a pass if they could provide a legitimate prescription for these drugs. Several state officials and drug-testing advocates responded to charges that the testing was actually costing the state additional money by stating, "The drug testing law was really meant to make sure that kids were protected."

If that, indeed, was the primary purpose and, given the multitude of studies pointing to the deleterious impact on children of alcohol and tobacco use in the family home, it would seem appropriate to screen for these drugs as well.

I don't have a solution but the whole drug-testing policy debate opens a real can of worms. It apparently does nothing to reduce government spending. On the contrary, it appears to cost more. And moving to screen drug use in the family home "to protect the children" smacks of social engineering and government intrusion.

[Sensei]

Right, basic risk management.

And the hazard we are trying to mitigate with drug testing for welfare?

Again, under the guise of managing risk, gun owners could easily find themselves subjected to drug testing, vision test, and other medical qualifications. The Argument of Utility:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Under this model, gun owners could EASILY be asked to submit to the same medical qualifications the DOT requires of long haul truckers. Be careful what you wish for.

Yeah, it's cool and all to ask those dead beat ghetto bunnies to pee in a cup to get their welfare check. That will not be so cool when Obama and the Justice Brothers are demanding CCW holders to do the same.

The hazard that we are trying to mitigate is the wasting of trillions of dollars of public funds in the name of a war on poverty that has resulted in a 15 trillion national debt with flat or increasing poverty rates. This debt happens to be the single greatest threat to our national security.

Your analogy to firearms has one big problem - the Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms which places firearms ownership on a much higher pedestal. There is no such right to welfare in the Constitution. Moreover, there is no declared right to privacy although several Amendments safeguard certain aspects of privacy, and the 9/14th Amendments give privacy some shelter per SCOTUS rulings. Thus, recipients of welfare may be asked to surrender some element of privacy (since its not specifically enumerated) when they receive PUBLIC funds. If you don't like this, then muster the national will to pass an Amendment that more specifically safeguards the right to privacy.

Using your logic, a woman should be able to use public funds via Medicaid to get an abortion, sex change, or breast augmentation and hide behind her right to medical privacy to make it happen.

[QuietShootr]

Good. Now, if 100% of welfare recipients would have to be drug tested monthly in the entire country, with permanent banning from the system for one verified hot piss, we'd be on the right track.

Now for 100% citizenship verification for voting, with no vote allowed for welfare recipients or anyone receiving a government check or in the government's employ (yes, I mean everybody from GSA employees to all military personnel. Think that's too radical? Really? How is it radical to disallow employees to vote on their pay? Don't like it, go work in the private sector.) No national database, just show your passport. You don't have $60 for a passport? **** you, you shouldn't have a say in how everyone else's money is spent.

That would fix about half the problems we have.

[montanadave]

Good. Now, if 100% of welfare recipients would have to be drug tested monthly in the entire country, with permanent banning from the system for one verified hot piss, we'd be on the right track.

Now for 100% citizenship verification for voting, with no vote allowed for welfare recipients or anyone receiving a government check or in the government's employ (yes, I mean everybody from GSA employees to all military personnel. Think that's too radical? Really? How is it radical to disallow employees to vote on their pay? Don't like it, go work in the private sector.) No national database, just show your passport. You don't have $60 for a passport? **** you, you shouldn't have a say in how everyone else's money is spent.

That would fix about half the problems we have.

And no votes for all those teat-suckers collecting Social Security and Medicare! That fixes the other half. :sarcastic:

[QuietShootr]

^ I don't know what this guy said, nor am I going to look at it because that would defeat the purpose of having an ignore list...but I bet it's something he thinks is funny about getting rid of some other government program, and ended with that stupid smug giggle smiley he likes to use.

Blessed silence, I love it. :cool:

[CarlosDJackal]

Here, here!

And, let's not stop there. We should also have mandatory drug testing for ALL govt employees, contractors, politicians and anyone else who gets a govt check.

Strangely, most politicians are very much against having their own urine tested.

As a government contractor and member of the military, I am already subject to mandatory drug tests. Those damned Politicians should be too!! :mad:

[Nathan_Bell]

As a government contractor and member of the military, I am already subject to mandatory drug tests. Those damned Politicians should be too!! :mad:

"..but...but.. laws only apply to little people.", Any member of Congress's comment regarding making them drug test.

[Sensei]

While I realize the reporting of the NYT is viewed with more than a little skepticism by many members, here is a portion of an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?hp) published yesterday:

"From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order [Scriven issued a temporary injunction to halt the testing pending adjudication of its constitutionality]— 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases."

To lanesmith's point, my understanding is that the drug testing screened only for illicit drugs. This would exclude alcohol or nicotine and, I assume, anyone testing positive for opioids, benzos, or amphetamines would by given a pass if they could provide a legitimate prescription for these drugs. Several state officials and drug-testing advocates responded to charges that the testing was actually costing the state additional money by stating, "The drug testing law was really meant to make sure that kids were protected."

If that, indeed, was the primary purpose and, given the multitude of studies pointing to the deleterious impact on children of alcohol and tobacco use in the family home, it would seem appropriate to screen for these drugs as well.

I don't have a solution but the whole drug-testing policy debate opens a real can of worms. It apparently does nothing to reduce government spending. On the contrary, it appears to cost more. And moving to screen drug use in the family home "to protect the children" smacks of social engineering and government intrusion.

The reason why the math is misleading in the NYT article is that they did not include the 1600 people who refused to take the test in the cost savings. This would have been another ~$300K/month savings if these people were counted. That's right, you could refuse to take the test because you were high, and the cost savings was not included because the NYT only counted those who failed the test in their analysis. In addition, FL only drug tested one particular type of welfare. Benefits like Medicaid, public housing, school lunch, food stamps, etc. were not at stake. In addition, there were other loop holes that allowed people with chitlens to have a surrogate collect the check if there test was positive - nice.

That is why people on this forum don't trust the New York Slimes...

[montanadave]

The reason why the math is misleading in the NYT article is that they did not include the 1600 people who refused to take the test in the cost savings. This would have been another ~$300K/month savings if these people were counted. That's right, you could refuse to take the test because you were high, and the cost savings was not included because the NYT only counted those who failed the test in their analysis. In addition, FL only drug tested one particular type of welfare. Benefits like Medicaid, public housing, school lunch, food stamps, etc. were not at stake. In addition, there were other loop holes that allowed people with chitlens to have a surrogate collect the check if there test was positive - nice.

That is why people on this forum don't trust the New York Slimes...

Thank you for providing that additional information and the clarification.

[munch520]

Hope OH follows suit, hats off to GA for pushing this through. It boggles the mind how it wasn't a constraint to begin with.

[HES]

The reason why the math is misleading in the NYT article is that they did not include the 1600 people who refused to take the test in the cost savings. This would have been another ~$300K/month savings if these people were counted. That's right, you could refuse to take the test because you were high, and the cost savings was not included because the NYT only counted those who failed the test in their analysis. In addition, FL only drug tested one particular type of welfare. Benefits like Medicaid, public housing, school lunch, food stamps, etc. were not at stake. In addition, there were other loop holes that allowed people with chitlens to have a surrogate collect the check if there test was positive - nice.

That is why people on this forum don't trust the New York Slimes...

Thanks for the clarification. With that in mind then I cannot come up with a reason to be against this.

[SHIVAN]

Under this model, gun owners could EASILY be asked to submit to the same medical qualifications the DOT requires of long haul truckers. Be careful what you wish for.

Not quite...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Please find the same protection, and right, to welfare payments from the federal, or state, government.