Welfare Drug Testing Bill Withdrawn After Amended To Include Testing Lawmakers
Welfare Drug Test

First Posted: 01/27/2012 5:36 pm Updated: 01/27/2012 6:27 pm



A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers.

"There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill," said Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville), sponsor of the original welfare drug testing bill.

The Supreme Court ruled drug testing for political candidates unconstitutional in 1997, striking down a Georgia law. McMillin said he withdrew his bill so he could reintroduce it on Monday with a lawmaker drug testing provision that would pass constitutional muster.

"I've only withdrawn it temporarily," he told HuffPost, stressing he carefully crafted his original bill so that it could survive a legal challenge. Last year a federal judge, citing the Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure, struck down a Florida law that required blanket drug testing of everyone who applied for welfare.

McMillin's bill would overcome constitutional problems, he said, by setting up a tiered screening scheme in which people can opt-out of random testing. Those who decline random tests would only be screened if they arouse "reasonable suspicion," either by their demeanor, by being convicted of a crime, or by missing appointments required by the welfare office.

In the past year Republican lawmakers have pursued welfare drug testing in more than 30 states and in Congress, and some bills have even targeted people who claim unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs. Democrats in several states have countered with bills to require drug testing elected officials. Indiana state Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) introduced just such an amendment on Friday.

"After it passed, Rep. McMillin got pretty upset and pulled his bill," Dvorak said. "If anything, I think it points out some of the hypocrisy. ... If we're going to impose standards on drug testing, then it should apply to everybody who receives government money."

Dvorak said McMillin was mistaken to think testing the legislature would be unconstitutional, since the stricken Georgia law targeted candidates and not people already holding office.

McMillan, for his part, said he's coming back with a new bill on Monday, lawmaker testing included. He said he has no problem submitting to a test himself.

"I would think legislators that are here who are responsible for the people who voted them in, they should be more than happy to consent," he said. "Give me the cup right now and I will be happy to take the test."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/welfare-drug-testing-bill_n_1237333.html

We need to test everyone then. Instead of bread lines or in addition to bread lines we can have piss lines and it will become a part of your credit record so the government can track who is doing what.

Once a month would create a lot of jobs all over the country. How young do we need to go. Ten? Five?

Peeing in a cup would become the next social security number type thing, something you live with forever.

Of course the Republicans won't go for that because they only want to denigrate the poor. It is beyond their humanity to feel empathy for the majority of the country so they abuse them and it makes them feel better about themselves.

PS sorry for the misspelling in the title.

I don't have a real problem with it in principle but it does seem to single out a specific socio economic segment for scrutiny the rest of us are not subject to

at the same time we are supporting them financially, and I know I do not think the taxes I pay should buy drugs for anyone

it's stupid tho cause anyone whose worked a production line knows how to get around a drug test....so it will be a giant waste of time & resources

Why shouldn't they? Everyone else has to take a test to go to work for their money. If everyone else has to be tested for a job(basically their income, why shouldn't everyone else be tested when applying for an income source (such as Food Benefits, Unemployment, Disability, Welfare, or any other financial support)? I don't see where anyone is singled out in this. I see where they are given special treatment from the rest of the income making world.

that is true - a lot of people do have to go through mandatory drug testing, but not all jobs require it....I think the idea that it has to be every month? I mean I see your point, but they will just stay clean till after the 1st

so my objection is more that it is a waste of resources

Neither you or most everyone on this board are supporting anyone with taxes because you get yours back.

But agreed on the targeting a certain type of people to denigrate them further and cost us/those who don't get their taxes back/ money that will not do anything productive.

not everyone has to take a drug test, its truly a company by company decision and usually in cases where people need to be alert because of operating machines or dealing directly with the public,,,,


people dont generally ahve to take drug tests in order to get medical care, for instance


its a matter of distinguishing what is actual EARNED income and what is a service

It wouldn't be every month they only do a re-certification every year now with a telephone interview, 6 months filling out a letter. If they did it it would be to start benefits. If they let their benefits lapse, and had to completely re-apply whose fault would that be. That would be like starting a new job again and re-testing for the new job.

Funny how the lawmakers themselves are the ones with the problem if the testing becomes directed at them.
This whole 30 year "war on drugs" is horrible anyway.

Our country has the highest incarceration rate in the ENTIRE WORLD!
We have more of our citizens locked up (per capita I am putting it in perspective here) than the entire planet!

TEST away...test the poor, but test all everyone who draws a check then too...be fair about it and dont single out the poor. Our mayors should also be tested, along with our govenors, and all of our paid representatives....

The oppression of the poor needs to end.

Maybe where you live. It is a monthly process in most states. The MSR is the monthly report.

Really? Because every job I see nowadays require drug testing and background check as a contingency for employment. Every job.

I work for temps, who didnt require it

I also do volunteer, which didnt require it

they are out there, as I said, its an added expense for the employer so they have to measure whether its really a necessity or not

To truly make it fair we need to test every living soul over age ten. Then it is truly fair.

Not just government involved. Everyone needs to report when we start taking body fluids from our citizens.

Funny how so many people are so willing to jump on the poor, but when someone wants to snoop around in a rich mans closet the door gets slammed shut!

The rich get bailed out. The poor get bailed out.Always the working class that gets screwed in this Country.

They couldn't manage it or support monthly testing. They don't have enough social workers to do 6 month recerts let alone monthly testing, be realistic as to what they would. Besides, to save money on hiring more Social Workers they have gone to accepting letters every other recert and telephone interviews non-in-person contact for the other 6 month review. Explain to me how they would free up employees, not to mention funds for monthly testing itself for everyone receiving benefits?

they wouldnt need new employees, they would contract it with the local labs to do the testing and send the results,,,

To be fair they all need to piss in the cup.

Then we will truly know who is doing what and how we should handle them all, right?

they wouldnt need new employees, they would contract it with the local labs to do the testing and send the results,,,

its reactionary and not good common sense

we should stick to the old fashioned way of seeing how people 'do their jobs' and reacting to THAT accordingly

the employment and verification process for recipients of welfare is already stearn enough for most who have some problem with drugs to end up disqualified due to non compliance

well amd maybe it's hard to really discern much if the process itself is not clear

but the process whatever it is will be an expensive bureaucracy- oh YAH we need another one of those....