New Missouri law requires drug tests for welfare recipients
July 13, 2011

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) signed new legislation this week that will allow the state’s social workers to administer drug tests to welfare recipients, the result of which could jeopardize their state aid, the Associated Press reported.

Those who test positive for drug use and agree to a substance abuse program may keep their benefits under the new law, but those who refuse either the drug test or a program after a positive result lose their benefits for three years.

The law also requires that welfare recipients’ photographs be added to their benefit cards.

Welfare drug tests get nod in Michigan House

June 8, 2012

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Some Michigan welfare applicants and recipients would be required to pass drug tests under legislation approved Thursday by the Michigan House.

The House passed the measure by a 71-37 vote, and it now moves to the Senate.

The legislation would require the Department of Human Services to establish a program of suspicion-based substance abuse screening and testing for Family Independence Program applicants and recipients who are at least 18 years old. The program would start as a pilot program in January and expand statewide by 2015.

At least 30 states have considered requiring drug tests for people seeking public assistance such as welfare, unemployment benefits or public employment. Currently, Indiana and West Virginia require drug testing for people seeking job training.

Michigan briefly ran a pilot program to drug test welfare recipients in late 1999. The American Civil Liberties Union sued, and a federal appeals court affirmed a lower court’s order halting the program. Part of the legal challenge was based on the claim that constitutional rights were violated because testing was done without “individualized suspicion.”

Grandville Republican Rep. David Agema and other supporters say job applicants and workers often are required to pass drug tests.

Looks like this will become a common practice...

(2011) - Nixon signs bill requiring drug tests for (some) Missouri welfare recipients

BY JASON HANCOCK • jhancock@post-dispatch.com > 573-635-6178 | Posted: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:15 am

JEFFERSON CITY • Gov. Jay Nixon signed legislation Tuesday requiring some federal welfare recipients to be tested for drugs.

Under the bill, if there is reasonable suspicion that someone receiving benefits from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program is using illegal drugs, a drug test can be ordered. If the person refuses, or if the test comes back positive, the state would cut off assistance for three years. That person could still receive benefits if they enroll in a treatment program and do not test positive for drugs for six months.

Children would continue to receive welfare payments through a third party if a parent became ineligible.

Critics argue that measure unfairly targets a small group of people receiving federal aid. Supporters say testing ensures that government money is being used for its intended purpose, not drugs.

The measure overwhelmingly passed both legislative chambers earlier this year, with the House voting113-34 and the Senate voting 29-5.

A Michigan law that required welfare recipients to receive random drug testing was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court in 2003. The court ruled that the law violated the U.S. Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable search.

Florida began requiring drug tests of welfare applicants on July 1.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_a0315994-accf-11e0-99bf-0019bb30f31a.html

thats what they said about immigration profiling,, still seems only two states passed measures in that area though,,,,


but everything happens for a reason,,,good way for these politicians to be voted out of office,,,

its a bit of an improvement,,,at least SUSPICION is required and children arent neglected as a result,,,

Rasmussen Reports Poll:

53% Support Automatic Drug Testing For Welfare Applicants.

yeah, americans are good at demonizing americans and dehumanizing americans too

Im sure, if polling were being done, we would see similar 'support' for things like slavery and jim crow back in the day,,,,

Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients?
Here's a Test-Beating Guide for the Poor.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that you smoke a little weed now and then. Now let's imagine your HR department orders you to take a random drug test. If you're a person of any financial means, chances are you'll procure a fairly failsafe way to beat the test, like a fake penis full of fake urine.

(Seriously, they make fake penises full of fake urine.)

But now imagine a day in the near future, if Gov. Rick Scott gets his way, that welfare recipients will be forced to submit to drug testing. Plopping down a couple hundred bucks on plastic genitalia doesn't fit the budget of many on welfare. So here then are five ways to help beat a drug test for those on a tight budget.

If You're Going to Smoke, Diet
The idea of eating less while smoking weed might seem counter-intuitive, but the active drug in pot is stored in fat tissue. That means the THC hiding in your beer belly gives you a better chance of failing the test. So next time you get the munchies, remember that Uncle Sam might cut off your rent money if you grab another bag of Doritos.

When Possible, Delay
Smoke a doobie the morning before a test and you can bet you're going to fail it. But if you're a recreational user like -- we haven't done the math exactly here -- the rest of America, most of the marijuana will leave your system in 10 to 13 days. So if Uncle Sam asks you to pee in a cup for your welfare check someday soon, find a way to put it off. Oh, and until your rescheduled test date, don't smoke another joint.

Drink, Pee, Repeat
The day before and of your drug test, drink as much water as is possible. Drinking too much can lead to water intoxication -- no kidding. So if it hurts to pee in new ways, slow down.

Color Your Urine
All that flushing is going to leave your pee pretty translucent. So the day of your test, take vitamin B-12 tablets until you get that healthy Mountain Dew color back.

Find a Clean Friend, With MacGyver Skills
Replacing your urine with a clean sample from a friend is an age-old drug testing trick. Be sure the urine is warm -- most drug tests detect the temperature. And it's worth saying that you should be sure your friend isn't, say, pregnant or, worse, actually doing drugs too. Once you have your friend's clean urine, now it's time for the art project. Think Ziploc bags, straws, duct tape, and MC Hammer pants.

I look at it on a whole nother level....

Perhaps lazy vote eligible people will get off their collective a$$e$$ and vote for a change! Repeal the drug laws, destroy the cartels power, end most violent and nonviolent crime and the need for militarized police forces, home invasion by those forces, and the abuse of the courts and privatized prisons on the backs of our children!

I had to be drug tested to work for the government. All others who worked with me had to be drug tested. The FBI has to be drug tested.

This "rights" nonsense is a crock. If you receive taxpayer money in a way that can be abused, you should be drug tested. It should include all elected officials too.

That's what I'm saying.

I was drug tested just the other day. And I am still subject to random testing. I have to do this every year, no big deal. Do what you gotta do.

guess why you had to be tested? Because you were working with the public

needing assistance is not a JOB,,,,


when you have a JOB, the employer becomes responsible for your actions ON THE JOBE

people on assistance do not become the RESPONSIBILITY of the state


when you have a JOB and you screw up a customers service or product that EMPLOYER can be held LEGALLY accountable for financial damages

when you are on assistance and you screw up with someone,,no one is responsible for financial damage but YOU,,,,


this is a poor analogy people keep using,, the purpose behind employers spending money on drug tests (another difference, the employer usually pays for this, not the applicant) is so they can potentially avoid EGREGIOUS lawsuits of their own if an employee is found to have made grave error while under the influence,,,

Poor people our not our responsibility either. We just take a moral high road and give them free money from our pockets. If you want to complain about stipulations to free money then don't take it at all.

yep,, FREE money that they have to WORK for

and food for their children to eat

how terrible for us to be so burdened,,,,

They don't work for that money. My parents didn't get free money to feed Us. I worked at a grocery store in high school. The people that bought the most food always had foodstamps.

operative word is 'PARENTS'

its a bit less taxing if there are TWO adults with the potential to earn income AND care for the children

as opposed to ONE parent expected to do it alone,,,,,

since AFDC became TANF, most applicants receiving FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Must be involved in work related activities

to be on food stamps(which is no longer in stamp form but food 'credit' on a card), they only have to be below the poverty level and the amount of food permitted is determined by family size,,,

The complaint is (I say again) that policy NOW affects her, and in the scuffle the rose colored glasses were broken.

It seems that many want this to be a requirement, they have adopted it, and if anyone wants it changed they now must enjoin a battle many of us have been waging all along.... the abuse of power.

Rail against it all you want, but it's business as usual in the political process to strip people of their liberties. Something you have not had a problem with until it touched you.

Just like your glorious leader, it's all good until it comes back on you.... then blame someone else!

WRONG, this wont affect me because I dont mind taking a damned test,, the point keeps getting missed apparently

just like marijuana illegality doesnt affect me because I dont USE Marijuana,,

I can still see the segregating and inconsistent application of policies that require one government funded group to be singled out to 'assure' they are not using any of the funds for any drugs

or polices that label using one recreational drug as criminal while directly profiting from the use of other recreational drugs (such as alcohol and tobacco)

..this is not about being upset at what 'affects me', this is about seeing the discriminatory element of certain policies,,,

Yeah, like "smokers" rights?