States battle over drug tests for welfare recipients
By Dr. William Douglass
We're all living President Obama's socialist dream (which I'm positive is going to end up being America's nightmare). Federal money is being tossed about in ways that would embarrass the most drunken of sailors.
Believe it or not, some states have shot down bills that would require drug tests for people on the welfare rolls.
As if it's not bad enough that we have 20 million illegal citizens of Mexico getting health benefits from the U.S. taxpayers, now it seems that it's just fine to be paying people to sit around and take drugs instead of taking a job and contributing to society. Where does it end?
As you probably have guessed, the argument over these welfare drug testing bills follow party lines closely: Republicans support it … Democrats are against it.
Republican West Virginia State Delegate Craig Blair sponsored the bill that put this debate in the national limelight, and has spread the word about his theories on the website NotWithMyTaxDollars.com. And though he recently saw his bill get voted down, he vows it will be back.
Critics of Blair's idea claim that it takes aim at the poor. "That is false," Blair says. This is trying to make sure that we're going to have the resources for those that are truly in need."
Blair says the idea has gained popular support - in my opinion, that's because it makes sense. So far, he's received more than 5,000 emails and countless phone calls from people who are rallying to his cause.
Blair's idea was to put a "two strikes and your out" plan in place: two failed drug tests, no more public assistance funds. Incredibly, he met resistance.
But while the bill died in West Virginia, it's gotten the nod from the Kansas State House, where State Rep. Kasha Kelley said the ultimate motive of the bill was to encourage drug abusers to seek treatment. The added bonus of the law would of course be that good tax dollars aren't used to support bad habits.
According to Kansas State Rep. Tom Sawyer, a Democrat from Witichita, "We do not have the right to assume that poor people are more likely to take illegal drugs."
There is, of course, a problem with Sawyer's rhetoric (as there often tends to be with most liberal rhetoric). If what Sawyer says is true, then "we" also don't have the right to assume that police officers, bus drivers, airline pilots, or train operators are more likely to take illegal drugs. And yet those and many other jobs have drug testing as a perquisite of employment.
Think about that: it's OK to require drug testing for people who want to work, but drug testing people who want to get free money is a no-no. It's asinine.
Programs like this are actually nothing new. Michigan had a random drug testing program in place for welfare applicants 10 years ago, but that was stopped because it was deemed "unconstitutional" in by a 2003 Federal court. Of course, the court neglected to point out that there's actually nothing in the Constitution that authorizes that tax dollars be spent on public assistance, either … but I digress.
And with that, the concept of personal responsibility in America puts another foot into the grave.
We're all living President Obama's socialist dream (which I'm positive is going to end up being America's nightmare). Federal money is being tossed about in ways that would embarrass the most drunken of sailors.
Believe it or not, some states have shot down bills that would require drug tests for people on the welfare rolls.
As if it's not bad enough that we have 20 million illegal citizens of Mexico getting health benefits from the U.S. taxpayers, now it seems that it's just fine to be paying people to sit around and take drugs instead of taking a job and contributing to society. Where does it end?
As you probably have guessed, the argument over these welfare drug testing bills follow party lines closely: Republicans support it … Democrats are against it.
Republican West Virginia State Delegate Craig Blair sponsored the bill that put this debate in the national limelight, and has spread the word about his theories on the website NotWithMyTaxDollars.com. And though he recently saw his bill get voted down, he vows it will be back.
Critics of Blair's idea claim that it takes aim at the poor. "That is false," Blair says. This is trying to make sure that we're going to have the resources for those that are truly in need."
Blair says the idea has gained popular support - in my opinion, that's because it makes sense. So far, he's received more than 5,000 emails and countless phone calls from people who are rallying to his cause.
Blair's idea was to put a "two strikes and your out" plan in place: two failed drug tests, no more public assistance funds. Incredibly, he met resistance.
But while the bill died in West Virginia, it's gotten the nod from the Kansas State House, where State Rep. Kasha Kelley said the ultimate motive of the bill was to encourage drug abusers to seek treatment. The added bonus of the law would of course be that good tax dollars aren't used to support bad habits.
According to Kansas State Rep. Tom Sawyer, a Democrat from Witichita, "We do not have the right to assume that poor people are more likely to take illegal drugs."
There is, of course, a problem with Sawyer's rhetoric (as there often tends to be with most liberal rhetoric). If what Sawyer says is true, then "we" also don't have the right to assume that police officers, bus drivers, airline pilots, or train operators are more likely to take illegal drugs. And yet those and many other jobs have drug testing as a perquisite of employment.
Think about that: it's OK to require drug testing for people who want to work, but drug testing people who want to get free money is a no-no. It's asinine.
Programs like this are actually nothing new. Michigan had a random drug testing program in place for welfare applicants 10 years ago, but that was stopped because it was deemed "unconstitutional" in by a 2003 Federal court. Of course, the court neglected to point out that there's actually nothing in the Constitution that authorizes that tax dollars be spent on public assistance, either … but I digress.
And with that, the concept of personal responsibility in America puts another foot into the grave.
posted by HeavyHanded at
2:03 PM
1 Comments:
Here is an exerpt from something I wrote about this subject:
...But, does anyone actually have a clue what will REALLY happen if this becomes law? So far, no amount of laws, police, jail, death by overdose, divorce, or anything else has made any impact what-so-ever in stemming the DANGEROUS use of drugs. Let alone the totally UN-dangerous use of marijuana.
So what makes this any different? The difference will be that there will be a huge growth in homeless, moneyless, foodless, jobless drug addicts for starters. These are the folks who NEED the drugs to feel normal and will do anything to get them. The crime rate will go thru the roof from theft AND violent crime will be more common. The already ridiculously full jails will get fuller, and more will have to be built to accomodate.
Many people who are otherwise law abiding citizens at this point will turn to other means of survival including DRUG DEALING to get their money. And some individuals will go underground, thus making it HARDER for “big brother” to keep track of them, tax them, or manipulate them.
In other words, this is not going to stop or even slow down the illegal drug business, just create a new set of problems for everyone, and create more “criminals” for the legal system to deal with. And with it already taking at least 4 to 5 years to get a case through the court system, look for the time it takes to increase…
If this bill passes, you will be seeing many more homeless on the streets. Even in your small towns. Look for more pan handlers asking for spare change. Look for the community cupboards and any churches offering assistance to be overwhelmed with requests for help. You will need to be much more aware of who comes and goes at your home. You will probably need to place armed guards near your front door and your gardens…
I see only one FAIR thing for the legislators to do if they MUST pass this barbaric and totally un-compassionate law, and that would be: If you are prepared to totally kick out anyone doing any sort of illegal “drugs”, and remove them from “your” system all together, at that point you should simply allow those people to do their drugs without fear of retaliation! Surely if you are heartless enough to starve out the drug users and cause them to no longer be members of this society, then you should allow them the actual FREEDOM to not be members of this society if they so choose!!!
By
Anonymous, at 10:22 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home