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.”
“Most employers require it for their workers,” he said of drug testing. “We need to do the same for those getting assistance through the state.”
OK, so what happens to the kids of the parents who fail? What about a false positive, which does happen from time to time? You're talking about taking food benefits away from families and kids here over drug testing.
I have to go with YD here:
The goal is to eliminate public services to everyone who isn't rich.
If the goal were to "get people off drugs," this bill would include $100 million in new spending - plus the tax hike on the wealthy and corporations to pay for it - to create a massive drug treatment program for the tens of thousands of Kentuckians who want to get off drugs but can't because there are no treatment beds for them.
If the goal were to "get people off drugs," this bill would mandate random drug testing for every Kentucky taxpayer - no refund unless you prove you won't spend it on drugs.
If the goal were to "get people off drugs," this bill would propose a statewide single-payer health insurance program to ensure that everyone had access to affordable drug treatment.
Why do we only drug test people who are getting state money for food? Shouldn't we randomly drug test anyone who is getting state services in some way to prove they're not using taxpayer resources to obtain drugs? What about Social Security recipients? Medicare recipients? Owners of businesses that get millions in tax breaks for Creationist theme parks? If you get a single dime of Kentucky taxpayer money in any sort of disbursement, then you gotta take a random pee test every year. I like YD's idea about tax refunds. You got a tax refund coming? Here's your pee cup.
Let's test every taxpayer in the state and deny anyone who comes up positive all state services. No police, no fire protection, you can't send your kids to public schools, you lose your driver's license, your water and electricity get cut off, you can't take public transportation, you can't leave your home to travel along public roads, you're under house arrest for a year, no exceptions. Let's take Rep. Napier's legislation to its most equitable, most logical endpoint.
Otherwise this legislation is complete garbage, unless you somehow think it's only food stamp recipients in Kentucky who use drugs.
Posts
3 comments:
I'm not really sure though about the insinuation that any regulation of welfare is in turn a direct assault in the poor. Specific programs should be specifically regulated.
What if the plan has a "strike" system? That way false positives can be retested.
What if this includes provisions to remove children from homes with drug addicted parents? Honestly that sounds like the great idea, and now you're not "Taking food from kids".
Though hey, why not piss test for your tax return? That would be a good way to get people off recreational drug use!
I bet installing and running a program like that would cost a lot of money, way more than the state could save by cutting people off food stamps. (And does the state pay for food stamps? Isn't it a federal program? If so, why does the state intend to stick its nose into it?)
the state will probably hand out a lucrative contract to some private entity to do the testing. hell, that's probably the reason they're doing it in the first place.
Post a Comment