Jump to content

House Bill No. 4118


knucklehead bob
 Share

Recommended Posts

January 29, 2013, Introduced by Reps. Farrington, Rogers, Glardon, Yonker, Poleski, Shirkey, Price, Johnson, Forlini, Lund, Rendon, Jenkins, Cotter, O'Brien, McBroom, Graves, Outman, Heise, Hooker, Kurtz, Lauwers, Daley, Kowall, Somerville, Kelly, Pettalia and Franz and referred to the Committee on Families, Children, and Seniors.

 

A bill to amend 1939 PA 280, entitled

 

"The social welfare act,"

 

(MCL 400.1 to 400.119b) by adding section 57y.

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

 

SEC. 57Y. (1) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER A

 

PROGRAM OF SUSPICION-BASED SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING AND TESTING

 

FOR FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM APPLICANTS AND RECIPIENTS AS

 

DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION.

 

(2) NOT LATER THAN JANUARY 1, 2014, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL

 

ADMINISTER SUSPICION-BASED SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING AND TESTING

 

FOR FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM APPLICANTS AND RECIPIENTS IN 3 OR

 

MORE COUNTIES IN THIS STATE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL DETERMINE WHICH 3

 

OR MORE COUNTIES SHALL BEGIN THE INITIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE

 

SUSPICION-BASED SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING AND TESTING REQUIRED IN

 

THIS SUBSECTION.

 

 

 

(3) NOT LATER THAN JANUARY 1, 2015, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL

 

ADMINISTER SUSPICION-BASED SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING AND TESTING

 

FOR FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM APPLICANTS AND RECIPIENTS IN 1/2 OF

 

THE COUNTIES IN THIS STATE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL DETERMINE WHICH

 

COUNTIES SHALL BEGIN ADMINISTERING SUSPICION-BASED SUBSTANCE ABUSE

 

SCREENING AND TESTING ON JANUARY 1, 2015.

 

(4) NOT LATER THAN JANUARY 1, 2016, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL

 

ADMINISTER SUSPICION-BASED SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING AND TESTING

 

FOR FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM APPLICANTS AND RECIPIENTS IN ALL OF

 

THE COUNTIES OF THIS STATE.

 

(5) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADMINISTER SUSPICION-BASED SUBSTANCE

 

ABUSE SCREENING AND TESTING REQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION BY DOING

 

EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING:

 

(A) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL DEVELOP AND ADMINISTER A SUBSTANCE

 

ABUSE SURVEY THAT SHALL BE USED UPON INITIAL APPLICATION FOR FAMILY

 

INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM APPLICANTS AND AT ANNUAL REDETERMINATION FOR

 

FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM RECIPIENTS.

 

(B) UPON INITIAL APPLICATION AND AT ANNUAL REDETERMINATION,

 

THE DEPARTMENT SHALL SCREEN FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM APPLICANTS

 

AND RECIPIENTS FOR SUSPICION OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE USING AN

 

EMPIRICALLY VALIDATED SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING TOOL.

 

(6) IF THE RESULTS OF THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING GIVES THE

 

DEPARTMENT A REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT OR

 

RECIPIENT HAS ENGAGED IN THE ILLEGAL USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE,

 

THE APPLICANT OR RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO TAKE A SUBSTANCE ABUSE

 

TEST. IF THE APPLICANT OR RECIPIENT REFUSES TO TAKE A SUBSTANCE

 

ABUSE TEST, HE OR SHE IS INELIGIBLE FOR FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM

 

 

 

ASSISTANCE, BUT MAY REAPPLY AFTER 6 MONTHS, SUBJECT TO ANOTHER

 

SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING AS REQUIRED IN THIS SECTION. THE

 

APPLICANT OR RECIPIENT MUST TEST NEGATIVE FOR ILLEGAL USE OF A

 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FAMILY INDEPENDENCE

 

PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.

 

(7) IF THE APPLICANT OR RECIPIENT TESTS POSITIVE FOR ILLEGAL

 

USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, HE OR SHE MAY CHOOSE TO PROCEED IN 1

 

OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS:

 

(A) HE OR SHE WILL BE INELIGIBLE FOR FAMILY INDEPENDENCE

 

PROGRAM ASSISTANCE, BUT MAY REAPPLY AFTER 6 MONTHS, SUBJECT TO

 

ANOTHER SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING AS REQUIRED IN THIS SECTION. THE

 

APPLICANT OR RECIPIENT MUST TEST NEGATIVE FOR ILLEGAL USE OF A

 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FAMILY INDEPENDENCE

 

PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.

 

(B) HE OR SHE SHALL ENROLL IN A SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT

 

PROGRAM. DURING PARTICIPATION IN THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT

 

PROGRAM REQUIRED UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION, THE APPLICANT OR RECIPIENT

 

IS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.

 

THE APPLICANT OR RECIPIENT SHALL SIGN A RELEASE TO AUTHORIZE THE

 

SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT COUNSELOR TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE

 

DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE APPLICANT'S OR RECIPIENT'S PROGRESS IN THE

 

SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAM. AFTER 90 DAYS IN THE SUBSTANCE

 

ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAM, UPON APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT, THE

 

APPLICANT OR RECIPIENT MAY RETAKE THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TEST. IF HE

 

OR SHE TESTS NEGATIVE FOR ILLEGAL USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND

 

MEETS ALL OTHER ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, HE OR SHE IS ELIGIBLE TO

 

RECEIVE FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM ASSISTANCE. IF, AFTER 90 DAYS,

 

 

 

HE OR SHE IS NOT FOLLOWING THE TREATMENT PLAN, HE OR SHE MAY NOT

 

RETAKE THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TEST FOR 6 MONTHS. IF, AT ANY TIME AFTER

 

PARTICIPATING IN THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAM, THE

 

APPLICANT OR RECIPIENT TESTS POSITIVE FOR ILLEGAL USE OF A

 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, HE OR SHE REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE

 

FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM ASSISTANCE AND WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO

 

REAPPLY AND RETAKE A SUBSTANCE ABUSE TEST FOR FAMILY INDEPENDENCE

 

PROGRAM ASSISTANCE FOR 12 MONTHS.

 

(8) IF AN APPLICANT TESTS NEGATIVE FOR ILLEGAL USE OF A

 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND MEETS ALL THE OTHER ELIGIBILITY

 

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM, THE COST OF

 

ADMINISTERING THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TEST TO THE APPLICANT SHALL BE

 

DEDUCTED FROM HIS OR HER FIRST FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM

 

ASSISTANCE PAYMENT. IF A RECIPIENT TESTS NEGATIVE FOR ILLEGAL USE

 

OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND MEETS ALL THE OTHER ELIGIBILITY

 

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM AT AN ANNUAL

 

REDETERMINATION BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE COST OF ADMINISTERING THE

 

SUBSTANCE ABUSE TEST TO THE RECIPIENT SHALL BE DEDUCTED FROM HIS OR

 

HER FIRST FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM ASSISTANCE PAYMENT AFTER THE

 

ANNUAL REDETERMINATION.

 

(9) IF, UPON REAPPLYING FOR FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM

 

ASSISTANCE, AN APPLICANT OR RECIPIENT WHO PREVIOUSLY TESTED

 

POSITIVE AS DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (7) TESTS POSITIVE AGAIN OR

 

REFUSES TO TAKE A SUBSEQUENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE TEST, THE APPLICANT OR

 

RECIPIENT IS INELIGIBLE FOR FAMILY INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM BENEFITS

 

FOR 12 MONTHS.

 

(10) BEFORE IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTIONS (3) AND

 

 

 

(4), AND ANNUALLY AFTER THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED, THE

 

DEPARTMENT SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE THAT INCLUDES,

 

AT LEAST, ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

 

(A) THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS SCREENED.

 

(B) THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS SCREENED FOR WHOM THERE WAS A

 

REASONABLE SUSPICION OF ILLEGAL USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.

 

© THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WHO CONSENTED TO SUBMITTING TO A

 

SUBSTANCE ABUSE TEST.

 

(D) THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WHO REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO A

 

SUBSTANCE ABUSE TEST.

 

(E) THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WHO SUBMITTED TO A SUBSTANCE

 

ABUSE TEST WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR ILLEGAL USE OF A CONTROLLED

 

SUBSTANCE.

 

(F) THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WHO SUBMITTED TO A SUBSTANCE

 

ABUSE TEST WHO TESTED NEGATIVE FOR ILLEGAL USE OF A CONTROLLED

 

SUBSTANCE.

 

(G) THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR ILLEGAL

 

USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FOR A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT TIME.

 

(H) THE AMOUNT OF THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR

 

ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM.

 

(11) ALL INFORMATION, INTERVIEWS, REPORTS, STATEMENTS,

 

MEMORANDA, AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TEST RESULTS, WRITTEN OR OTHERWISE,

 

RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH A SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING OR

 

TESTING PROGRAM REQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION ARE CONFIDENTIAL

 

COMMUNICATIONS SUBJECT TO THE PRIVACY PROTECTIONS UNDER THE HEALTH

 

INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996, PUBLIC LAW

 

104-191, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE, OBTAINED IN

 

 

 

DISCOVERY OR DISCLOSED IN ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROCEEDINGS, EXCEPT

 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION OR IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY UNDER

 

THIS ACT.

 

(12) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION ONLY, AN APPLICANT OR

 

RECIPIENT IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.

 

(13) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE" MEANS

 

THAT TERM AS DEFINED IN SECTION 7104 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH CODE,

 

1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7104.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/House/htm/2013-HIB-4118.htm

Edited by knucklehead bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically Drug testing for welfare applicants.

Did this not Bomb in Florida?

If I recall $16,000,000 spent on the program and they caught 2.6% of applicants who whiz zed dirty .

$8,000,000 a percentage point, wow that program sure saves the taxpayers a lot of money.

What a farce.

I thought we were in hard economic times?

Shouldn't the state do things that Are cost effective?

More money being Wasted on a non issue.

Thanks state legislature, What A Joke our government really is.

I am going to find a link to the Florida money wasting program that was an Epic Failure and pass it along to the committee who is responsible for shooting this down.

Here is a link:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-03-18/drug-testing-welfare-applicants/53620604/1.

 

Edited by ilynnboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

we've already wasted so many many dollars on this.

 

last year a democrat tried to add an ammendment to this bill to make lawmakers take whiz tests too, but it was dismissed without a vote. lol.

 

http://www.aclu.org/...welfare-recipie

 

In the five weeks that the program was in effect, the drug tests were positive in only eight percent of the cases, a percentage that is consistent with drug use in the general population. Of 268 people tested, only 21 tested positive for drugs and all but three were for marijuana.

 

something about history, doomed to repeat it...

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flatly unconstitutional. Warrantless searches?

I didnt read the entire bill but I am assuming this is a consent-or-lose-benefits proposition.

 

I cannot speak to the need for this but I can say I knew a meth-head couple with an infant who would sell their food stamps to get meth. Apparently there is/was a going rate for foodstamps. An underground market with a demand curve . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the food stamp owner would go to the store with the buyer. That is what happened in the case to which I am referring.

 

 

Trading grocery store items for methamphetamine? That meth seller must have been desperate.

 

The Republicans are dead set on eliminating illegal drugs from our society. But wait. Haven't we been trying to do that for 40 years? If I am not mistaken, that effort has failed miserably. Yes, some drugs cause havoc in people's lives. Marijuana is not one of those drugs. Alcohol is. If welfare recipients are drug tested due to a "reasonable suspicion", then all people who receive funds from the government need to be treated the same way. Why single out welfare recipients?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically Drug testing for welfare applicants.

Did this not Bomb in Florida?

If I recall $16,000,000 spent on the program and they caught 2.6% of applicants who whiz zed dirty .

$8,000,000 a percentage point, wow that program sure saves the taxpayers a lot of money.

What a farce.

I thought we were in hard economic times?

Shouldn't the state do things that Are cost effective?

More money being Wasted on a non issue.

Thanks state legislature, What A Joke our government really is.

I am going to find a link to the Florida money wasting program that was an Epic Failure and pass it along to the committee who is responsible for shooting this down.

Here is a link:

http://usatoday30.us...nts/53620604/1.

 

to deepen this lovely legislation, Florida's Governors wife Owned ALL the TESTING FACILITIES utilized by the state!

You can't Make this bunny muffin up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice they make recipients pay for it themselves.

 

There is also a bill to connect drug testing and unemployment benfits stating by using drugs you are making yourself unemployable.

 

 

CPU has these 2 bills atthe top of our oppose agenda. We killed the similar bill last session and have our sights directly on these.

 

We must either stop it, or make sure there is an exemption for medical cannabis patients.

 

This could effect as many as 40,000+ medical cannabis patients in Michigan.

 

It must be dealt with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We (the American public) sure ceded a lot of our rights to the government when we agreed to allow forced drug testing. I hope that the citizenry will wake up someday and realize that we don't have to agree to all the intrusion into our lives. We can actually legislate ourselves more freedom! What a novel concept...

 

 

This legislation HAS to be coming from the fknRepublicans, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We (the American public) sure ceded a lot of our rights to the government when we agreed to allow forced drug testing. I hope that the citizenry will wake up someday and realize that we don't have to agree to all the intrusion into our lives. We can actually legislate ourselves more freedom! What a novel concept...

 

 

This legislation HAS to be coming from the fknRepublicans, right?

 

What do you mean "allowed"? Drug testing was brought to the supreme court in the 80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean "allowed"? Drug testing was brought to the supreme court in the 80s.

 

 

What I mean is that we let the Supreme Court's opinion stand. We, through our legislators, could make it illegal to drug test an individual. Privacy rights. Some people see drugs as the root of all evil and drug users as "evil doers". They think that eliminating drugs from society will cure all of society's ills. Some people do not agree with this view. The battle between these two opposing opinions is being carried out in courts. The American people could end this argument quickly by dropping the drug war. Apparently there aren't enough people yet who want to end the war. It is going to take 55-60% in favor before "the Man" decides to back off.

 

It's kinda funny though that over 60% of the people in Michigan approve Medical Marijuana, but overzealous prosecutors continue to fight it tooth and nail. The only thing that will stop them is to lose their next election due to their stance on Medical Marijuana. I wonder if people are committed enough to Medical Marijuana to actually turn someone out of office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, most of society likes to punish poor and/or sick people. They wish to impose morality on others.

 

I mean, if we posted a poll here that asked if we should drug test welfare recipients, i have a feeling ya might be surprised by the results.

 

Now if that poll were to show that it would not effect mmj patients because of exemption, would you support drug testing welfare recipients?

 

You would be really surprised how many would actually support it.

 

This is a popular law to put in place unfortunately.

 

I mean, who wants those dirty poor people eating food and doing heroin? That aint right!

 

*sigh*

 

Then some idiot comes through and says " i knew this one person that did this", and everyone assumes it is like this always with a huge portion of the welfare populace.

 

I don;t know if people realize, but welfare poor people can;t really afford drugs! Heh. The percentage of people on welfare doing drugs is lower than the general populace percentage.

 

I don;t get this stuff, but i will do what i can to stop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Store owners commit welfare fraud by giving cash for benefits way more often than a user takes someone to the store with them.

 

The real problem is the $$ being wasted by giving to illegals

2e49gt5.jpg

 

How does the government verify that income limits are met on someone with no SS# ?

Edited by Mememe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Store owners commit welfare fraud by giving cash for benefits way more often than a user takes someone to the store with them.

 

The real problem is the $$ being wasted by giving to illegals

2e49gt5.jpg

 

How does the government verify that income limits are met on someone with no SS# ?

 

 

Last I knew, illegals can't get any type of government assistance. However, illegals have been known to get fake IDs and SS#s. Nowadays, computer cross referencing prevents most of that. I think a person is required to have a social security number in order to get any type of assistance. I knew someone who refused to get their child a SS# because their religion believed it to be the mark of the devil or some such sh*t. She could not get food stamps for that child. What the above reference on that document is to I don't know, but I can just about guarantee that illegals can not get any assistance, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...