Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients Injected Back Into House Panel‏

[+Malamute]

The Department of Human Services (DHS) could demand welfare applicants take a drug test if officials suspect they are using illegal drugs, under re-introduced legislation debated by a House panel today.

 

The House Families, Children and Seniors Committee is expected to vote next week on HB 4118, a carbon copy of HB 5223 of last session, which passed the House 71-37 eight months ago before dying in the Senate (See "Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients," 6/7/12).

 

Rep. Jeff FARRINGTON (R-Utica) argued the proposal -- similar to what has been adopted in Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma and Missouri -- would prevent taxpayer money from being squandered on a recipient's illegal and bad habits.

 

"My constituents are asking me, 'Why is it that we have to take a drug test as part of getting a job, but our neighbors who are on public assistance are not having to do the same?'" Farrington said.

 

However, civil rights advocates say the plan unfairly sticks "ugly stereotypes" on the poor by not extending the stigma of a drug test on other entities that receive government money.

 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan Field Organizer Merissa KOVACH noted that General Motors executives weren't asked to take a drug test before accepting federal bailout money, for example. Bank executives weren't asked to go through the same humiliation for their bailouts, either.

 

"We understand the state's good intentions, but being poor is not a crime and they should not be treated as criminals," Kovach said.

 

A past state laws allowing for random drug testing of welfare recipients was ruled unconstitutional in the courts, but suspicion-based drug testing has not, giving Farrington hopes his bill would withstand judicial scrutiny if signed into law and challenged.

 

Support and opposition for the legislation on the Families, Children and Seniors Committee this afternoon appeared to fall, predictably, along partisan lines. Republicans, led by Committee Chair Ken KURTZ (R-Coldwater), argued the bill could help the chemically dependent break their cycle of addiction by seeking help.

 

Under the legislation, those going through a drug treatment program can begin receiving benefits. Kurtz said once money is attached to rehabilitation, more people would seek it.

 

Democratic Rep. Dian SLAVENS (D-Canton Twp.) and Rep. Marcia HOVEY-WRIGHT (D-Muskegon) were much more critical.

 

Slavens took issue with a provision mandating that all recipients fork over $50 for the drug test -- whether they are found clean or not.

 

She also questioned the sense of punishing the children of the adult welfare applicants by depriving the entire household of the money needed to keep a roof over the family's heads.

 

Under the bill, DHS would establish the standards that agents would use to establish a suspicion of drug use. Hovey-Wright feared those who use legal medical marijuana or prescription medication could be caught in the crossfire. Farrington said a definition of illegal drugs already written in state law is being used and those Hovey-Wright is referring to would not be impacted.

 

Another issue brought up by critics is the belief that DHS case workers would be overly subjective in their assessments and rely on falter assumptions based on observations to force someone to take the test.

 

Farrington said the bill calls for an "empirically validated substance abuse tool."

 

Still, Judith LINCOLN said the bill is an over-reach in that drug use among those applying for welfare is statistically a "very, very small problem" compared to other problems that lead to the use of public assistance, like mental health issues, for example.

 

However, Rep. Klint KESTO (R-Commerce Twp.) said cash subsidies from the government shouldn't be snorted up someone's nose or shot into someone's arm. If HB 4118moves the state in that direction, he said he saw value in protecting the taxpayers' money.

 

Committee Considers Drug Test Bill Over in the House Commerce Committee, legislators debated a bill that would strip unemployment benefits for those who fail or refuse to take a drug test as part of an employment application. Sponsored by Rep. Ken GOIKE (R-Ray Twp.), HB 4240 did not move as the bill sponsor conceded it still needed work. Goike said he believes the measure is important because unemployment benefits should go to people who are looking for jobs and who are job ready. If someone can't pass a drug test, they're not job ready, he said.

 

Rep. Harvey SANTANA (D-Detroit) said he supports where Goike wants to go with the bill, but questioned if politicians are creating a society where some people have no place. Tim HUGHES of the UAW focused on the issue of being ready for work. Someone who smokes a joint at a party on Friday night, Hughes said, wouldn't be impaired on Monday and would be available for work. But for a month, he continued, that person would flunk a drug test.

 

After that, Commerce Chairman Frank FOSTER (R-Petoskey) asked if the UAW had a stance on drug use for its membership. Hughes said in their contracts, they have work rules regarding use of drugs and alcohol. "What people do on their weekends is not our business," Hughes said. He added, "We're not in the business of endorsing what somebody does on a weekend, whether it's drugs or sex or rock and roll."

 

Rep. Tom LEONARD (R-DeWitt Twp.) then asked how the UAW ensures that someone is qualified to run heavy equipment. Hughes said performance is the best way. If someone is not capable, Hughes said, it shows up quickly. "If I'm working in a factory and you're working not far away, I've got a pretty good idea whether or not you're competent to do your job," Hughes said. He added, "It's not rocket science."

 

At another point today, Rep. Vicki BARNETT (D-Farmington Hills) joked that poppy seed hamantaschen is a popular treat during the Jewish holiday of Purim. Barnett said she had more poppy seed hamantaschen than she should have during the holiday recently. "I would have failed a drug test for opiates on Monday," Barnett said. "Yet, I was ready, willing and able to go to work. In fact, I had spent the weekend reading legislation.“She said legislators should put money into mental health programs if they believe the state has a serious drug problem, as opposed to worrying about people who have earned unemployment benefits.

[Restorium2]

A past state laws allowing for random drug testing of welfare recipients was ruled unconstitutional in the courts, but suspicion-based drug testing has not, giving Farrington hopes his bill would withstand judicial scrutiny if signed into law and challenged.

 

Case worker; Your shoe is untied, I call reasonable suspicion.

 

It's the same thing as random, or even manditory drug testing. The Supreme Court will strike it down.

[+Malamute]

It's close.

 

They may very well sneak this through.

 

They are doing their best to resolve the issue.

 

 

 

 

Brief History of Drug Testing in Michigan

In 1999, Michigan introduced a pilot program to test all recipients of FIP cash assistance for drug use, with the goal to implement the program statewide by April 2003. A drug test was required of every FIP recipient and applicant, meaning that the program was "suspicionless". If the program had been implemented fully, FIP eligibility would have been made contingent on a negative result on the drug test. While it was in effect, the pilot program tested 435 applicants for drug use; 10.3% of them tested positive.

In 1999, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit,

 

Marchwinski v. Howard, in U.S. District Court against the Department of Human Services (then the Family Independence Agency), alleging that the drug testing program was a violation of Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches. The pilot had been in operation for little more than a month – from October 1, 1999, until November 10, 1999 – before the U.S. District Court issued a preliminary injunction against the Department of Human Services (DHS) to cease the testing. The ruling considered such a drug test to be a "search" and, as such, it could not be suspicionless. Eventually, the entire Sixth Circuit bench affirmed the ruling in 2003. The DHS and the ACLU entered into a consent order, which kept the preliminary injunction in place until January 1, 2007.

 

A new, suspicion-based version of the drug testing program could be constitutionally permissible, however, and it would be consistent with Federal law. According to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, Sec. 902, "States shall not be prohibited by the Federal Government from testing welfare recipients for use of controlled substances nor from sanctioning welfare recipients who test positive for use of controlled substances."

[SFC]

At the end of the day I think we are going to lose this one. There is just very little sympathy for the downtrodden....Sad

[RandomStoner]

Guess I believe the old saying, Whats good for the goose, Is good for the gander!

If they want to drug test welfare recieptients, then ALL STATE & FEDERAL employees,appointed,elected and voulenteer should have to do the exact SAME tests as the welfare people!

In fact they should have to do it first,nothing like leading by example... alas we all know this senereo isn't happening any time soon..

 

 

[+Malamute]

Actually it should be anyone who recieves any benefits from the government.

 

Such as any tax credits, state schooling, subsidies, small business loans, social security, veterans benefits, and myriad other benefits.

 

:-)

 

Actually, i don't think anyone should ever be able to test anyone ever without consent. :-)

 

I mean, is nothing sacred anymore?

[SFC]

They started with inches and now we are miles away from what we had..... A story as old as humanity...

[GregS]

If this succeeds, the Fourth Amendment is one step closer to its death. So much has been done to bastardize it already.

[TheHarvester]

I will never forget when they told us not to worry, it would only be for Government workers and airplane pilots.

[shredder0911]

IF anyone is to be tested, I 2nd the call to have elected officials tested first, ESPECIALLY ones who have failed to balance their books and/or address issues. I wish I had been smarter and moved to a state that protects MMJ patients, but wasn't aware there were such places when I moved here.

[ozzrokk]

Actually it should be anyone who recieves any benefits from the government.

 

Such as any tax credits, state schooling, subsidies, small business loans, social security, veterans benefits, and myriad other benefits.

 

:-)

 

Actually, i don't think anyone should ever be able to test anyone ever without consent. :-)

 

I mean, is nothing sacred anymore?

 

 

Actually I wouldnt include SS or VETERANS BENEFITS in that group. As those are earned payments. Unless of course you ae getting unearned but needed SS.

 

But hey fuckit that s just my opinion. I am also of the opinion that really noone should be tested without consent as well.

[GrassMonkey]

This wastes more money than it saves, its a big failure and does nothing but pick on the poor:

 

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

 

It also is a violation of constitutional rights. It was a different story when lawmakers were faced with having to drop though, lol!

 

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

[+Malamute]

If you paid taxes, it is an earned benefit to utilize the national safety net. Whether that be Social Security, medicare, medicaid, SNAP, Unemployment, VA benefits...... it is all earned and paid for by being a citizen of the USA.

 

I understand what you are saying of course... but we are all equal and deserve help when needed without being made to feel like a second class citizen(earned/unearned).

 

Everyone needs some help sometimes. Christian Nation? WWJD? and all that good stuff... :-)

 

 

But yea,... I was being sarcastic about the testing everyone. We should not be testing anyone, at all.

[ozzrokk]

If you paid taxes, it is an earned benefit to utilize the national safety net. Whether that be Social Security, medicare, medicaid, SNAP, Unemployment, VA benefits...... it is all earned and paid for by being a citizen of the USA.

 

I understand what you are saying of course... but we are all equal and deserve help when needed without being made to feel like a second class citizen(earned/unearned).

 

Everyone needs some help sometimes. Christian Nation? WWJD? and all that good stuff... :-)

 

 

But yea,... I was being sarcastic about the testing everyone. We should not be testing anyone, at all.

 

 

 

I concur...

[maxmax]

The Department of Human Services (DHS) could demand welfare applicants take a drug test if officials suspect they are using illegal drugs, under re-introduced legislation debated by a House panel today.

 

The House Families, Children and Seniors Committee is expected to vote next week on HB 4118, a carbon copy of HB 5223 of last session, which passed the House 71-37 eight months ago before dying in the Senate (See "Drug Tests For Welfare Recipients," 6/7/12).

 

Rep. Jeff FARRINGTON (R-Utica) argued the proposal -- similar to what has been adopted in Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma and Missouri -- would prevent taxpayer money from being squandered on a recipient's illegal and bad habits.

 

"My constituents are asking me, 'Why is it that we have to take a drug test as part of getting a job, but our neighbors who are on public assistance are not having to do the same?'" Farrington said.

 

However, civil rights advocates say the plan unfairly sticks "ugly stereotypes" on the poor by not extending the stigma of a drug test on other entities that receive government money.

 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan Field Organizer Merissa KOVACH noted that General Motors executives weren't asked to take a drug test before accepting federal bailout money, for example. Bank executives weren't asked to go through the same humiliation for their bailouts, either.

 

"We understand the state's good intentions, but being poor is not a crime and they should not be treated as criminals," Kovach said.

 

A past state laws allowing for random drug testing of welfare recipients was ruled unconstitutional in the courts, but suspicion-based drug testing has not, giving Farrington hopes his bill would withstand judicial scrutiny if signed into law and challenged.

 

Support and opposition for the legislation on the Families, Children and Seniors Committee this afternoon appeared to fall, predictably, along partisan lines. Republicans, led by Committee Chair Ken KURTZ (R-Coldwater), argued the bill could help the chemically dependent break their cycle of addiction by seeking help.

 

Under the legislation, those going through a drug treatment program can begin receiving benefits. Kurtz said once money is attached to rehabilitation, more people would seek it.

 

Democratic Rep. Dian SLAVENS (D-Canton Twp.) and Rep. Marcia HOVEY-WRIGHT (D-Muskegon) were much more critical.

 

Slavens took issue with a provision mandating that all recipients fork over $50 for the drug test -- whether they are found clean or not.

 

She also questioned the sense of punishing the children of the adult welfare applicants by depriving the entire household of the money needed to keep a roof over the family's heads.

 

Under the bill, DHS would establish the standards that agents would use to establish a suspicion of drug use. Hovey-Wright feared those who use legal medical marijuana or prescription medication could be caught in the crossfire. Farrington said a definition of illegal drugs already written in state law is being used and those Hovey-Wright is referring to would not be impacted.

 

Another issue brought up by critics is the belief that DHS case workers would be overly subjective in their assessments and rely on falter assumptions based on observations to force someone to take the test.

 

Farrington said the bill calls for an "empirically validated substance abuse tool."

 

Still, Judith LINCOLN said the bill is an over-reach in that drug use among those applying for welfare is statistically a "very, very small problem" compared to other problems that lead to the use of public assistance, like mental health issues, for example.

 

However, Rep. Klint KESTO (R-Commerce Twp.) said cash subsidies from the government shouldn't be snorted up someone's nose or shot into someone's arm. If HB 4118moves the state in that direction, he said he saw value in protecting the taxpayers' money.

 

Committee Considers Drug Test Bill Over in the House Commerce Committee, legislators debated a bill that would strip unemployment benefits for those who fail or refuse to take a drug test as part of an employment application. Sponsored by Rep. Ken GOIKE (R-Ray Twp.), HB 4240 did not move as the bill sponsor conceded it still needed work. Goike said he believes the measure is important because unemployment benefits should go to people who are looking for jobs and who are job ready. If someone can't pass a drug test, they're not job ready, he said.

 

Rep. Harvey SANTANA (D-Detroit) said he supports where Goike wants to go with the bill, but questioned if politicians are creating a society where some people have no place. Tim HUGHES of the UAW focused on the issue of being ready for work. Someone who smokes a joint at a party on Friday night, Hughes said, wouldn't be impaired on Monday and would be available for work. But for a month, he continued, that person would flunk a drug test.

 

After that, Commerce Chairman Frank FOSTER (R-Petoskey) asked if the UAW had a stance on drug use for its membership. Hughes said in their contracts, they have work rules regarding use of drugs and alcohol. "What people do on their weekends is not our business," Hughes said. He added, "We're not in the business of endorsing what somebody does on a weekend, whether it's drugs or sex or rock and roll."

 

Rep. Tom LEONARD (R-DeWitt Twp.) then asked how the UAW ensures that someone is qualified to run heavy equipment. Hughes said performance is the best way. If someone is not capable, Hughes said, it shows up quickly. "If I'm working in a factory and you're working not far away, I've got a pretty good idea whether or not you're competent to do your job," Hughes said. He added, "It's not rocket science."

 

At another point today, Rep. Vicki BARNETT (D-Farmington Hills) joked that poppy seed hamantaschen is a popular treat during the Jewish holiday of Purim. Barnett said she had more poppy seed hamantaschen than she should have during the holiday recently. "I would have failed a drug test for opiates on Monday," Barnett said. "Yet, I was ready, willing and able to go to work. In fact, I had spent the weekend reading legislation.“She said legislators should put money into mental health programs if they believe the state has a serious drug problem, as opposed to worrying about people who have earned unemployment benefits.

never going to happen or pass Imo