Kansas House adopts drug testing

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
I would be absolutely amazed if this actually went on to become law, but I do feel its a definite step in the right direction. Hopefully this will become law and as well become adopted in other states.
There should be certain expectations if one is to depend on government assistance and one of those expectations should be not using illegal drugs!

Article

House adopts drug testing

The House gave first-round approval today to a bill that requires drug testing of Kansans who participate in four state public assistance programs.

After a lengthy debate on the House floor, representatives endorsed House Bill 2275. If it is approved on a final vote Wednesday, the bill would still need to be adopted by the Senate and signed by the governor to become law.

The measure sponsored by Rep. Kasha Kelley, R-Arkansas City, mandates testing of an estimated 14,000 people involved in programs managed by the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. Testing would apply to recipients of financial support in the temporary aid for families, general assistance, child care support and grandparents as caregivers programs.

Kelley said the state should work to get parents off illegal drugs and advance the interests of children in those families.

?Shouldn?t you only be fearful if you?re using?? Kelley said.

SRS Secretary Don Jordan said 3 percent to 8 percent of program recipients would likely test positive for marijuana, cocaine, crack or other illegal drugs. The program would cost $800,000 annually, but would not be implemented unless the Legislature made a specific appropriation for the testing. A statewide network of urine sample collection and testing centers would have to be established.

The bill was amended on the House floor to require two failed tests before a person was booted off the state assistance programs.

An amendment to delete people in the state?s grandparents as caregivers program from the new testing mandate was rejected by the House.

Rep. Geraldine Flaharty, D-Wichita, failed to gain enough votes for her motion to send the bill back to a House committee for more work.

Returning the measure to a committee would send the wrong message to Kansans, said Rep. Brenda Landwehr, a Wichita Republican and chairwoman of the House Health and Human Services Committee. It was her committee that send the bill to the full House.

Landwehr said referal would declare: ?Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, we don?t really care if someone buys drugs with your hard-earned money.?

Rep. Marti Crow, D-Leavenworth, said the legislation sought by Kelley and Landwehr left the unmistakable impression the House believes people on public assistance were more likely to be hooked on drugs than a person not on welfare.

?Testing someone because they are poor? Where does that make sense?? Crow asked. ?This is crazy and it?s mean.?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
I think it would be better if "the house" adopts drug testing on themselves.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,633
2,893
136
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Rep. Marti Crow, D-Leavenworth, said the legislation sought by Kelley and Landwehr left the unmistakable impression the House believes people on public assistance were more likely to be hooked on drugs than a person not on welfare.

?Testing someone because they are poor? Where does that make sense?? Crow asked. ?This is crazy and it?s mean.?

Ha, Marti is on crack. The bill doesn't give the impression that public assistance recipients are more likely to be users, it gives the impression that taxpayers don't like flushing their money down the toilet.

As an aside, Kansas needs to change their policy on numbering House bills. HB 2275 was already used in 2007 for a measure banning soda vending machines at schools.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
So it's fine if you are an alcoholic cigarette smoker, it's the illegal drugs that are bad?
Just legalize drugs, problem solved.

Doesn't Kansas have a bunch of farmers receiving govt aid? They all need to be drug tested-everyone in the family.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I think people should be free to do whatever drugs they want as long as it's not affecting anyone else. On the other hand, I don't want to fund someone's drug habit through welfare. I think it's somewhat of an invasion of privacy, but I do think that it is an important issue to address in terms of public assistance. I don't think marijuana should be on that list though... Marijuana is in a completely different league than cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. It's just not the same at all.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I think people should be free to do whatever drugs they want as long as it's not affecting anyone else. On the other hand, I don't want to fund someone's drug habit through welfare. I think it's somewhat of an invasion of privacy, but I do think that it is an important issue to address in terms of public assistance. I don't think marijuana should be on that list though... Marijuana is in a completely different league than cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. It's just not the same at all.

This is really no different than AIG except on a personal level. We demand certain things of AIG when they recieve public money. Why cant we expect the same of individuals?
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
I'm pro-drugs, and I have no problem with this.

Taxpayer dollars should not be going towards other people getting fucked up.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: marincounty
So it's fine if you are an alcoholic cigarette smoker, it's the illegal drugs that are bad?
Just legalize drugs, problem solved.

Doesn't Kansas have a bunch of farmers receiving govt aid? They all need to be drug tested-everyone in the family.

Bwahahaha!! You just as well have them test themselves because the majority of them are probably rich farmers or have farming roots.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I think people should be free to do whatever drugs they want as long as it's not affecting anyone else. On the other hand, I don't want to fund someone's drug habit through welfare. I think it's somewhat of an invasion of privacy, but I do think that it is an important issue to address in terms of public assistance. I don't think marijuana should be on that list though... Marijuana is in a completely different league than cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. It's just not the same at all.

This is really no different than AIG except on a personal level. We demand certain things of AIG when they recieve public money. Why cant we expect the same of individuals?

Fine. Let's require that recipients of public funds be non-smokers and non-drinkers. Those two habits are far more harmful than illegal drugs.

Deal?
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Originally posted by: Ns1
I'm pro-drugs, and I have no problem with this.

Taxpayer dollars should not be going towards other people getting fucked up.
Basically my feelings on the matter. If a person cannot even provide the most basic necessities (food, housing, etc.) for them and their family, I don't think they need to be wasting money on illegal drugs.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,671
6,246
126
"Good" from Kansas? Knew this was parody even before opening the thread.

This is insidious BS, the rot from within. Government mandated stripping of Rights based upon Class.
 

ZzZGuy

Golden Member
Nov 15, 2006
1,855
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I think people should be free to do whatever drugs they want as long as it's not affecting anyone else. On the other hand, I don't want to fund someone's drug habit through welfare. I think it's somewhat of an invasion of privacy, but I do think that it is an important issue to address in terms of public assistance. I don't think marijuana should be on that list though... Marijuana is in a completely different league than cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. It's just not the same at all.

This is really no different than AIG except on a personal level. We demand certain things of AIG when they recieve public money. Why cant we expect the same of individuals?

Fine. Let's require that recipients of public funds be non-smokers and non-drinkers. Those two habits are far more harmful than illegal drugs.

Deal?

Well, if they are so poor they need gov aid, they have better things to spend their money on then booze, smokes and drugs. It's not like this would be a ban on anything (not really relevant to illegal drugs), you can still smoke and drink but without government money. Just so long as there is free rehab programs offered. I'd love to see that in Canada.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,541
54,403
136
This just seems silly and unenforceable to me. I mean I don't want my money going to finance other people getting fucked up either, but the vast majority of people on these programs are the children of the people being tested I'd bet. Is society willing to punish the children for the misdeeds of the parents? I'm betting the answer to that is no... and so what are you going to do if the parents pop positive?
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Are they going to test for tobacco? For Alcohol? For 40" Plasma tvs?

There's tons of stupid shit welfare reciepients buy. Where are you gonna stop?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Why stop at people who get public assistance? Why not regularly test every kid who goes to public schools? Or every person with a license to drive on public roads? Or every person who benefits from public law enforcement?

If you think there's a difference, you're wrong. All these deadbeats feeding at the public trough! And the worst ones are the hypocrites who think they don't.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: seemingly random
The recipients of government assistance should also be required to get a tubal ligation or a vasectomy.

Seig heil!

:roll:
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Why stop at people who get public assistance? Why not regularly test every kid who goes to public schools? Or every person with a license to drive on public roads? Or every person who benefits from public law enforcement?

If you think there's a difference, you're wrong. All these deadbeats feeding at the public trough! And the worst ones are the hypocrites who think they don't.

uh, no.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: Vic
Why stop at people who get public assistance? Why not regularly test every kid who goes to public schools? Or every person with a license to drive on public roads? Or every person who benefits from public law enforcement?

If you think there's a difference, you're wrong. All these deadbeats feeding at the public trough! And the worst ones are the hypocrites who think they don't.

uh, no.

Please elaborate.

Keep in mind though, this isn't the only way in which this drug testing idea is morally wrong. Even if you manage to prove some kind of ethical difference in the different uses of public funds and resources, you're still establishing a litmus test for injustice and inequality in that it would all right for people who use govt in one to be free, but those who use it in another can be subject to all sorts of constitutional violations. Pretty much textbook fascism.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: Vic
Why stop at people who get public assistance? Why not regularly test every kid who goes to public schools? Or every person with a license to drive on public roads? Or every person who benefits from public law enforcement?

If you think there's a difference, you're wrong. All these deadbeats feeding at the public trough! And the worst ones are the hypocrites who think they don't.

uh, no.

Please elaborate.

IMO there is nothing wrong with using drugs as long as you are a productive member of society.

Sitting there, leeching off the system, and using taxpayer money to fund your desire to get fucked up is not being a productive member of society.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: Vic
Why stop at people who get public assistance? Why not regularly test every kid who goes to public schools? Or every person with a license to drive on public roads? Or every person who benefits from public law enforcement?

If you think there's a difference, you're wrong. All these deadbeats feeding at the public trough! And the worst ones are the hypocrites who think they don't.

uh, no.

Please elaborate.

IMO there is nothing wrong with using drugs as long as you are a productive member of society.

Sitting there, leeching off the system, and using taxpayer money to fund your desire to get fucked up is not being a productive member of society.

Forgetting that you are senselessly blending 2 entirely separate issues... So what you're saying then is that it must now be a law of the land that every person be a productive member of society? I thought only socialists and communists believed that.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Forgetting that you are senselessly blending 2 entirely separate issues... So what you're saying then is that it must now be a law of the land that every person be a productive member of society? I thought only socialists and communists believed that.

touche.
 

dbk

Lifer
Apr 23, 2004
17,685
10
81
I don't know about testing everyone.

Maybe have those who've had a past with drugs to go through some counseling/education instead?
That way you don't simply classify the poor as crackheads.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I think people should be free to do whatever drugs they want as long as it's not affecting anyone else. On the other hand, I don't want to fund someone's drug habit through welfare. I think it's somewhat of an invasion of privacy, but I do think that it is an important issue to address in terms of public assistance. I don't think marijuana should be on that list though... Marijuana is in a completely different league than cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. It's just not the same at all.

This is really no different than AIG except on a personal level. We demand certain things of AIG when they recieve public money. Why cant we expect the same of individuals?

Because they vote Democrat by a wide margin if they can get themselves out of the stupor. Or if Acorn gives them a ride.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I think people should be free to do whatever drugs they want as long as it's not affecting anyone else. On the other hand, I don't want to fund someone's drug habit through welfare. I think it's somewhat of an invasion of privacy, but I do think that it is an important issue to address in terms of public assistance. I don't think marijuana should be on that list though... Marijuana is in a completely different league than cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. It's just not the same at all.

This is really no different than AIG except on a personal level. We demand certain things of AIG when they recieve public money. Why cant we expect the same of individuals?

Fine. Let's require that recipients of public funds be non-smokers and non-drinkers. Those two habits are far more harmful than illegal drugs.

Deal?

I wouldnt have a problem with that.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |