• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Welfare Drug Testing Bill Withdrawn

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers. Read More Here
I have a question here, how is it constitutional to give a drug test to anyone that applies for a job and gets it but not everyone that applies for welfare and gets it. They want a bill where a welfare recipient can opt out of random testing to keep it constitutional but if you work for a company that does this you can't opt out. As far as testing our public officials, why not, they are as likly to do drugs as anyone else and they are receiving tax payer money just like people on welfare or getting food stamps or receiving unemployment benefits.
 

AnitaKnapp

It's not me, it's you.
V.I.P.
That is interesting. Why is drug testing political candidates unconstitutional?

Also, I see no reason for him to pull his bill. Political CANDIDATES were found unconstitutional, that doesn't mean that drug testing lawmakers currently holding office is unconstitutional. They should be upheld to drug testing, IMO. They are the ones making the laws to criminalize these drugs.
 

generalblue

Where is my Queen?
Anything can be unconstitutional nowadays. Having people live on welfare is unconstitutional. There are a ton of people on welfare that take and abuse drugs. I am all for it and don't see how it is unconstitutional. If that can't pass, I doubt regulating welfare well too because that would be to unconstitutional.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
I think basically, there can't be a law mandating random testing for an entire group like that without careful wording. So he's okay with the legislator amendment, but it also has to be worded properly.

It's different with jobs, because it's not legally required - it's something your employer can choose to do.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
I read this the other day and had a good chuckle. It's not surprising to see yet more hypocrisy in Washington but it's should really bother you when lawmakers don't want to be treated like the rest of us.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
There is a difference though between those in office and those on welfare. For one they are employed as representatives of their districts, and they are voted in by their constituents. The people they are targeting here are people on welfare yet engaging in criminal activity.

That said, if the majority of people want this, then I have no problem with that. They are employees of the American people and if the employers wish to enact it, then so be it. But if they do not support it, then it's irrelevant to the issue of welfare recipients undergoing drug testing if they are not drug tested themselves.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
To be fair, there are plenty of these guys engaged in illegal or questionable activity who represent us. I actually see more reason to test them than welfare recipients (if we were forced to choose).
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
I agree with you, and if they are doing something illegal then I hope they get caught and are prosecuted. But the difference here is their employer (us) actually demaning they be drug tested, and those recieving welfare and being drug tested.

If I don't institute random drug testing at my office, or if my employer does not institute my random drug testing, that has nothing to do with people accepting welfare being random drug testing. I understand their salary comes from federal taxes, but the difference here is theirs is out of employment. Don't get me wrong, as one of their "employers" I do think they should be drug tested, I'm only differentiating between the two difference scenarios and how they are not analgous.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
I read this the other day and had a good chuckle. It's not surprising to see yet more hypocrisy in Washington but it's should really bother you when lawmakers don't want to be treated like the rest of us.
You sure you read it?

"I've only withdrawn it temporarily," he told HuffPost, stressing he carefully crafted his original bill so that it could survive a legal challenge. Last year a federal judge, citing the Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure, struck down a Florida law that required blanket drug testing of everyone who applied for welfare.

...

McMillin, for his part, said he's coming back with a new bill on Monday, lawmaker testing included. He said he has no problem submitting to a test himself.
"I would think legislators that are here who are responsible for the people who voted them in, they should be more than happy to consent," he said. "Give me the cup right now and I will be happy to take the test."

He's just pulling it to make sure it'll be constitutionality sound. He's not saying he opposes the idea.
 
Top