Georgia Wants To Make Food Stamp Recipients Pay To Prove They Don’t Do Drugs

[ProSense]

Georgia Wants To Make Food Stamp Recipients Pay To Prove They Don’t Do Drugs

By Alan Pyke

Unless Gov. Nathan Deal (R) issues a surprise veto, Georgia’s poor will soon face arbitrary drug tests in order to keep their meager food stamps benefits.

The state legislature passed a bill last week imposing drug tests for anyone who raises a “reasonable suspicion” of drug abuse in the minds of state program administrators. Once an administrator decides to make a suspicious person pee in a cup, the law requires the accused party to cover the $17 cost of the test that will exonerate him.

The governor is expected to sign the bill into law “based on the fact that he did sign a similar drug testing bill a couple years ago,” a civil liberties lawyer in Georgia told MSNBC’s Ned Resnikoff. A Deal veto would also break with his party. Republicans have proposed drug tests for public assistance programs year after year at both the state and federal level. Five separate state legislatures considered drug tests specifically for food stamps in 2012, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and another 23 states weighed drug tests for other forms of assistance. During last year’s food stamps fight in Congress, Republicans tacked on an amendment to require drug tests nationwide.

Georgia’s “reasonable suspicion” language and requirement that recipients pay to be tested represents an evolution in the push to tie anti-poverty programs to drug tests. Previous drug testing schemes have been found unconstitutional on the grounds that testing a whole class of people is an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, a fate Georgia Republicans hope to dodge by lifting the concept of “reasonable suspicion” that underlies other law enforcement tactics such as “stop-and-frisk.” Testing programs billed as fiscal responsibility measures have ended up costing far more than they saved in Florida, Utah, and elsewhere. Georgia would dodge that pitfall by billing poor people directly.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/26/3419301/georgia-food-stamps-drug-testing/

[Rex]

1. Wow, just when you think the GOP cannot get any lower.

Punishing people in dire need, if only the M$M would make this a major news story. Well no doubt Foxnews will want Deal to sign for his own program. They can call it No Deal.

[onehandle]

2. Just like Floriduh. nt

[Roland99]

24. Which was finally overturned!

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-01-05/news/sfl-rick-scotts-drug-testing-overturned-20140105_1_rick-scott-drug-testing-welfare-recipients

[badtoworse]

3. Fair compromise: Loser pays

If the state claims reasonable suspicion and you test clean, the state pays. If you don't test clean, you pay.

[ProSense]

4. Fair compromise: Drug test the Governor and legislature

No drug testing for food. Period.

[badtoworse]

5. If you're doing drugs, you need to get clean.

The state just looking the other way is not helpful in making that happen.

ETA: If the state gives you food stamps and you're doing drugs, it frees up money that would otherwise be spent on food. That money gets spent on more drugs and makes the state an enabler, in effect. That is wrong on several levels.

[ProSense]

6. The entire premise is lunacy.

People aren't "doing drugs" because they need food stamps.

[badtoworse]

8. Don't know where you got that. See my edited post.

If you have a drug problem, you need more than just food stamps; you need help. Just giving that person food stamps makes it easier for them to continue with the drugs. IMO, the state has a right and a duty to condition the food stamps on getting into a rehab program and staying clean. The only way to identify a situation like this is with testing.

[ProSense]

9. That's simply BS.

"If you have a drug problem, you need more than just food stamps; you need help. Just giving that person food stamps makes it easier for them to continue with the drugs. IMO, the state has a right and a duty to condition the food stamps on getting into a rehab program and staying clean. The only way to identify a situation like this is with testing."

Drug testing people because they are applying for food stamps is RW bullshit to dehumanize, harrass and humiliate the poor.

[badtoworse]

10. You didn't address the substance of my post.

Just calling something BS does not make it so.

[ProSense]

11. What "substance"?

"Just calling something BS does not make it so."

Yes, the "substance" of your post was justifying drug testing the poor, which is BS.

[Tsiyu]

16. You are saying poverty is probable cause of criminal activity

you do understand this?

I would say wealth would be the greater probable cause. Wealthy people have access to all the best drugs, so we should test them all for their own good and the good of society according to your definition of presumptive judgment.

Thankfully, the courts call this premise of yours COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

[Roland99]

25. Hear! Hear!

[tiny elvis]

18. free rehab would be great

it is not in the bill
the bill makes people into assets and liabilities
in a fascistic value assessment,
what sort of people would be destined for reasonable suspicion
and who would be presumed good?

[jazzimov]

20. Then we need to test EVERYONE.

The justification behind this is that "people who need govt assistance are the same people who do drugs" which is BS and was proven as such by the Florida "experiment".

I have no problem with testing to find out who is drug-free and who is not. But tying it only to people who need assistance is counter-productive. The people who need assistance are just people, not necessarily "drug addicts".

I have no problem with drug testing people applying for govt assistance, but it will end up costing the State not saving the State money. If the State is willing to bear that additional cost, that's fine. But portraying such testing as a "cost-saving" measure is BS. As well as stereo-typing.

Ya hear me? BS. And Florida proved it.

[Rex]

27. Wait, do you agree that all that work for taxpayer money should be tested?

If the state pays your salary, should you get drug tested yes or no?

[badtoworse]

32. Yes

[Gravitycollapse]

38. That is called paranoia.

[badtoworse]

40. I've had to pee in a cup for every job I've had in the last 30 years.

Companies don't want employees who do drugs. Why should taxpayers accept them?

[Gravitycollapse]

41. What makes you think the two are comparable?

Employment involves operating in official capacity for an agency. For instance, you may be handling sensitive material or operating expensive and/or heavy equipment. The need to ensure safety, privacy and professionalism dictates that drug testing employees may be necessary.

Whereas SNAP recipients are simply receiving financial support. They are not employees.

Would you like to try again?

[badtoworse]

42. This subthread was dealing with employment

With respect to financial support, money is fungible. Providing financial support to a drug user to cover one cost, makes other money available to purchase illegal drugs, thus increasing demand and furthering the users drug dependency. That makes the state an enabler for the drug user and potentially results in larger drug problems for the state to combat going forward..

[Gravitycollapse]

43. Financial support is provided to all citizens of this country...

In myriad of ways.

Do you suggest that every citizen be drug tested before they are allowed to utilize public goods and services? That includes roads, emergency services, entering state owned buildings, receiving tax credits, etc...

Essentially that would require every citizen be drug tested on a regular basis from birth until death.

I don't think you've thought this through very well. And it is indicative of an underlying attitude you possess which seeks to justify a specific prejudice against those who receive SNAP support. Even if you aren't willing to admit to such a prejudice, it shines through.

[badtoworse]

46. We're discussing one specific area of public policy, so let's stay focused.

Nice try with the broad brush, but you know public policy is a lot more complicated than that. My position is very simple: Giving financial support to people who are using illegal drugs is bad policy. I laid out the reasons why I believe that in Post 42. A lot of this thread has been ancillary to that, e.g. what is reasonable cause? Is implied consent applicable? Let's forget that and just deal with that basic question. Do you think we should simply give financial support with no strings to people who have a drug problem? If so, why don't you lay out your reasons why.

Elsewhere in this thread, I said that if you test positive for drugs, financial support should be dependent on making an effort to get clean. Although I didn't say it before, I believe that providing free rehabilitation to drug abusers is a better use of public funds than just handing out food stamps and looking the other way. I'd make the food stamps available, but you'd have to be making progress in the rehab to keep receiving them. That is not inconsistent with how other types of financial support are provided - in the case of unemployment, you are supposed to be making a diligent effort to find another job in order to collect your check. I'm not asking any more of the drug user.

Your statement that I'm prejudiced against people who receive SNAP support is inaccurate and unfair. I started out by saying that if you test clean, you're held harmless. I've never posted anything on DU that disparages poor people in any way. I contribute thousands each year to charities that feed hungry people and I volunteer my time at my church fundraising to help local families that are down and need help. You might think you know me, but you don't.

[Gravitycollapse]

48. "I've never posted anything on DU that disparages poor people in any way." - Until now.

I don't need the "all my best friends are poor people argument." I really seriously don't care how much you donate. I don't care how you attempt to justify your argument post hoc. I care about what your argument means.

You are attempting to delineate between certain types of government benefits without justification. There is no reason why it is less necessary to drug test someone who receives a tax credit, for instance, in comparison to someone who receives SNAP.

SNAP recipients are not beggars. We are not gifting them money. And the state does not exist to be parental figures to people you stereotype as irresponsible drug users.

Giving financial support to people who are using illegal drugs is bad policy.

Two things:

1. There is no evidence that giving financial assistance to drug addicts makes anything worse.

2. This is all drafted under the assumption you have made, without any evidence, that SNAP recipients are drug addicts. When, in actuality, mandatory drug tests in other states like Florida have demonstrated that the failure rate is below that of the general population.




Did you drive on a publicly maintained road today? Have you been the beneficiary of state projects? The money in your wallet, is it currency of the United States? Have you ever received a tax credit or other subsidy?

If you answer yes to any of those questions, I have only one request of you:

I'm going to need you to pee into a cup. Because I can't be totally certain you aren't a raging crack addict and I don't like how you've been fidgeting around this whole time.

[badtoworse]

50. If you want me to pee in a cup, I'm OK with that. You can even hold the cup.

We'll just have to disagree about everything else.

[Gravitycollapse]

51. So you are okay with drug testing every single American on a regular basis?

It's not a matter of disagreeing. It's a matter of you being wrong.

[badtoworse]

53. There comes a point where it's obvious that we're wasting each other's time discussing it further.

I think we're reached that point. I'm just as convinced that you're wrong as you are that I'm wrong. Let's celebrate the fact that we kept the discourse reasonably civil.

[Gravitycollapse]

54. Does your equivocation surrounding drug addiction and SNAP recipients constitute civil discourse?

I learn something new every day.

I've been nice to you here because I possessed good faith that you were suffering from mischaracterization. Now that I'm certain your views are fully understood, I have no other reason to be nice. How convenient it seems you've just now decided on "agreeing to disagree" after your vitriolic argument has run out of steam.

[badtoworse]

55. Disagreement does not equal vitriol.

I believe that when the state provides financial support with no strings to people with a drug problem, the state becomes an enabler. I haven't equivocated about that. You see it differently and we are not going to bridge that. There is nothing left to discuss.

I'm sure we'll find something else to disagree about down the road. Have a good noght.

[Gravitycollapse]

56. Since you didn't get it the first time...

The vitriol involves your characterization of SNAP recipients.

I'm sure we will disagree on something down the road. Most likely surrounding another intellectually dishonest argument you will have about people receiving state financial assistance.

[Gormy Cuss]

39. However, that presupposes that the purpose is to help addicts.

The purpose of drug testing for benefits is ALWAYS to deny benefits, thus reducing program costs.

The testing rarely finds evidence of substance abuse. Those who can't pass the test just won't bother applying. The trouble is, they may live in households with others who will also be denied food aid -- children, for example. Now if instead of a hammer, a carrot were offered ... say, test positive and get a ticket to rehab resources... that would be the state being helpful.

[Gravitycollapse]

12. Except there is no evidence food stamp recipients use drugs at a higher rate...

Than the general population.

[badtoworse]

13. That's irrelevant. The premise is that the state reasonably believes that you are using drugs.

If the state is correct, then the argument is completely different: Should the state give you the food stamps anyway and do nothing about the drug problem

[Gravitycollapse]

14. What makes that assumption "reasonable?"

[badtoworse]

17. Appearences and the way you are acting

The whole premise is that the state pays if you test clean. That is a disincentive to the state testing without reasonable suspicion. Similar reasoning allows a police officer to test you if he suspects you are driving drunk.

[Gravitycollapse]

21. You are not legally obligated to submit to a blood-alcohol test regardless of circumstance...

You know that, right? You also have no legal obligation to submit to any sort of sobriety test even if the officer suspects you are drunk.

A police officer has no right to submit you to any sort of test, especially involving the searching of your person or body, against your will. You retain the right at all times against unreasonable search and seizure as well as the right against self-incrimination. Which includes submitting to a test that would prove your guilt.

I ask again, what makes the assumptions of the state "reasonable?"

[Tsiyu]

23. The poster is off the rails on this

(((((((((((((( crickets ))))))))))))))))

[badtoworse]

33. If you don't submit to a sobriety test and you're driving,...

You'll lose your license.

[Gravitycollapse]

35. Implied consent laws persist because they are legally expedient.

But their constitutionality is questionable.

Nonetheless, my argument still stands. You are protected by the 4th and 5th amendment against being forced to submit to any test by a police officer or agency and the implied consent laws merely give law enforcement justification for the tests. Which then allows you to be penalized for failing to comply. They cannot force you to do it, regardless of reasonable suspicion.

[badtoworse]

36. I don't disagree.

The point is that if you want the privilege of driving, you have to take a sobriety test if law enforcement asks you to. I am saying that the same legal principle would apply with respect to drug testing for a job or to receive food stamps.

[Gravitycollapse]

37. Implied consent persists in driving because of safety concerns...

Imminent safety concerns. No such imminent safety concerns exist for SNAP recipients. There is no immediate danger to the safety or life of anyone if someone abusing drugs collects SNAP funds. So your point is totally moot.

Would you like to try again?

[badtoworse]

47. The state can make a case why providing financial support to drug abusers is bad policy

Post 42 is an outline, I'm sure the state could make a compelling case along those lines.

[Gravitycollapse]

49. You've unsuccessfully attempted to blur the lines between SNAP recipient and drug addict.

[jazzimov]

22. "appearances and the way you are acting"...."the state pays".

so, because someone needs "help" that automatically means you must be doing drugs. Because our systen is so perfect that you have to do well unless you are doing drugs? BS.

But, if the State pays, this will go away quickly enough.

[Tsiyu]

15. The state of florida did the same thing

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/welfare.asp

A U.S. judge has struck down a Florida law requiring drug screening for welfare recipients, saying that it violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.

The testing fee of $25 to $45 was to be repaid by the state if the test came back negative, but applicants who tested positive would have been barred from receiving benefits for a year.

U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven permanently halted enforcement of the law in her ruling. She agreed with an earlier court finding that "there is nothing inherent in the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a concrete danger that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use ..."

During the time the law was in effect, about 2.6 percent of recipients tested positive for illegal drugs, mostly for marijuana, according to the court documents.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/welfare.asp#ylKhq9uSXgCtsw9p.99

If we are going to drug test any recipients of public funds, we should also drug test lawmakers, farm subsidy recipients, corporate welfare recipients. Test them all, because poverty is NOT probable cause for drug abuse..

BTW, the law cost Florida a LOT of money just to prove they were assholes.

[Tsiyu]

19. Answer the question

why does the state "reasonably believe" you are using drugs because you are on food stamps? Explain the correlation to me.

I just don't get it at all.

In florida, it was something like 2% of recipients tested, as in my other post. I would say that percentage would be much higher for the wealthy who have disposable income.

We should reasonably ASSUME all wealthy are drug addicts?

Welcome to 'Murica : GUILTY UNTIL YOUR PISS COMES BACK CLEAN

[Rex]

28. If we assume people are working to get a job on UI

then it is equally fair to assume all employees getting paid the same taxpayer money should be tested for drugs. All government employees. It is curious to see what people say to that.

[Tsiyu]

29. Only the poor commit crimes

They are really rolling in the dough with their criminal activities, huh? That's why they're so....poor...oh, wait..

Yesh, heads would roll if they tested every government funded individual....

[Rex]

31. Yeah I take it when I get no answer they are agreeing with the RWing talking point.

They just assume politicians are great people and the poor are just unwashed masses trying to get a free meal. I guess they forget about all those free meal for the governor.

[Roland99]

26. No...*Republicans* believe they are using drugs.

BIG difference.

Every state that's tried this has eventually lost. But, they keep trying anyway.

[Cha]

30. This should be Kicked for Exposing the Idiots in Georgia!

[Sunlei]

34. unconstitutional and very much like nazi germany allowed the person behind the counter to determine

“reasonable suspicion” .

[CFLDem]

44. Does this mean we get to drug test

the bankers and other wealthy individuals before they get their tax refunds?

Hell we should even test corporate officers to see if their business gets a tax break.

Wouldn't want a bunch of druggies to game the system, dontchaknow.

[gollygee]

45. If they can't afford food

maybe they can't afford the test either.

[AuntPatsy]

52. I honestly do not understand how these ignorant laws get passed, do the people have so little

Power, sickening...