OR considers drug tests for state assistance

[Sharon]

PORTLAND, Ore. - Two Oregon lawmakers have introduced legislation that will require people to submit to drug tests in order to receive state services.

State Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Hillsboro, is the chief sponsor of Senate Bill 538, which will require adults to undergo drug tests before they receive public assistance like welfare and food stamps. To continue receiving public assistance, they must take a drug test every six months. If they fail a test, their benefits will be revoked.

State Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, is sponsoring House Bill 2995. If passed into law, those who want unemployment insurance will also need to pass a drug test. Those who fail will be denied the insurance unless they take part in a drug-treatment program.

Starr said the idea for his bill came from his constituents, and he said the goal is to get people off drugs.

Recipients of public services would pay for the tests and Starr said it would not be unlike what people do when they get a job. The idea is to provide an incentive for people to kick drug habits, and Starr thinks if they really want and need state services they will do so.

“Ultimately, though, as Oregonians, we should really hope and desire these people to get off the drugs,” he said. “Because that’s not healthy for them; it’s not healthy for their families, (and) if they have children, it’s not healthy for their children.”

He said taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill to support someone’s drug habit.

“We’re in a tough economic environment. We’re trying to look for opportunities to save money in government, and I think this is a way to do that that benefits the taxpayers and the recipients of state services.”

If both bills become law they will take effect on July 1, 2012.

[The J]

Damn well about time.

[formerexpat]

Let's hope more states follow suit. Common sense and about time.

[chiver78]

hopefully other states follow suit, although I have a feeling mine will be last in line.

[suzwantstobefree]

In our race for Governor in Florida, Rick Scott (who was elected) said he wanted to drug test public assistance receipients, also. The bill has not been presented yet (he has only been in office for a few days) but I hope he follows through on this. Why should we pay to support drug users?

[cael]

Jan 14, 2011 21:58:40 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

hopefully other states follow suit, although I have a feeling mine will be last in line.

I second that. We're waaaay too left for that (I agree with this and I'm relatively liberal myself...)

[Deleted]

Just in one state... I say make it federal law!

[mtshastawriter]

Okay, so what happens to all the people who test positive and have kids?

[cronewitch]

Test positive and have kids the kids get removed from the home for safety until the parents can earn them back.

We have a drug addict at work with a 5 year old, she got in trouble with the law and at work and went to rehab. Her sister took the kid then refused to give her back. Now the addict has to show up at court every week and do random drug test and we test her at work, she has her kid now but the first screw up and the child protective services people will protect the kid. The married responsible sister wants to protect her niece and would make a good guardian. The grandma already keeps her two days a week because the mom has to go to meetings and court. The mother will be fired Monday, she was on probation last spring and summer then fired but begged for her job and went to rehab. FMLA saved her job but she has only worked 72% of the scheduled hours since she has been back and this week didn't show and didn't call. She probably will sue because FMLA was supposed to save her job. They are composing a severance package hoping she will accept that instead of suing. She will be surprised she is entitled to her job and always upset when she is expected to work. Saying she shouldn't have to work the worse hours because she has seniority. She isn't the least bit grateful they let her go to rehab and let her take of early to go to court and for all the days off for court dates to try to get her kid. Still whining about not liking the boss and not going to do what he wants. Shouldn't have to stay until 4:30, life isn't fair at all.

[kristi28]

Jan 14, 2011 23:58:55 GMT -5 @mtshastawriter said:

Okay, so what happens to all the people who test positive and have kids?

They talked about this in MO some years ago, and I believe that this was the reason it didn't go anywhere. As I see it, the kids lose either way.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

If this passes, watch for a real growth in drug-testing labs.

[happyscooter]

No Chiver, North Carolina will be last. And I also say that if you are on public assistance, you should have to volunteer somewhere one day a week. In your child's classroom, library, picking up trash on the street, etc...

[lynda in iowa]

I'm with happyscooter. We all have to work for our money, public assistance and even unemployment should come with work requirements.

[Opti]

Will this really catch that many people? I think I read somewhere else here on proboards that most drug users given 24 hours of notice before a test
will pass the test. Given the person has to pay for the test themselves how many are going to show up for a drug test they know they will fail?
How likely is it they will show up only to be tested when they will test clean?

[constanz22]

I'm a social worker and absolutely feel this should happen for all recipients of public assistance. But, having been in the field almost 20 years, I highly doubt it will happen...
In NY, we supposedly have a time limit on Public Assistance of 5 years and also have Welfare to Work, where recipients are SUPPOSED to either volunteer, do some sort of "work", or attend job training classes in order to receive their benefit. The big issue here is both the 5 year time limit AND the requirement to "work" for their benefit only applies to THEIR benefit. They will not, ever, lose the benefit for the child/ren. So, obviously, it doesn't take much to realize the cost/benefit is just not there as an incentive to make people "work". If they have a child/ren, they will just go without their personal "benefit" and live off what they receive for thier kids. It's a crazy system. There are so many faults with it, I don't think there is even enough room here to list them all...
It is rare that CPS will remove children if they parent/s test positive for drugs. It has to be proven that they were either using in front of the children or were under the infuence, with no adequate caretaker available, while caring for the children. The ages of the children also come into play. An infant or toddler would be much more likely to be removed than 10-17 year olds.

[justwhoever]

I would be for this and my family receives food stamps. And health coverage for the kids. And yes we both work.

As for how to get people in to test. Maybe they could do home visits WITHOUT warning? I don't know. I mean the social workers are already working and being paid, so going to someone's home wouldn't cost extra would it?

I admit to "using" drugs when I was a teen. It was "cool" so sure my friends and I smoked a few. But then I grew up and really don't see what the hype is.

[readsalot]

I agree also with the drug-testing, but wouldn't want the kids to lose food or medical care due to the bad luck of having idiot parents.

[gambler]

I say this is long over due. as in regards to the kids they should be taken away permanently! drug addition dose not go away it might be in recession but the craving is always there and might resurface. the kids should be kept away so the do not learn to use or enable the circle must be broke i feel the same should be true for child abuse/neglect or domestic violence break the circle, give the kids a chance

[The J]

Jan 15, 2011 10:04:33 GMT -5 @justwhoever said:

I would be for this and my family receives food stamps. And health coverage for the kids. And yes we both work.

As for how to get people in to test. Maybe they could do home visits WITHOUT warning? I don't know. I mean the social workers are already working and being paid, so going to someone's home wouldn't cost extra would it?

I admit to "using" drugs when I was a teen. It was "cool" so sure my friends and I smoked a few. But then I grew up and really don't see what the hype is.

It would be more expensive, simply because of the volume of people who would need to be tested, and therefore the number of social workers you would need, plus the costs of actually going to their homes.

[haapai]

Recipients of public services would pay for the tests and Starr said it would not be unlike what people do when they get a job.

Except for who pays for it. I've taken a lot of whiz quizzes but I've never been asked to pay for one.

What do tests like this cost?

[chiver78]

Jan 15, 2011 11:42:03 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

When are we going to start drug testing politicians? They should have to pee in a cup before any bill is passed or voted on.

but only if this pee test includes a blood alcohol test as well!

[haapai]

And they have to pay for it out of pocket.

[kinetickid]

Jan 15, 2011 7:32:54 GMT -5 happyscooter said:

No Chiver, North Carolina will be last. And I also say that if you are on public assistance, you should have to volunteer somewhere one day a week. In your child's classroom, library, picking up trash on the street, etc...

What if you work 5-6 days/week? And who watches the kids during the time you're volunteering?

[happyscooter]

I am talking about the ones who aren't working. Kids are in school and they are at home all day watching TV. Or making more babies. Or doing drugs. And most of the time, grand maw is watching the kids anyway.