Log in

No account? Create an account
You don't know me. [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | The Realm of Randomia ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Do as I say not as I cook? [Jan. 29th, 2012|09:46 pm]
[mood |busybusy]
[music |Jackass. Mr. Random has the remote right now. ;)]


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.

"There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill," said Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville), sponsor of the original welfare drug testing bill.

The Supreme Court ruled drug testing for political candidates unconstitutional in 1997, striking down a Georgia law. McMillin said he withdrew his bill so he could reintroduce it on Monday with a lawmaker drug testing provision that would pass constitutional muster.

"I've only withdrawn it temporarily," he told HuffPost, stressing he carefully crafted his original bill so that it could survive a legal challenge.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's bill would overcome constitutional problems, he said, by setting up a tiered screening scheme in which people can opt-out of random testing. Those who decline random tests would only be screened if they arouse "reasonable suspicion," either by their demeanor, by being convicted of a crime, or by missing appointments required by the welfare office.

In the past year Republican lawmakers have pursued welfare drug testing in more than 30 states and in Congress, and some bills have even targeted people who claim unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs. Democrats in several states have countered with bills to require drug testing elected officials. Indiana state Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) introduced just such an amendment on Friday.

"After it passed, Rep. McMillin got pretty upset and pulled his bill," Dvorak said. "If anything, I think it points out some of the hypocrisy. ... If we're going to impose standards on drug testing, then it should apply to everybody who receives government money."

Dvorak said McMillin was mistaken to think testing the legislature would be unconstitutional, since the stricken Georgia law targeted candidates and not people already holding office.

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."

And a funny video that I enjoyed a lot, not sure if it's old news on here, but just in case you haven't seen it. My Drunken Kitchen: Brunch


[User Picture]From: ellensparkleyes
2012-01-30 04:39 pm (UTC)
i understand the reasoning behind wanting to make sure that the funds being used to help out the most vulnerable sectors of society are, indeed, being used properly. but this is also an invasion of privacy imo. these people are being treated like prisoners. i suggest, should a bill like this ever passes, that there be a proviso that all legislators be subjected to the same testing--to ensure that taxpayer money is being used properly at their level and not being blown on cocaine et al.

so, yes--i agree with mr mcmillin
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2012-03-19 04:10 pm (UTC)
I like that very much. I hope that there would be something like that attached, but, I doubt it. lol.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lynphoenyx
2012-02-12 09:21 am (UTC)
I agree with drug testing for all who receive government money. Sounds like a wonderful idea! We could get rid of horrible politicians and drop down the welfare spending. I'm not saying treat them as criminals. I had food stamps at one very low point in my life. We used it until we could work again. That's how it was intended to be used. It was meant to help people survive until they could fend for themselves. I couldn't believe some of the conversations I heard while in the office trying to get that aid. Too many people abuse the system :(
(Reply) (Thread)