Kentucky Lawmaker: Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Would Save 'Millions And Millions'

Kentucky state Rep. Lonnie Napier (R-Lancaster) has introduced a bill that would enforce random drug testing for all adult Kentuckians receiving welfare, food stamps or Medicaid, which he told HuffPost would "get people off drugs" and save money for the state.

"I believe there is a place for public assistance for those that really need it, but I don't think there should be public assistance for those using it to buy drugs," Napier said. "It's widely known here and all over the country that they'll take the food-stamp card and buy good groceries with it, and then swap them for illegal drugs. My deal would only be random testing, and this would put the fear in people to keep them drug-clean because they would lose their public assistance if they show up with illegal drugs in their system."

Under Kentucky House Bill 208, public-assistance recipients who fail the random drug test would immediately lose their benefits, which Napier said will save the state government "millions and millions and millions" of dollars.

"The public-assistance program is one of the most expensive things we have," he said. "This is gonna save us a lot of money, because there's gonna be a lot of people showing up on illegal drugs and they will lose their assistance. If the working people in Kentucky have to be randomly drug-tested, why not those who are receiving the public's money?"

Napier's legislation was cosponsored by House Speaker Greg Stumbo (D-Prestonsburg), who told HuffPost he views the bill as an opportunity to curb drug use in general. "As Attorney General and as a legislator, I have done all I can to curb illegal drug use in the state. I view this issue in that light, and that's why I signed on as cosponsor," he said.

The idea of drug testing those on public assistance is not a new one, as HuffPost's Ryan Grim pointed out in June after U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced legislation that would have mandated drug tests for Americans receiving unemployment benefits. But an early experiment with such a policy in Michigan proved ineffective, experts say.

"A decade ago, Michigan implemented mandatory testing in three welfare offices. Out of 258 new and continuing applicants tested, 21 tested positive for illicit substances. All but three of these women tested positive for marijuana only. In light of such experiences, few states have chosen to pursue similar efforts," said Harold Pollack, the Helen Ross Professor of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago.

Napier said he has no intention of drug-testing all of Kentucky's unemployed -- only those who receive "free handouts" from the state. He said he wants critics of the bill to know that he does care about his low-income constituents and that he views this legislation as a way to help them beat their drug addictions.

"I'm not a hard-hearted person -- I'm compassionate. However, I think it's time somebody stepped up to the plate and tried to help people get off of drugs," he said. "If you're continuing to let people have free handouts and they're using it for illegal drugs, then I guess we're helping them do it."

Comments

[angel orginal]

11:49 AM on 03/05/2011

I wonder, how it will affect the already tense environment, here in Arizona. So, hear me out. If these people lose food stamps, Medicaid, housing, and other benefits; our community cannot handle the burden of responsibility or accountability. I pick up commodities and the numbers are increasing to the point I hardy get anything worthwhile; last two months there was no milk, no meat, no eggs, and no cheese. Two-thirds of our community is on disability for valid reasons. This would work if the economy was in great shape, the community could hold the burden of accountability and responsibility for our own. Very bad timing, it could be life threating decision, devastating for families and the community as a whole.
I believe the reward system is a valid one. If you are going to do random drug testing, 1st offense is warning, 2nd offense cut benefits in ½ for food stamps, increase co-pays for medication and doctors’ visits, and keep section 8 if already assisting, and 3rd offense use three strikes you’re out for 6 months. There has to be a reasonable gap between testing periods, for example 2 weeks. Most will pull it together. Repeat offenders are most likely not getting aid anyway and already lost their children. This sends a clear message but is more structured, less debilitating to the community as a whole.

[Hope Barkes]

08:47 PM on 02/17/2011

UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY WANT THE RECIEPIANT TO FORK OUT THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THE DRUG TEST. THAT COULD RANGE FROM 5-120 DOLLARS DEPENDING ON WHICH CLINIC THE CABINET SENDS YOU TO. THAT IS ALMOST A FULL WEEK OF PAY TO FORK OUT ON SOMETHING I'M POSITIVE I WOULD PASS BUT THAT MEANS NOT PAYING MY WATER BILL TOO.

[hitchanvil]

02:11 PM on 02/04/2011

Let's see. I have to take a drug test to get a job. Once I have the job I have to be subjected to random and yearly drug testing just so goverment can take from me and give to those who do not work. Those people who do not work take my government-grabbed handout without a drug test. Houston we have a problem here.

[Country914]

06:51 PM on 02/05/2011

Exactly.

[rdwillia89]

11:39 AM on 01/30/2011

I can honestly understand both sides of the argument. But, I think the people who are saying that people genuinely need this or they will go hungry don't understand what the majority of people on welfare are actually doing (especially in the south). People set a career goal to get married, set up a trailer behind their momma's trailer, have a kid or two, and get on welfare. I have HEARD someone that this was their life plan, I'm not speculating. There are people in the welfare program who do need the assistance to get back on their feet, and those people will stay off drugs in order to do so. For the ones who are on permanent welfare, the drug testing will be a wake up call.

[groverswifey]

01:37 PM on 01/29/2011

This is good in theory, but the majority of welfare recipients have young children. So children will be going hungry? Or will they be taken away from the parents and put in foster care, a system that is in crisis already?

[hitchanvil]

01:58 PM on 02/04/2011

People who actually work for a living are funding food stamps for 34 million people. If you are going to accept a handout from taxpayers you should be drug free. If the children go hungry because of the parents then who should pick up the tab? The real problem is we've allowed this entitlement society, with the best of intentions, but it has failed us. Too many people abuse it and are getting a free ride at the expense of those who work. It's time to cut entitlements out, period. I'm tired of working every day to support those who won't take care of themselves.

[Jethro Bush]

06:27 PM on 01/28/2011

This is an excellent idea, but it needs to be expanded to this:
Anyone who is getting monies from a federal state ore local tax
needs to be screened for drugs and alcohol annually and subject to random
at a 25% rate. This is the very same policy that I have to work under in order
to pay the monies to support all of the welfare ppl, be it congressmen, or crackheads
As it was explained to me by my lawyer, "you don't have to do anything, but if you
want to make money off of these jobs, (fed, state, local funded) you must comply.
So bottom line is this. You don't have to take the drug tests unless you want the
money.
But in order for this to really work, every single person who is paid by a government
agency must comply to these rules, period!

[roger3815]

11:39 PM on 01/27/2011

Napier backs up his millions and millions claim based on what? TANF is temporary assistance. Druggies don't bother much with temporary. True, they may get food stamps but if you really want save money, go after druggies on disability. I grew up in Eastern Kentucky and I know how they operate. If you want to save money with TANF, cut of the women who file separated or divorced, yet still live with their husband. These women do this because their husbands make too much money for them to get public assistance so they claim to be separated when they are not. And in most cases, they don't really need it anyway. I can't count the number of people I knew growing up who abused welfare like this growing up and now their kids are doing it.

[Nikk Carroll]

05:03 PM on 01/27/2011

i like this new law and support it 100%. To those people who wanna talk about the alcoholics you gotta think how you would do that. Random sobriety tests? there could be a lot of issues with that. the only thing i can think of is connect it with a record including DUI's or Public Intoxication.

[CHellBellz]

09:26 PM on 01/27/2011

well for one drinking isn't illegal who why the hell are people saying test for liquor?

[roger3815]

11:28 PM on 01/27/2011

Waste of time and resources. TANF is temporary. If you want to kick the druggies off the public tit, go after disability recipients because that's what the druggies get.

[Acert]

03:47 PM on 01/27/2011

Did he take into account the cost of the drug tests themselves?

[JWW33]

05:55 PM on 01/27/2011

I guess if the average recipient was getting $400/mo in benefits, the cost of the drug test would probably be a fraction of that.

[marty27d]

07:52 PM on 01/29/2011

What about the cost of acutely malnourished children showing up in ER's across America? The parents cannot pay for them and doctors cannot legally let them die. The druggie parents should be forced to put their children in an orphanage before we get to that point. But who in turn pays for that care and that food?

Speaking of prisons, what about the cost to feed all those additional stomachs of all of those folks now resorting to stealing to survive? Are we all so sure that this measure will cause druggie parents to quit drugs and start reading to their children? Eventually, additional societal and monetary costs will be passed along to American public and taxpayers. The children will just have to suffer because some Americans are abusing the system. That'll show 'em!

We'd need to counter this measure with random drug screens for employees of companies who accepted TARP funds. Doing coke? Smoking some reefer? You're fired, and no unemployment benefits either. Can't afford your 3 million dollar mortgage anymore? Out on the street you go... The cycle continues...

[jstjoe]

03:17 AM on 01/27/2011

To all those who have commented here to the extent that they are in agreement with the sentiment of this proposal ,
In the unlikely event that we stop all aid and entitlement of every kind to every american below the poverty line. Who then, do you intend to direct your ignorance and hatred towards when you discover that doing so will not have enriched your life in any way whatsoever ?

[Country914]

11:17 AM on 01/27/2011

I don't think anyone wants to stop all aid and entitlements of every kind to evry american below the poverty line. Only to those that abuse it.

[MoeB]

05:50 PM on 01/27/2011

What's "abuse"? Per another post of yours, you seem to think fancy shoes is an "abuse" of the system...also "junk food"...and "rims"...although I'm not sure how you can tell someone is on welfare by looking at their rims, but whatever.

[butch525]

01:50 AM on 01/27/2011

This should be a real goldmine for the alcohol industry. Of course Napier does not mention anything about people selling their foodstamps to buy alcohol.

[MC in LV]

10:32 PM on 01/26/2011

Drug test Rand Paul first and then the rest of the elected officials of Kentucky. What a bunch of dolts!

[butch525]

01:58 AM on 01/27/2011

Aqua Buddha = Water Bong

[TNPoliceWife]

08:00 PM on 01/26/2011

With all due respect, I live in east Tennessee (transplanted from south FL 7 years ago) I own a small buysiness and when I was hiring had almost every applicant come in and ask if I could keep them off the books so they could continue receiving these govt. benefits. I was paying a decent wage for our area $12.50 per hour. THe first week of the month in our Wal Mart is a travesty. It is common knowledge here in this county that these are people who generation after gteneration survive and make a living on welfare. Their teenage duaghters get pregnant and they go on welfare.

When my business took a hit from the economy, my husbands law enforcement salary barely kept us afloat... we made too much to receive any help and even though both of us work hard, usually 7-days per week, pay our own way, have one child in teh Navy and our 2 others going in as they become eligable, we STILL don't qualify.

It's a sad day when good hard working people can't get help but the dregs of society can.

[Country914]

11:19 AM on 01/27/2011

Well said!

[MoeB]

05:59 PM on 01/27/2011

Well, did you offer health benefits? Were you going to help pay to assist for childcare if they needed it? Help them get into subsidized housing? These are all benefits of being on welfare...and are geared more towards helping the children.

You were paying more than they were probably receiving via a WELFARE CHECK at the first of the month, but the reality is that it is difficult to be a single parent w/children and work for $12.50/hour...yes, they can get a second job, but then their children are essentially raising themselves...and we have visible proof of how well THAT turns out.

Also, and a little known fact (I know all of this b/c I grew up on welfare)...you cannot receive benefits (you get sanctioned) if you have a man living with you. Even the children's father. And don't bother having a kid in college who WORKS over the summer, because that income is counted as household income and your welfare check is slashed accordingly (this happened to us)...so it's not this big holiday that everyone seems to think it is.

For some it does lead to dependency, but the reality is that those people would've been dependent even without welfare. All we can do is try to weed those folks out when we discover them...but still the question remains as to what to do with the children, who, through no fault of theirs, have lazy deadbeat parents?

[Country914]

10:01 PM on 01/27/2011

Moe, I think you misunderstand the intent of the law. If you are down on your luck and need temporary help, that is what the system is for. The law is to stop those who abuse the system by using the money for drugs instead of for buying food for their children. If you're not doing drugs, you have nothing to worry about.

And what do we do with the children who have lazy deadbeat parents. That is an unfortunate situation but leaving them in that environment is not only unfair to the children, but unfair to society in general.

[Allison Garcia]

05:28 PM on 01/26/2011

I don't see HOW this isn't garnering unanimous support. Probably one of the most sensical things I've seen in politics lately. And okay, it may not be as comprehensive as it could be, but it's a start.

I have to stay drug-free to work and otherwise perform my duties as a responsible citizen; people getting any of my earned dollars should as well. Plus, I would never voluntarily pay for someone's early death or demise due to drug use. So to have THAT choice even taken from me is rather unethical.

[Brian Gilmer]

10:26 PM on 01/26/2011

How about alcohol? How about good credit or a clear police record? You also need those things in order to get a job. How about a college education? Or reliable transportation? You need those to get a job? Some employers won't consider you if you don't have a job. So maybe the policy should be that no one who is not working should get public assistance.

[dnno1]

04:48 PM on 01/26/2011

So what does the person do for food if you aren't going to give them financial aid? I am sure they are not just solely using it for drugs.

[T Cody]

07:15 PM on 01/26/2011

Are you stupid??? If someone has enough money for drugs, beer and cigarettes they do not need money from anyone else. Get these deadbeat freeloaders off the take.

[dnno1]

09:49 AM on 01/27/2011

To answer yoru question, no. The thing is that if the person is in need he has to eat. If you deny him that, he will steal. Furthermore, the above article mentions a study in the state of Michigan that indicates that a small fraction (about 8%) of the peopel at 3 clinics were drug users (most of them on marijuana at that). It this really an issue or should we be doing more research to find out the real facts before drawing conclusions through legislation?

[CCW36575]

08:45 PM on 01/26/2011

They can go to rehab and then get a job!!!