Jack Kingston: Drug Test The Jobless

A Republican congressman has proposed drug testing people who apply for unemployment insurance.

The bill by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) would require unemployment claimants to pass a drug test if they are identified in an initial screening as having a high probability of drug use.

The proposal comes as Congress is mulling a reauthorization of federal jobless benefits for people out of work six months or longer. House Republicans have been drafting legislation, but the details have not been released.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Wednesday that Republican legislation would "reform" unemployment insurance. "We are working on a bill to stop a tax hike, protect Social Security, reform unemployment insurance and create jobs," Steel said.

On Thursday morning, Steel told HuffPost in an email he didn't know whether the forthcoming unemployment legislation would include Kingston's drug testing idea. A spokesman for the Republican leader of the House Ways and Means committee, which oversees unemployment insurance, could not confirm details of the bill.

Kingston cited an overwhelming number of job applicants flunking drug tests as the rationale for his proposal.

"I had an employer tell me of an overwhelming response for job openings," Kingston said in a statement. "There was just one problem: half the people who applied could not even pass a drug test."

Earlier this year, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) used an identical anecdote to promote drug testing the jobless. When HuffPost checked the claim, however, it turned out to be completely false -- the employer said it tested only new hires, not applicants. And among new hires, less than 1 percent flunked a drug test. Haley later admitted her claim was bogus, but did not relent in her support for drug testing the unemployed.

Kingston spokesman Chris Crawford declined to provide any information supporting Kingston's anecdote.

Earlier this year, Florida started requiring all welfare applicants to prove they weren't on drugs -- until a federal judge put a stop to the policy on constitutional grounds. And it turned out only 2.5 percent of welfare applicants failed the test, a far lower rate of illicit drug use than the national average of 8.7 percent.

Kingston's release suggests he thinks his approach, which only requires a drug test after a preliminary screening, would pass constitutional muster and cost less money.

Members of Congress have wanted to drug test the jobless before. Last year, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced a similar proposal. It received little support.

This story has been updated to include a response from Kingston's spokesman.

Arthur Delaney is the author of "A People's History of the Great Recession," HuffPost's first e-book.

Comments

[starlitetoo]

02:39 PM on 12/21/2011

I can understand in some ways where they are coming from, but with drunken, sex addict GOP leaders, it just another excuse to make others look bad.

[sickofpoliticians2012]

12:40 PM on 12/12/2011

This has nothing to do with anything but to help out a buddy who owns a drug testing company to make milliions from these foolish test. We really need to stop talking about how bad congress is and truly force change because our goverment is a disaster. WE NEED TO HAVE ALL OUR POLITICIANS FIRED!!!! If at the least we need to make sure by wither writing letter, massive protest, etc. We need to get petitios signed to force out of office these lobbiest run politicians out of office. We know who they are. Mr. Boener, Rick Scott, and Im sure that you all can add at least 100 more to that list. Im sick of people just taking, we need to actually put pressure on these politicians. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

[dpkjj]

02:36 PM on 12/09/2011

A few thoughts, some of which have already been mentioned.
-If a person was fired for alcohol or drug use (cause), he or she is not eligible for unemployment insurance.
-How much would this cost? What would be the savings? (It's called cost-benefit)
-What next? Person applies for welfare? Becomes homeless? What?
-How many treatment slots are available vs. those who want them? (Hint: not nearly enough)
-Unemployment can lead to drug or alcohol abuse - well documented. So maybe cause-effect have been confused.

[giftsthatpurr]

02:27 PM on 12/09/2011

Waves of nausea from reading this article. People who have lost their jobs through being laid off are the ones eligible for unemployment. They didn't quit, didn't get fired, and are frightened for themselves and their families, so the GOP wants to punish them with drug testing (and pay out of Federal funds to do that?) I know that most of their proposed legislation/bills/plans are koo-koo, but this one defies my brain to come up with how anyone could think this makes any sense even to a closed minded regressive!

[Reiner-von-Sinn]

10:57 AM on 12/09/2011

Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test [political leaders] for [their] stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.

- P.J. O'Rourke

[Reiner-von-Sinn]

10:50 AM on 12/09/2011

More big, controllin­­g government from the little-gov­­ernment-t­a­lkin' corporatis­­t flacks.

One America!

There isn't a privileged political and economic elite exempt from the rules you impose on others.. You want the unemployed drug tested now, too? If a janitor or mechanic or engineer all have to submit to pre-employ­­­ment drug tests, then it isn't unreasonab­­­le to expect the same from the very people who order drug tests for others.

Pee up now, Congress. You first

[We the who]

11:56 PM on 12/08/2011

Drug testing is not free and would therefore add to the cost of unemployment. It never ceases to amaze me. We won't give people who have worked for their unemployment benefits as long as they may need it but would subject them to more indignities. Unemployment payments should be tied to the unemployment rate. As long as that rate is above certain percent (say 5) unemployment is continued with no interruption. This puts the responsibility of moving the economy on congress. They would no longer be able to play games with the lives of folks who have worked, some of them for 30 or more years. The money would be spent automatically and come from the national security budget. Reason===unemployed people can be a threat to national security if they are too desperate.

[vo1000]

11:47 PM on 12/08/2011

"Kingston cited an overwhelming number of job applicants flunking drug tests as the rationale for his proposal.

'I had an employer tell me of an overwhelming response for job openings," Kingston said in a statement. "There was just one problem: half the people who applied could not even pass a drug test.'"

I am so tired of politicians basing the need for laws on hearsay! One employer told him. So what. I've been told that one politician, Congressman Randall Cunningham, was a crook. Does that mean all politicians are crooks. Oh wait, bad example.

[SC100]

09:08 PM on 12/08/2011

What company is most likely to get the contract for doing millions of blood tests? I'll bet there is a connection to this guy.

[ShanaJuly]

09:04 PM on 12/08/2011

I say we drug test all the republican slo.bs sucking on the government t.eat...

[melissa fitz]

08:59 PM on 12/08/2011

i'm glad to see this article on huffpost! npr did a really good article on this earlier this fall. some really relevant insights.
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/11/141240653/states-consider-drug-test-requirement-for-benefits!

[montanason]

08:57 PM on 12/08/2011

I believe politicians should be drug tested and undergo annual psychological
evaluation.

[CaptainRenault]

08:48 PM on 12/08/2011

Another grandstanding jackhole idea from the GOP.

How about creatng some jobs, brainiac?

I think that we should drug test the executive management and boards of all companines that get corporate welfare, and take away their subsidies if even one of them turns up positive. How's that?

^ ^

[montanason]

08:58 PM on 12/08/2011

Excellent proposal

[Activist Annie]

03:47 PM on 12/15/2011

Am totally in agreement. Hmm. How about testing members of Congress who aren't doing their job?

[Reiner-von-Sinn]

08:38 PM on 12/08/2011

More big, controllin­g government from the little-gov­ernment-ta­lkin' corporatis­t flacks.

One America!

There isn't a privileged political and economic elite exempt from the rules you impose on others.. You want the unemployed drug tested now, too? If a janitor or mechanic or engineer all have to submit to pre-employ­­ment drug tests, then it isn't unreasonab­­le to expect the same from the very people who order drug tests for others.

Pee up now, Congress. You first

[penny75]

07:48 PM on 12/08/2011

I just reviewed an article on fascism..
Drug testing being advanced by Republicans is quite typical of Fascist Regimes.
It is an example of:
1) "Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation."
The fact that Kingston used the same example first advanced by South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) to promote drug testing and found later to be a lie indicates clearly that this is 'disinformation' being used to demonize the unemployed. It is also a clear violation of the search & seizure human right and an attempt to marginalize the unemployed.

2) "Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause." The reason someone is unemployed is that they are drug users, not that the big corporations are sitting on $3 TRILLION in cash and refusing to invest it and our congress does nothing to urge them to invest. $3 Trillion invested IN THIS COUNTRY could produce enough jobs to bring the unemployment down to 5% .

3) The fact that FOX News is supporting this abomination also indicates that the Mass Media is under less than subtle control of the 1% in this country adding support to the theory we are heading into Fascism.

Reference
Fascism Anyone? by Laurence W. Britt Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2

[ByAndForThePeople]

10:45 PM on 12/08/2011

Excellent contribution, penny75. Nicely argued, and thanks for the reference! Fanned and faved...