KY Legislature - Setting a New Standard

[i8godzilla]

I have not yet formed an opinion about this. On one hand I say, good if they can afford drugs, they do not need taxpayer assistance. On the other, I say this is just creating bigger government.

(10) (a) The cabinet shall design and implement a substance abuse screening program for adult persons receiving or seeking to receive monetary public assistance, food stamps under the federal food stamp program, or assistance under the state medical assistance program, with the screening program including periodic testing of the person's blood or urine for the presence of controlled substances as set out in this section.
(b) An adult person shall be ineligible for public assistance if:
1. The person does not participate in the substance abuse screening program established under this section; or
2. The person tests positive in a substance abuse test administered by the program for the presence of:
a. A schedule I controlled substance; or
b. A schedule II - V controlled substance not prescribed for that person.
(c) The substance abuse testing component of the screening program shall be designed so as to require that testing occurs as an initial condition precedent prior to the receipt of public assistance and once for each subsequent year the adult person receives public assistance, with the person being randomly assigned a month within that year to submit to testing upon receipt of reasonable notice from the cabinet.
(d) The results of testing conducted under this subsection shall not be admissible in any criminal proceeding without the consent of the person tested.
(e) The secretary shall by administrative regulation prescribe the design, operation, and standards for the implementation of this section.

My guess is that if this passes and is implemented, it will take less than 20 seconds before the first legal challenge is filed.

[USA1]

I've been saying we should do this for years.

I believe it would drastically reduce the number of welfare recipients living off the backs of the taxpayers.
Some of them might have to actually...(pause for effect) work.

Nothing against people who are in real need. I just don't like the idea of supporting crackheads.

[OldCannon]

On the other, I say this is just creating bigger government.

Governments have a solemn responsibility to taxpayers as custodians of their funds. If this program eliminates or significantly reduces fraud and waste, and creates a program where taxpayer funds are given to citizens that are not dependent on illegal drugs, fine. If it's used to punish a person because they smoked a joint 4 months ago at a concert, I'd say it's an intrusion of government. I firmly believe, however, the situation is the former, not the latter.

[TxDrifter]

I'm for it. If I have to take one for my employer as well as the companies I consult for, why shouldn't they?

[MoJo]

Uh guys? Too good to be true. See Snopes http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kentucky.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TxDrifter]

Uh guys? Too good to be true. See Snopes http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kentucky.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did you read to the bottom of the Snopes article? It stated it is a proposed bill in one house that has not yet been brought to a vote. My interpretation of the OP was that it was proposed and not passed yet. Further, in 1999 Michigan passed a law that provided for random drug screening for assistance recipients, but was shot down by a Federal court for violating their 4th Amendment Rights.

[i8godzilla]

Uh guys? Too good to be true. See Snopes http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kentucky.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did you read to the bottom of the Snopes article? It stated it is a proposed bill in one house that has not yet been brought to a vote. My interpretation of the OP was that it was proposed and not passed yet. Further, in 1999 Michigan passed a law that provided for random drug screening for assistance recipients, but was shot down by a Federal court for violating their 4th Amendment Rights.

TxDrifter is correct it is a proposed bill, thus my reference to HB208. The actual link to text of the bill opens a MS-Word document (that is the reason I did not post that link). Here is a link that will take you to the HB's page:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/11rs/hb208.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mojo - Yes, I did read Snopes, prior to my posting. This item is starting to make the viral email rounds and as usual the emails are changed along the way along.

[redlin67]

Texas is my adopted state, but Kentucky is my home state. I am sooooo proud of them.

[TxDrifter]

Uh guys? Too good to be true. See Snopes http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kentucky.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did you read to the bottom of the Snopes article? It stated it is a proposed bill in one house that has not yet been brought to a vote. My interpretation of the OP was that it was proposed and not passed yet. Further, in 1999 Michigan passed a law that provided for random drug screening for assistance recipients, but was shot down by a Federal court for violating their 4th Amendment Rights.

TxDrifter is correct it is a proposed bill, thus my reference to HB208. The actual link to text of the bill opens a MS-Word document (that is the reason I did not post that link). Here is a link that will take you to the HB's page:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/11rs/hb208.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mojo - Yes, I did read Snopes, prior to my posting. This item is starting to make the viral email rounds and as usual the emails are changed along the way along.

It is about "trust but verify". I no longer trust the media when they tell me something. I want to see the data from the original poll, document, etc. They cherry pick too much information to make the point they want to rather than just feeding us with all of the facts and allowing us to formulate our own opinion.