Drug-test welfare recipients? OK, but no reason to stop there

From The Athens Banner-Herald:

Two Georgia lawmakers want to drug-test welfare recipients, a controversial policy that’s been struck down as unconstitutional in other states.

Rep. Jason Spencer, R-Woodbine, and Sen. John Albers, R-Roswell, said Thursday they plan to introduce legislation to require people to pass a drug test to qualify for cash welfare.

“Georgia taxpayers have a vested interest in making sure that their hard-earned tax dollars are not being used to subsidize drug addiction,” Spencer said in a news release. “In these tough economic times, it is easy to understand that many deserving families need some temporary help until they can bounce back financially — that’s why we have public assistance programs like TANF. This additional eligibility requirement will simply ensure that those funds are used for that intended purpose.”

TANF is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a federal program that pays cash to the poor for up to five years over their lifetimes. About 50,000 people receive it in Georgia, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.”

Personally, I think that’s a waste of taxpayer resources — drug-testing 50,000 people on a recurring basis is not going to be cheap. And as the story suggests, a program that forces citizens to submit to a search of their bodies as a condition of receiving a government benefit, with no probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, also raises significant constitutional issues.

But hey, if that’s the way they end up going, let’s at least make sure it’s done right and equitably.

Every CEO who seeks economic-development assistance from a state or local government also ought to be drug tested, because as Spencer puts it “Georgia taxpayers have a vested interest in making sure that their hard-earned tax dollars are not being used to subsidize drug addiction.”

I mean, why put tens of millions of dollars of tax dollars into the hands of a CEO who is high on cocaine, pot or some other intoxicant? (And please, don’t try to tell me it doesn’t happen, because this and this and this and this argue otherwise.)

In addition, every student who applies for a HOPE scholarship also ought to be drug-tested, again to protect the vested interests of Georgia taxpayers. Why waste precious state scholarship dollars on weed-besotted students, right? And of course, running backs at UGA apparently need those tests weekly, certainly before every SEC game. (I will presume that I do not need to provide links to document drug use among college-age students, correct?)

Again, as Spencer says, “This additional eligibility requirement will simply ensure that those (scholarship) funds are used for that intended purpose” and not to subsidize four years of partying.

If Spencer and Albers would not agree to these friendly amendments, I’d like to hear their rationale for it. I’d want to hear their reasoning for targeting only TANF recipients, but not recipients of other forms of state assistance in amounts that far exceed the average TANF check of $225 a month.

Because without that convincing rationale, this might be mistaken for a class-based effort to gain political popularity by bashing and stereotyping poor people. And Lord knows Georgia politicians would never indulge in something that crass, correct?

– Jay Bookman

446 comments Add your comment

Armed Liberal

November 4th, 2011
8:19 am

How about a civics exam for all elected officials. If they fail, you just test the next highest vote getter and so on until you get a real winner.

I’m guessing it’d dump about 60% of the GA from both sides of the aisles as well as the Lt. G and the other minor statewide elected fools…

Test ‘em all, dammit.

jt

November 4th, 2011
8:20 am

A nation of pee-sniffers.
.
I weep.

Jay

November 4th, 2011
8:22 am

We can agree on that one, jt.

stands for decibels

November 4th, 2011
8:22 am

a class-based effort to gain political popularity by bashing and stereotyping poor people.

Yep. It’s what they do for a living. And on a certain level, to complain about such things is a bit like complaining about Albert Pujols hitting home runs or Aaron Rodgers throwing passes.

Paul

November 4th, 2011
8:28 am

‘class-based effort to gain political popularity”?

republican class warfare? naaah.

I wonder about the voters who reelect representatives of limited intelligence.

Gale

November 4th, 2011
8:29 am

Better idea, and just as dumb, btw, don’t let anyone on public assistance vote. Guess what they vote for?

Normal

November 4th, 2011
8:31 am

Sure does sound like Spencer and Albers are advocating for smaller government, doesn’t it? :roll:

Jay

November 4th, 2011
8:32 am

So Gale, that would mean most of Wall Street, most bank employees, most farmers, a lot of oil-company employees, etc. also would not be able to vote, because of all the taxpayer support their industries have received, correct?

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:32 am

Jay – I have one thing to say about today’s column.

SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-LUTE!

well said. take the rest of the day off.

Paul

November 4th, 2011
8:32 am

Gale

You’re talking about those CEOs, right?

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:33 am

Normal – now, is it me?

or didn’t the GOP motto use to be “get government out of our personal lives”???

ah, yes, I remember those days …

Jay

November 4th, 2011
8:34 am

Paul, the problem with our representatives is that they are all too representative.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

November 4th, 2011
8:34 am

Jay, add to that the drug testing of every state legislator and member of the executive branch. It sure seems that there are a lot of drugs being used when some of these guys are writing these bills. ;)

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:34 am

So, does this mean that the GOP has…. DRUG ENVY???

Normal

November 4th, 2011
8:35 am

I bet that one or both of them have stock in a drug testing company…

AmVet - Read my lips. No more random people.

November 4th, 2011
8:36 am

To many neo-cons, being poor in America is a crime in and of itself.

And the reverse corollary, if one is rich in America, there is absolutely no crime worth mentioning.

Too bad their heroes in corporate (owned) America are ensuring that a whole boatload of them are joining that first group, huh?

It’s called the Wholesale Charlie Sheen syndrome…

Aquagirl

November 4th, 2011
8:36 am

Just another excuse for Republicans to dabble in homo-erotic golden showers freakery. Keep it in the bedroom, cons, or the bathroom, or wherever.

godless heathen

November 4th, 2011
8:37 am

Many government agencies require contractors to be certified “Drug Free” workplaces and drug testing programs are a part of that. Why is that not unconstitutional?

Normal

November 4th, 2011
8:37 am

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:33 am

I guess…except for your uterus and urine…

St Simons - beach philosopher

November 4th, 2011
8:38 am

I was in Woodbine yesterday.

Mr. Jason the Pompous needs to clean up his own house

aint that the way it always is with these cons

Adam

November 4th, 2011
8:38 am

Armed Liberal: I disagree with that kind of testing because I would not trust that the person giving the test would give a fair one or the SAME one to all participants. And again, testing doesn’t really help things. Perhaps instead an education program for the winner that afterwards requires a test and those results be made public. Then it’s not a condition of being in office, except for voter re-election purposes, maybe, if the voters haven’t already decided that civics knowledge is just too “elite” for their representative.

Personally this is the best counter-argument I have seen to drug testing yet right here: a program that forces citizens to submit to a search of their bodies as a condition of receiving a government benefit, with no probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, also raises significant constitutional issues.

I’m stealing this argument shamelessly Jay. Too many of my friends still think this is somehow a good policy. I have pointed out the cost problems and general moral problems of targeting a specific group for discrimination before, but they are not swayed. Yours is much better, I think (though I think they still won’t be swayed).

Paul

November 4th, 2011
8:38 am

Jay

That provided a good understanding.

But not much confidence.

Chuck Doberman

November 4th, 2011
8:38 am

I think maybe we should test our legislators as they wield the financial sword in the first place

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:38 am

okay, I’m taking us off topic EARLY today …

since it’s Friday (which usually means music day) … and we know Normal lurvs the kittehs … here’s a combo of both – classic album covers with kittehs!

http://thekittencovers.tumblr.com/

no need to thank me … it’s all part of the service …

Rebo

November 4th, 2011
8:39 am

Jay, what about random drug testing? Many corporations have been doing that for years! Sometimes just the threat of being tested can influence behaviors.

Obozonomics

November 4th, 2011
8:39 am

No reason to stop there is correct, make it illegal for a company to drug test or ask for ID for a job, right Jay?

Mick

November 4th, 2011
8:39 am

Once I got out of the service, I never, ever want to pee in a bottle again for anybody, for any reason…

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:40 am

Normal – 8:37 – well they ARE lined with pixie dust, so I can understand the fascination …

Armed Liberal

November 4th, 2011
8:40 am

Perhaps if the GOP took their focus off our “junk” we’d acutally something positive?

GOP – Junk Freaks since 1973.

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:41 am

Obozo – “No reason to stop there is correct, make it illegal for a company to drug test or ask for ID for a job, right Jay?”

do you just not understand the difference between a PRIVATE ENTITY doing that a the STATE???

no, you evidently don’t.

Gale

November 4th, 2011
8:41 am

Well, Jay, I guess corporations – which now count as people- could not vote, and that would be a plus. But farmers with farm subsidies, yep those folks. I don’t know what you mean about bank employees. I don’t recall getting any special government assistance when I was a bank teller back when. Mostly I was being flip. I meant individuals on welfare and I was purposely stoking the class warfare fire. Democracy begins to fall apart when people realize they can vote themselves benefits.

That said, I also advocate a high level of support for people who need help, unemployment, health care, child care, and so on.

Jay

November 4th, 2011
8:41 am

I don’t see anybody on here attempting to justify this yet. Nobody wants to take a shot at it?

Don't Tread

November 4th, 2011
8:41 am

Spencer is right. We don’t need to subsidize drug addiction. If I have to pass a drug test to get a job to earn money so it can be taken away from me and given to someone who doesn’t work, they should at least have to pass a drug test as well. (Oh wait….that’s not fair!)

If you want to drug test CEOs and atheletes, go right ahead.

I’d be interested in the results of a drug test for these COWS people…

Normal

November 4th, 2011
8:41 am

In the Navy, drug testing was deemed legal if it were random and everyone, from the Captain down to the lowliest mess cook were tested at the same time.

I don’t know how it works in civilian life, but Defense Contractors are required to give drug tests at the start of employment and then after, only for “probable cause”.

Hootinanny Yum Yum

November 4th, 2011
8:42 am

I agree to government getting out of our personal lives. Don’t ask for anything and don’t provide anything. Let federal government handle relationships with foreign countries and let local governments see to the needs of the local citizenry.

No handouts to individuals, to corporations or to foreign nations. And stop meddling in foreign country’s affairs.

Armed Liberal

November 4th, 2011
8:42 am

Adam – I was being a smart-a$$… real ideas are an afterlunch kinda thing on Fridays for me at least…

Granny Godzilla

November 4th, 2011
8:43 am

” drug testing of every state legislator and member of the executive branch.”

ding ding ding

we have a winner

start with Spencer and Albers…

Adam

November 4th, 2011
8:43 am

Oh getting these out of the way early:

It’s all Obama’s fault, he wants a dependent class and class warfare!

Choices determine everything, if you’re poor BLAME YOURSELF (and pay more taxes).

Climate Change and Evolution aren’t real because they don’t explain the whole of the universe.

WEALTH ENVY!

(Did I miss any?)

Jay

November 4th, 2011
8:43 am

Curious sentiment from somebody with “Don’t Tread” as a blog name.

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:43 am

Jay – we still have the warm-up act from the right side of your blog here … not your headliners … I’m sure they won’t let you down

godless heathen

November 4th, 2011
8:43 am

So if the government can require contractors and it’s own employees to be drug free, why not those that receive money for doing nothing?

And for the record, I oppose drug testing. We would never allow our employers or the government to come into our homes and rummage through our sock drawers, but we are willfully allow them to search our bodily fluids.

mystified

November 4th, 2011
8:44 am

I don’t disagree with the concept of fairness. It seems the liberal mindset only calls for fairness when it’s advantageous for them though…I don’t recall the calls for fairness because so large a portion of our citizenry don’t pay any taxes at all or when certain students are given preference to State Universities based on demographic factors. If you truly wanted “fairness”, we’d see evidence of it in more than republican initiatives. Until then, your argument simply doesn’t hold water.

Yep

November 4th, 2011
8:44 am

Jay, you may have something here. Just about every person on this board has taken a drug test simply to get a job. I do not see why we should not test every person asking us provide assistance. I do not see why we should make it continual testing though. Merely require testing at initiation or contract implementation and any time a change is made to their entitlement support.

Having hired hundreds on employees myself, I do not see the rub here. Those who are truly drug abusers can not pass one test, even if they know it is coming. Normal American taxpayers HAVE to take drug tests in order to work, but persons we support do not? If conducted fairly, this procedure will help prepare those on support for the real world and their next step into the working class.

Normal

November 4th, 2011
8:45 am

USinUK!
Superb!!

Sarah

November 4th, 2011
8:45 am

Anyone who is receiving free money or food stamps should take a drug test. The only reason I could think of as to why they would not want to take a test is they have something to hide?

Obozonomics

November 4th, 2011
8:46 am

USinUK;
Clearly you believe there are 2 sets of laws, but what would you expect from a loser liberal.

St Simons - beach philosopher

November 4th, 2011
8:46 am

the banana republic of Florida is doing this 30 miles to the south.

So far $3.1 mil spent on tests & admin, $40k in denied payments

Guess who has an interest in the Test Lab company? ding ding

In defense, it mirrors every other con “plan”

I swear, these guys could f up an anvil.

HRPufnstuf

November 4th, 2011
8:46 am

Drug testing sounds good on the surface and a good sound byte on right wing shows, but peel back the onion and you’ll see that in Florida, only 2% have come up hot on the drug tests so far (according to Gov. Rick Scott). Definitely not worth the money.

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:47 am

Normal – 8:45 – :-)

SouthernGal

November 4th, 2011
8:47 am

I believe all government officials from the top down should have to submit to random drug testing.

TaxPayer

November 4th, 2011
8:47 am

Don’t we have a vested interest in our Representatives? And at a local level, I’d sure like to see more county employees and commissioners tested, especially for that drug, Viagra, because some of them are the biggest… :lol:

Jm

November 4th, 2011
8:48 am

I agree. Drug test anyone who gets govt $

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:49 am

Obozo – that’s right – when you can’t argue the point, resort to name calling

:roll:

and, actually, there ARE different laws. Companies can fire you for doing all sorts of legal activities such as smoking, drinking, etc, in your spare time.

but, then your ilk has NO PROBLEM with whatever companies decide to do and we should all just be grateful they employed us.

Normal

November 4th, 2011
8:49 am

How much more will this “Fair” drug testing cost us taxpayers? Let’s raise taxes on the rich to pay for it. Good God, y’all, putting a portion of our population through this just because they need help is not only wrong, it’s Unamerican.

Obozonomics

November 4th, 2011
8:49 am

USinUK;
So the CIA and FBI should stop drug testing right now, it should be fine for a drugged out agent to have weapons, right libs?

retired early

November 4th, 2011
8:50 am

Why not include teachers and lawmakers, they receive “taxpayer’s money”.
These lawmakers know what is appealing to their constituents. It’s scary when you realize it takes laws like these to impress their ignorant, selfish and self centered voters.

godless heathen

November 4th, 2011
8:51 am

But USinUK, governments are requiring testing by PRIVATE contractors all the time.

Pat

November 4th, 2011
8:51 am

I agree. I’d particularly support mandatory drug testing for the largest recipients of taxpayer largesse – elected officials.

Of course, drug testing all these folks would be far too expensive – and that’s the point.
Officials who’ve mandated drug testing the poor to qualify for benefits have been surprised by the results, which have generally reflected lower drug usage than is seen in the general population.
But the image of the druggie welfare recipient is iconic in the minds of the white suburbanite GOP voter – the one who’d never imagine their pampered offspring getting caught in a HOPE scholarship drug testing, for example.

SouthernGal

November 4th, 2011
8:51 am

Then why does the government require testing of pilots, train engineers, bus drivers etc.

Aquagirl

November 4th, 2011
8:51 am

The only reason I could think of as to why they would not want to take a test is they have something to hide?

Ah, finally a fan of water sports weighs in. Sarah, some people don’t like others watching them pee. Imagine that. And some of us don’t think spending hundreds of millions of dollars for some people to watch other people pee is a good use of tax dollars, it doesn’t excite us one bit.

You’re welcome.

Obozonomics

November 4th, 2011
8:52 am

USinUK;
My neighbor is an FBI agent and he gets tested several times a year? Since that is government, with a “different” set of laws they should stop testing them, right?

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:53 am

Obozo – there’s a world of difference between people who carry weapons / enforce the law / are privvy to state secrets and people who are receiving food stamps.

but then, I’m not surprised you don’t get that distinction, either.

Jay

November 4th, 2011
8:53 am

Then why does the government require testing of pilots, train engineers, bus drivers etc.

Because if they were high they could kill a lot of people.

melvinowens

November 4th, 2011
8:55 am

some of these republican lawmakers advocating this drug test are themselves addicted to cocaine, marijuana or alcohol, but still receive taxpayer money. what hypocrites

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:55 am

godless – that could have to do with 1) the jobs they have to do (such as anything dealing with the justice department) or 2) the nature of the work (anything having to do with weapons / safety / heavy machinery)

Obozonomics

November 4th, 2011
8:55 am

Aquagirl;
We are already spending millions testing government workers and contractors for the governed. Why is welfare any different from a government job?

Jm

November 4th, 2011
8:55 am

Jt my dog is a good pee sniffer

jconservative

November 4th, 2011
8:55 am

Google the question and you get $42. for the average cost of a drug test.

So we gonna hand out a check for $225. and spend $42 on a drug test before we give them the check?

A dumb idea by any other name is still a dumb idea.

Adam

November 4th, 2011
8:56 am

USinUK: and, actually, there ARE different laws. Companies can fire you for doing all sorts of legal activities such as smoking, drinking, etc, in your spare time.

Or for stuff they find on your Facebook page.

williebkind

November 4th, 2011
8:56 am

Jay so comparing CEO’s to TANF recipients is equitable in your mind and the minds of your daily followers? Could you please explain what a CEO is and what a CEO does for your plantation residents then explain the same for the TANF recipients. I eagerly await your definitions.

Furious Styles

November 4th, 2011
8:56 am

What lawmakers should be doing is fixing these water main breaks. There been at least 2 a week since this summer. That would be better use of their time and taxpayer dollars.

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:57 am

Jm – :lol: that’s IT!! trained dogs. unfortunately, that means that the test will require everyone to pee on a tree …

Stonethrower

November 4th, 2011
8:57 am

Why stop at drug testing. Why not ban them from using tobacco products and alcohol? Also, make sure they aren’t buying lottery tickets.

carlosgvv

November 4th, 2011
8:57 am

It’s tempting to think these Republicans are doing this “to gain political popularity by bashing and stereotyping poor people”. The real reason is even more despicable. The ultimate Republican goal is to put and end to Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, welfare, food stamps and any other program labled “entitlements”. The hard-core Republicans have a “let them eat cake” mentality on anyone who does not meet their “compassionate conservative” standards as they have been repeatedly showing over the years to anyone paying attention to their actions.

deegee

November 4th, 2011
8:58 am

If you take the drug and alcohol abuse out of the equation, I would estimate that 75% of our DFCS cases would be resolved. We spend billions on the consequences of drug and alcohol abuse. I don’t see anything wrong with spending money on a pilot program to see if drug testing would be a deterrent to people whose addiction has interfered with their ability to support themselves and their families.

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:58 am

willieb – he accepts MILLIONS in government subsidies instead of just hundreds.

you’re welcome.

Obozonomics

November 4th, 2011
8:59 am

Jay,
I am so glad that people on welfare don’t kill other people, I feel safe now… If you get taxpayer money you should pee for it, ALL government jobs and welfare. The tests are cheap and why not take the $10 out of their government checks…

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
8:59 am

Stonethrower – or expensive tennis shoes for their kids – and you’d damned well BETTER make sure they don’t have any satellite dishes …

Adam

November 4th, 2011
8:59 am

williebkind: I eagerly await your definitions.

Coming from someone who has already defined people as being “plantation residents”? I know I would pass on that one until you gave a more respectful argument.

By the way, people, try defending the decision directly instead of attacking Jay’s comparisons.

Jm

November 4th, 2011
8:59 am

Everyone in the corporate world gets drug tested at minimum prior to “higher” date

High time government caught up :)

Ask Florida's Governor About Test

November 4th, 2011
9:00 am

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
9:00 am

“The tests are cheap and why not take the $10 out of their government checks…”

excellent – so guilty (and penalized) until proven innocent …

even a stoppped clock...

November 4th, 2011
9:00 am

Jay, you’re still a fool.

Someone who works as a CEO actually pays income taxes.

Welfare recipients do not. They are a net drain on the economy.

godless heathen

November 4th, 2011
9:00 am

No, UsinUK. Pencil pushing contractors. If the government can require it for them, they can require it for welfare recipients.

If you want to see a really frightening thing, go down to your local law enforcement agency and pull a random drug screen.

Normal

November 4th, 2011
9:00 am

Adam

November 4th, 2011
8:59 am

Well said…high five!

Jm

November 4th, 2011
9:01 am

Usinuk 8:57. That’s a double bennie

Free tree watering!

Keep Up the Good Fight!

November 4th, 2011
9:01 am

Jay, is there any information regarding FL or another state who has implemented this to determine whether there is a real problem. I know SC Nikki Haley tried to make false claims about employment applicants at a nuke plant that were outrageous. Quantitatively, let’s say, if only 1% of the testees are on drugs (and assuming not false postitives like poppy seeds throwing off the tests), does the “cost” benefit analysis make sense.

I also know that despite industry claims, there are a lot of questions about the accuracy of these tests. So do the “accused” get a right to a trial and counsel if they have a “positive” that arguably could be false?

Jay

November 4th, 2011
9:01 am

I’d be more interested in your explanation of why they’re different, Willie.

Both groups are asking the state for taxpayers’ money. The CEOs are just asking for sums with the decimal point moved to the right about five or six places, so the taxpayer risk is considerably higher. And if we’re “protecting the vested interests of Georgia taxpayers,” why shouldn’t they be tested.

Adam

November 4th, 2011
9:01 am

deegee: I don’t see anything wrong with spending money on a pilot program to see if drug testing would be a deterrent

Any such pilot program would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also, it’s been tried. It doesn’t do anything except p*ss away WAY more taxpayer dollars than it saves.

williebkind

November 4th, 2011
9:01 am

jconservative

November 4th, 2011
8:55 am
Many employers require you to pay for the drug test, criminal background investigation, and a five to seven year motor vehicle record. The cost of the drug test can come out of the recipients free money. If the recipient belongs to the democratic plantation then the DNC can pay for it–they can call it housekeeping expenses.

Peadawg

November 4th, 2011
9:01 am

“Two Georgia lawmakers want to drug-test welfare recipients, a controversial policy that’s been struck down as unconstitutional in other states.”

I seem to be missing what is wrong w/ this. It’s to make sure welfare recipients aren’t spending their check on drugs…common sense to me. We all know this happens by the way(you’re ignorant if you think it doesn’t happen ever).

Normal

November 4th, 2011
9:01 am

even a stoppped clock…

November 4th, 2011
9:00 am

Is this your reasoning for giving them piss tests?

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
9:02 am

godless – and, again, it depends on what the job has to do with – even pencil-pushing contractors can interact with law enforcement / judicial system, etc.

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
9:03 am

Jm – 9:01 – we laugh in the face of droughts and water wars with Florida!!! muahahaha!

Darwin

November 4th, 2011
9:03 am

A Republican’s dream legislation – anti welfare and drugs all in one. Who cares about real problems?

Obozonomics

November 4th, 2011
9:03 am

carlosgvv
I am so glad you cleared that up, and you forget that the democrats are saints too, right? What hogwash, the democrats are just as corrupt if not more so….

Adam

November 4th, 2011
9:04 am

Peadawg: We all know this happens by the way(you’re ignorant if you think it doesn’t happen ever).

It doesn’t happen in a statistically significant way, and certainly not enough to justify the taxpayer cost of testing versus just giving that hundred dollars to the 1 in 50 who are actually on drugs.

USinUK

November 4th, 2011
9:04 am

“Someone who works as a CEO actually pays income taxes.”

there you go, Obozo – you want to talk about 2 sets of laws – THAT is an example of two sets of laws: if you PAY taxes but receive government money, no drug testing for you. if you don’t, please pee here.

Jay

November 4th, 2011
9:04 am

So Stopped, paying taxes means you don’t use drugs? I’m trying to understand the connection you’re trying to make between paying taxes and drug abuse, but silly me, I just don’t get it.

Can you explain it a little more clearly for us slow learners?

kappellmeister

November 4th, 2011
9:04 am

Unfortunately the ones who will suffer, if these drug tests happen, are the children. My wife comes from a home where her parents were drug addicts (but not any more), and without the financial assistance she and her sisters would have had even less food and resources than they did.