Alabama may have found the way to administer the wizz quiz

The Alabama Legislature has approved a bill to drug test welfare applicants who have had drug convictions within the last five years.

The House of Representatives voted 73-27 for the bill Thursday. It now goes to Gov. Robert Bentley for his signature.

A person could keep their benefits after one positive drug test. After a second positive, the person would be ineligible for one year. The recipient would be permanently ineligible after a third positive drug test.

Republican Rep. Kerry Rich told lawmakers he wanted to make sure people weren’t using benefits to buy drugs.

Opposed lawmakers said the tests would cost the state money but accomplish little. The state already bans people with felony drug convictions from collecting benefits under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

http://fox10tv.com/2014/04/04/alabama-la...g-testing/

(04-05-2014 10:34 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Alabama may have found the way to administer the wizz quiz

The Alabama Legislature has approved a bill to drug test welfare applicants who have had drug convictions within the last five years.

The House of Representatives voted 73-27 for the bill Thursday. It now goes to Gov. Robert Bentley for his signature.

A person could keep their benefits after one positive drug test. After a second positive, the person would be ineligible for one year. The recipient would be permanently ineligible after a third positive drug test.

Republican Rep. Kerry Rich told lawmakers he wanted to make sure people weren’t using benefits to buy drugs.

Opposed lawmakers said the tests would cost the state money but accomplish little. The state already bans people with felony drug convictions from collecting benefits under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

http://fox10tv.com/2014/04/04/alabama-la...g-testing/

I don't have a problem with this...even if it does open up a pandora's box in regard to controlling the habits of those on government assistance.

Liberals should love this bill because it might save a life.

The law was written against the advisory opinion of multiple different groups the committee engaged.

It's a better bill than other states have written, because it has had the advantage of seeing several of those shot down, but I wouldn't be surprised to see our bill go down as well.

(04-05-2014 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The law was written against the advisory opinion of multiple different groups the committee engaged.

It's a better bill than other states have written, because it has had the advantage of seeing several of those shot down, but I wouldn't be surprised to see our bill go down as well.

It does not scratch the surface of things I'd require those on assistance to comply with in order to receive the benefits of the fruits of others labors.

These laws don't do well in the courts...ask FL and Michigan.

(04-05-2014 10:34 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Alabama may have found the way to administer the wizz quiz

The Alabama Legislature has approved a bill to drug test welfare applicants who have had drug convictions within the last five years.

The House of Representatives voted 73-27 for the bill Thursday. It now goes to Gov. Robert Bentley for his signature.

A person could keep their benefits after one positive drug test. After a second positive, the person would be ineligible for one year. The recipient would be permanently ineligible after a third positive drug test.

Republican Rep. Kerry Rich told lawmakers he wanted to make sure people weren’t using benefits to buy drugs.

Opposed lawmakers said the tests would cost the state money but accomplish little. The state already bans people with felony drug convictions from collecting benefits under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

http://fox10tv.com/2014/04/04/alabama-la...g-testing/

I think that is fair.

These laws are useless and a waste of tax payers money. Welfare should be a limited time of usage and a maximum life time benefit.

(04-05-2014 02:16 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  These laws are useless and a waste of tax payers money. Welfare should be a limited time of usage and a maximum life time benefit.

I don't disagree..but..that is not the paradigm we have. What we have now is a system the actually encourages people to remain in it. The fact is that in many states, someone on welfare lives pretty well...when you take in consideration ALL the benefits they can stack together...from housing to healthcare. There is no incentive to get a job when your welfare benefits are more than you could make in the marketplace. Bill Clinton's "workfare" programs were making a dent in this. Sadly the Obama administration dismantled it.

(04-05-2014 12:37 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  These laws don't do well in the courts...ask FL and Michigan.

You mean the ones that are still being battled?

Also, if no one complains, how does it go to court?

And what's unconstitutional about drug testing? I mean I have to submit to random drug tests at my jobs, not when I act suspicious.

(04-05-2014 02:16 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  These laws are useless and a waste of tax payers money.

In many cases, the same can be said for Welfare.

(04-05-2014 03:02 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 12:37 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  These laws don't do well in the courts...ask FL and Michigan.

You mean the ones that are still being battled?

Also, if no one complains, how does it go to court?

And what's unconstitutional about drug testing? I mean I have to submit to random drug tests at my jobs, not when I act suspicious.

no, decided...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/flo....html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/us/law...oided.html

I don't decide what is/isn't constitutional...that's the courts job.

it creates jobs in the urinalysis industry.

Eventually, I think all of these will be upheld (at least for new applicants). The problem the opponents of these laws have is that the person has a choice whether they want to apply for government assistance or not. This is no different than applying for a government job that has a drug test as a pre-requisite. States have a rational basis for the testing and an applicant can choose to opt-out of it.

Plus, in AL, you have to have had a previous drug conviction -- meaning they aren't just randomly picking on you because you are poor.

But, regardless, I see no problem with this type of prereq. But, more importantly, they need to place limits on the number of years a person can remain on these programs. That would be the ultimate solution.

(04-05-2014 04:48 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Eventually, I think all of these will be upheld (at least for new applicants). The problem the opponents of these laws have is that the person has a choice whether they want to apply for government assistance or not. This is no different than applying for a government job that has a drug test as a pre-requisite. States have a rational basis for the testing and an applicant can choose to opt-out of it.

Plus, in AL, you have to have had a previous drug conviction -- meaning they aren't just randomly picking on you because you are poor.

But, regardless, I see no problem with this type of prereq. But, more importantly, they need to place limits on the number of years a person can remain on these programs. That would be the ultimate solution.

yet two similar laws have been struck down in Florida and Michigan...I get it's a little different, but is it different enough for the courts to go along? we shall see...

(04-05-2014 04:52 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 04:48 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Eventually, I think all of these will be upheld (at least for new applicants). The problem the opponents of these laws have is that the person has a choice whether they want to apply for government assistance or not. This is no different than applying for a government job that has a drug test as a pre-requisite. States have a rational basis for the testing and an applicant can choose to opt-out of it.

Plus, in AL, you have to have had a previous drug conviction -- meaning they aren't just randomly picking on you because you are poor.

But, regardless, I see no problem with this type of prereq. But, more importantly, they need to place limits on the number of years a person can remain on these programs. That would be the ultimate solution.

yet two similar laws have been struck down in Florida and Michigan...I get it's a little different, but is it different enough for the courts to go along? we shall see...

The MI statute was affirmed by the full Ct of Appeals.

(04-05-2014 05:27 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 04:52 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 04:48 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Eventually, I think all of these will be upheld (at least for new applicants). The problem the opponents of these laws have is that the person has a choice whether they want to apply for government assistance or not. This is no different than applying for a government job that has a drug test as a pre-requisite. States have a rational basis for the testing and an applicant can choose to opt-out of it.

Plus, in AL, you have to have had a previous drug conviction -- meaning they aren't just randomly picking on you because you are poor.

But, regardless, I see no problem with this type of prereq. But, more importantly, they need to place limits on the number of years a person can remain on these programs. That would be the ultimate solution.

yet two similar laws have been struck down in Florida and Michigan...I get it's a little different, but is it different enough for the courts to go along? we shall see...

The MI statute was affirmed by the full Ct of Appeals.

got a link?

(04-05-2014 05:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 05:27 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 04:52 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 04:48 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Eventually, I think all of these will be upheld (at least for new applicants). The problem the opponents of these laws have is that the person has a choice whether they want to apply for government assistance or not. This is no different than applying for a government job that has a drug test as a pre-requisite. States have a rational basis for the testing and an applicant can choose to opt-out of it.

Plus, in AL, you have to have had a previous drug conviction -- meaning they aren't just randomly picking on you because you are poor.

But, regardless, I see no problem with this type of prereq. But, more importantly, they need to place limits on the number of years a person can remain on these programs. That would be the ultimate solution.

yet two similar laws have been struck down in Florida and Michigan...I get it's a little different, but is it different enough for the courts to go along? we shall see...

The MI statute was affirmed by the full Ct of Appeals.

got a link?

quick reading... split court.. so no.

I'm thinking that if as long as they only test those people applying or receiving welfare, that have drug convictions on their record, the courts will uphold. The convictions are the lynchpin that holds the state welfare dept. from going off the rail with this new power.

(04-05-2014 12:37 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  These laws don't do well in the courts...ask FL and Michigan.

Have those cases been heard beyond the federal District Court level?