A lot of bills that are passed are wrapped in a shiny blanket, "Look how much we are doing on the war against drugs and government funding abuse.", and very rarely thought out. It is temporary appeasement written by those who don't tend to have a grasp on the actual lives of a lot of the people that the bill affects. I think that perhaps parts of the bill should be different...why the hell does it cost so much and what method of testing will be used? It is a waste of money because people can smoke pot, flush it out of their system and test clean but let's think it through despite those issues.
However the idea, not necessarily the method, of what they're doing has my support. What if a person stops getting funding because they do drugs: do you think it is their personal responsibility, as a parent, to make sure that their child is fed or someone else? Is it anyone's fault but theirs if they continue to use drugs, even while knowing the risk of not being able to feed their family? The government is not asking them to do anything extra except to have proof that they are being honest about not using drugs.

If most of the tests came back positive for pot, then it is a non narcotic drug and (supposedly) is not addictive. Stopping does not involve inpatient therapy or any dangerous or terribly difficult side effects. This is not a tumultuous drug to stop using and just a few days of being clean can be the difference.
I don't feel as though most of those children would be going hungry either because most of the kids whose parents rely on government funding have free or $1 breakfasts and lunches at school anyway. Perhaps all the money going to relatives for food could be sent to the school cafeteria so that a student could have a meal to bring home at the end of the day too.

Also, based on your reasoning, workers shouldn't be drug tested either because if my husband were to smoke pot and fail a drug test at work, he'd probably lose his job. Then we couldn't feed our kids (we live paycheck to paycheck) and it would be his company's fault or problem and the government should then send us money to make sure our kids are okay. The very fact that he could get fired for using drugs is one of the main reasons he doesn't because he used to be a big pothead. I did too for that matter, until I had kids and stopped, so I know for a fact that those who are still smoking pot in spite of what it could mean for their family have no excuse. Where is the money for their $40 bag of weed coming from anyway? Because they should be using that for food for their family, not getting money from the government.

I also agree with the idea behind the law.  If our tax dollars are to be spent on drug users, then use it to rehabilitate them by providing the resources to get clean.  

But, this law is not doing that.  It is costing the taxpayers too much money to weed the small percentage of drug users out of the welfare system.  I do not profess to have a better way, I just believe this law is definitely not going to help anyone. And, it will fail at a high cost to the taxpayers.

I live in Florida. The statistics I quoted were from the short period of time that this law was enforced in this state.  I have not found results from Kentucky and Missouri.  And, I am sure other states may be considering a modified law to be introduced into legislature.  The law I speak of is the one that was passed in Florida and found to be costly and ineffective.  I can only speak as a Floridian.  Sorry for the confusion!@grim_truth@xanga - 

@crankycaregiver@xanga - well, that's the problem.  In the articles I found, currently, Florida is at a net loss of $45,000.  But from what I read, that didn't take into account the amounts that would not get paid out over the next year.  Only counted what the tests cost and what had been saved up to this point. 

More long term studies need to be conducted over time to really get a good picture of what it saves and accomplishes.  (One statistic that will never be discovered is how many people quit drugs to get their money.  If one person did, then the $45,000 was worth it, IMO)

Since people keep mentioning being drug tested by employers, I know that most employers do not fire an employee for testing positive the first time.  They are offered drug counseling and future testing in order to keep their job.  

I am not condoning parents who drink, smoke pot or do other drugs that use money that is meant to support their children.  What I am against is grouping everyone who collects welfare benefits being labeled as druggies, lazy and negligent in the care of their children.  The majority of parents with children use the money wisely...there will always be those that don't.  

All I am saying is that this law is not what it is cracked up to be!
One point I am going to make about the few that have mentioned "taking the children away" if a parent is tested positive. They feel that is better for the children.  So if a parent has a drink (which is also a drug), should we remove the children from the home, whether the parents are on welfare or not?  What happens when a parent is on medication and receives a false/positive result?  Or, should we find out if the children are being properly cared for before we yank them away and cause them trauma?  Once again, welfare recipients are labeled as second-class citizens because they need help supporting their family!  

But, that's my opinion, and you are certainly entitled to yours.  Thanks for reading!

Funny... I just wrote a blog about this no less than three hours ago. I think that something needs to be done, but drug testing every single person is not the answer. Not exactly for the easily offended...

@crankycaregiver@xanga - "Since people keep mentioning being drug tested by employers, I know that most employers do not fire an employee for testing positive the first time.  They are offered drug counseling and future testing in order to keep their job."

Sorry, what? I don't know ANY employer that will give you a second chance. People who are drugs tested are generally minimum/low wage employees who are very expendable. If I tested positive for drugs tomorrow at work, I would get fired, no second chance. 

I see no Constitutional problem with this, but you have to remember, there are thousands out there who qualify for free medications for real disorders from the pharm companies, and some of these meds are strong enough to skew the results of drug testing, so on the one hand I say, good for you, go ahead, get these poor people and make them prove they need the help.  And on the other hand, as one who has 3 rather severe autoimmune disorders that are covered by Medicare, I take between 6 and 13 medications per day.  So I might be disallowed food stamps or something else provided if drug testing were required.  Does anyone get what I'm saying here?  And will they accept someone's card for medicinal marijuana?  My brother-in-law has had leukemia for a year now, and the only thing that deals with the pain is one itty bitty marijuana brownie for breakfast, in California.  This, after being on morphine and everything else.  So, were he unable to pay his bills, would this cause him to be homeless, or not get food stamps?  So many conservatives without health problems like to stamp it all with the same stamp, but the problems of people are quite varied.

@DarkMeru@xanga - "I think they deserve better parents who actually care about making sure they have health coverage and food in their bellies, that's your job when you decide to have a baby."

This statement is nullified by the fact that you are irritated you make twenty dollars too much to qualify for assistance.  Why would you even know that (or be irritated by your lack of qualification) unless you applied or looked into the requirements because you felt you needed it?  It screams that you are just pissed that you cannot get assistance.

 I agree with much of what was said above, and will keep my thoughts to myself regarding the actual bill/law to avoid being repetitive. There were also multiple things in the comments above that were offensive to me. Snap judgements and assumptions were made, and to be honest, those words were hurtful. What I do want to talk about is my own personal experiences with the system because I truly feel people who have never had to utilize these social programs can be very biased and judgemental. They lump all people receiving government assistance into one category: lazy. If I had a dollar for every time I've been personally victimized for my need for government programs during the course of the last 6 years, I'd be as rich as the politicians who write these flawed bills.

I got pregnant at 18, my boyfriend skipped out on me, and I had to quit my job 2 months after discovering I was pregnant because the physical strain my job placed on me was a risk to my unborn child's life. Does anyone know how hard it is for a pregnant woman to find a job? I do. Nobody wants to hire you unless you have some sort of connection through a family member or friend. I don't blame employers for choosing not to hire pregnant women. I get that it's a liability for them. Doctor's appointments, maternity leave, bed rest... whatever. They're not discriminating, per se, they just don't call you for an interview. I lived at home with my parents during my pregnancy, and for the first year and a half of my daughter's life. I'd been working since I was 16, and had about $3,000 saved up when I had to quit my job. That 3k went quick! Baby gear is expensive! I wanted to give my child up for adoption, but my parents said they'd provide us with what we needed so I wouldn't have to. They put a roof over our heads, clothes on our backs, a vehicle to use, and provided me with the money to further my education which would ultimately benefit my daughter and I in the long run. But, they wouldn't let me get a job to financially support myself and my child. Why? Because they didn't want to bear the burden of caring for my daughter while I earned an income. Single mom with no decent job experience or education, how could I possibly afford daycare? At that point, I was trapped. Should I have just given my child up then?.... My child needed health insurance, and since my parents couldn't add her to their's, I qualified for medicaid due to lack of income (which I acquired while still pregnant and my daughter benefited from this insurance until I got married and my hubby was able to add her and I to his insurance). I also qualified for WIC. I did not, however, qualify for cash assistance or food stamps, and only found out about that because some woman at Workforce Services told me I didn't. I wasn't applying for or even inquiring about those services. My father made too much money, and even though I'm sure I could have easily cheated the system, I was morally against lying about my father's income seeing as how I was benefiting from it. Every time I used my WIC checks, the people behind me in line would shake their heads, flash me dirty looks, and sometimes, they'd say mean things to me. They had no idea I was on WIC because my dad was still supporting his family of 6, paying bills, and providing my daughter with everything else she needed like diapers and clothing and toys. Was I lazy for getting WIC? I don't think so.

My husband was employed during our first 2 and a half years of marriage through the same company. However, his income was not enough to fully support us, and after struggling to pay all our bills and feed the three of us (I was working too until I fell down on the stairs at our apartment and threw out my back. I was laid up for a week and had a doctor's note, but the company I worked for fired me). I was also pregnant. Not that I feel I need to justify myself, but because I think someone may ask me: Yes, we were using protection. My son is living proof that preventative measures do not always work! We qualified for food stamps, and were so grateful. My husband worked, I stayed home with the kids. Daycare for 2 kids, especially for ones so young, would have been astronomically expensive. No way could we pay for that if we both worked! Then, when our son was 5 months old, another unplanned pregnancy. Although I'm sure with our family size and income, we would have qualified for more than just food stamps, but that was the only program we were on. We paid our rent. We paid for our car and insurance, we paid for our basic cell phones, we paid our utilities, we bought our children everything they needed. But, we couldn't pay for all of those things and feed our family too. Something had to give, right? We did not have internet. We did not have cable. We did not go on vacations or buy extravagant things. We lived paycheck to paycheck.

My husband was laid off from his job in May 2011. We qualified for unemployment benefits, our food stamp allowance was increased, and the kids qualified for medicaid. He worked a few odd jobs here and there, and luckily, we were able to receive help through our church with bills that minimum wage paychecks just couldn't cover. We still do not have internet (our neighbors are fantastic, and have been generous enough to allow us to use their wifi for free, bless their hearts). We still do not have cable. We still use basic cell phones with no internet. We still do not take vacations or buy extravagant things. Now, my husband is starting a job with USPS on Monday, and the hourly rate is significantly greater than what he was making before he got laid off nearly 2 years ago. We'll be off food stamps. We won't qualify for government assistance of any kind, and I cannot even begin to describe how relieved and happy we are to know we'll be financially independent. We are not lazy. We are not druggies. We are not low, rotten, dirty people. We fell on hard times, and thank God for the social programs because there are people out there who are needy. Not everyone wants to cheat and/or take the easy road. There are those of us out there who want to help ourselves, but require outside assistance in order to rise up and be self sufficient. So, before passing judgement, please try to remember that assumptions and blanket statements are hurtful.

Thank you for your story.  You are the reason I am against this law...it once again singles out people on welfare and classifies them as possible drug addicts.  My heart goes out to you and just know that you are a good person...do not listen to others.

@rachmorgan01 - I am glad you were able to write your story because I wasn't able to without breaking down into tears at the computer thinking about some of the judgmental things my own relatives have posted on facebook not knowing we are on foodstamps.  Why people seem to think being on government assistance is easy and enabling has clearly never had to deal with it before.