http://www.huffingto..._n_1237333.html
A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers.
"There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill," said Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville), sponsor of the original welfare drug testing bill.
The Supreme Court ruled drug testing for political candidates unconstitutional in 1997, striking down a Georgia law. McMillin said he withdrew his bill so he could reintroduce it on Monday with a lawmaker drug testing provision that would pass constitutional muster.
"I've only withdrawn it temporarily," he told HuffPost, stressing he carefully crafted his original bill so that it could survive a legal challenge. Last year a federal judge, citing the Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure, struck down a Florida law that required blanket drug testing of everyone who applied for welfare.
McMillin's bill would overcome constitutional problems, he said, by setting up a tiered screening scheme in which people can opt-out of random testing. Those who decline random tests would only be screened if they arouse "reasonable suspicion," either by their demeanor, by being convicted of a crime, or by missing appointments required by the welfare office.
In the past year Republican lawmakers have pursued welfare drug testing in more than 30 states and in Congress, and some bills have even targeted people who claim unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs. Democrats in several states have countered with bills to require drug testing elected officials. Indiana state Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) introduced just such an amendment on Friday.
"After it passed, Rep. McMillin got pretty upset and pulled his bill," Dvorak said. "If anything, I think it points out some of the hypocrisy. ... If we're going to impose standards on drug testing, then it should apply to everybody who receives government money."
Dvorak said McMillin was mistaken to think testing the legislature would be unconstitutional, since the stricken Georgia law targeted candidates and not people already holding office.
McMillin, for his part, said he's coming back with a new bill on Monday, lawmaker testing included. He said he has no problem submitting to a test himself.
"I would think legislators that are here who are responsible for the people who voted them in, they should be more than happy to consent," he said. "Give me the cup right now and I will be happy to take the test."
Welfare Drug Testing Bill Withdrawn After Amended To Include Testing Lawmakers
Started by
PeaceFrog
, Dec 31 2012 12:31 AM
12 replies to this topic
#2
-
- VibeTribe
- 287 posts
- Locationin the hearts and minds of many
Posted 31 December 2012 - 12:53 AM
Good I hope they do keep it fair! As said above everyone who receives government money should have to comply if they are going to impose any sort of policy regarding drug testing. I am on the fence still about the whole legalization debate though.....I feel like it would be a good idea to see how that whole thing goes in the next couple election periods before really getting into testing. They should first define what substances would be considered a problem. Seems like a great way to loop hole out the things that elected officials would want to be able to do without penalty. But that legalization debate is still waging wars in my head, I can't quite decide if it would be a good thing or not. If that is the direction this country is heading though then it doesn't make sense to get into all of this just yet..... I guess I will just have to wait and see.
#3
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,284 posts
- LocationWhisky a Go Go
Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:24 AM
I'm not a proponent of full legalization of all drugs, but I am for the federal re-classification of MJ for medical use, and the regulation of it by the States however they decide is appropriate.
I just thought it was a funny story because Republicans wanted to do the testing until Democrats insisted on an amendment to include legislators.
As far as testing people on welfare, I think it would be a huge waste of money -- and what would the point be? Alcohol and Tobacco are more harmful and addictive than some things that are currently illegal -- and they cost money. So, should we test for that too?
Thanks for sharing your opinion. We both agree that it should be fair, whatever they do!
I just thought it was a funny story because Republicans wanted to do the testing until Democrats insisted on an amendment to include legislators.
As far as testing people on welfare, I think it would be a huge waste of money -- and what would the point be? Alcohol and Tobacco are more harmful and addictive than some things that are currently illegal -- and they cost money. So, should we test for that too?
Thanks for sharing your opinion. We both agree that it should be fair, whatever they do!
#4
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,253 posts
Posted 31 December 2012 - 02:27 AM
I just thought it was a funny story because Republicans wanted to do the testing until Democrats insisted on an amendment to include legislators.
"I've only withdrawn it temporarily," he told HuffPost, stressing he carefully crafted his original bill so that it could survive a legal challenge....
McMillin, for his part, said he's coming back with a new bill on Monday, lawmaker testing included. He said he has no problem submitting to a test himself.
"I would think legislators that are here who are responsible for the people who voted them in, they should be more than happy to consent," he said. "Give me the cup right now and I will be happy to take the test."
#9
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,284 posts
- LocationWhisky a Go Go
Posted 01 January 2013 - 07:16 PM
I posted an article in it's entirety for discussion, and then 2 posts later gave my personal opinion.
You quoted a snippet of an article I already posted without any original commentary of your own (the thought of that ever happening gives me a little chuckle inside) Your post was redundant and makes me wonder - to what end?
You quoted a snippet of an article I already posted without any original commentary of your own (the thought of that ever happening gives me a little chuckle inside) Your post was redundant and makes me wonder - to what end?
#10
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,253 posts
Posted 01 January 2013 - 08:45 PM
I posted an article in it's entirety for discussion, and then 2 posts later gave my personal opinion.
You quoted a snippet of an article I already posted without any original commentary of your own (the thought of that ever happening gives me a little chuckle inside) Your post was redundant and makes me wonder - to what end?
You stated "Republicans wanted to do the testing until Democrats insisted on an amendment to include legislators."
Then, as you stated, all I did was point out the parts of the article that said it was only temporarily withdrawn in order to craft it so it could survive a legal challenge and that it would be reintroduced.
You then accused me of defending the conservatives.
Where did I do that when all I did was quote the relevant parts of what you posted?
What exactly do you think I was defending the conservatives from?
Or was this yet another case of you throwing around unfounded and false accusations?
#11
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,284 posts
- LocationWhisky a Go Go
Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:05 PM
A young couple, Lisa and John, moved into a new neighborhood. One morning while they were eating breakfast, Lisa looked out the window and watched her next-door neighbor hanging out her wash.
“That laundry’s not clean!” Lisa exclaimed. “Our neighbor doesn’t know how to get clothes clean!”
John looked on but remained silent.
Every time her neighbor would hang her wash to dry, Lisa would make the same comments.
A few weeks later Lisa was surprised to glance out her window and see a nice, clean wash hanging in her neighbor’s yard. She said to her husband, “Look, John—she’s finally learned how to wash correctly! I wonder how she did it.”
John replied, “Well, dear, I have the answer for you. You’ll be interested to know that I got up early this morning and washed our windows!”
Why was Lisa so quick to assume her neighbor was the one with dirty laundry, rather than her own window being dirty?
Do we look at the faults of others, while excusing our own faults? How can we change?
Why is it important that we don't judge others?
“That laundry’s not clean!” Lisa exclaimed. “Our neighbor doesn’t know how to get clothes clean!”
John looked on but remained silent.
Every time her neighbor would hang her wash to dry, Lisa would make the same comments.
A few weeks later Lisa was surprised to glance out her window and see a nice, clean wash hanging in her neighbor’s yard. She said to her husband, “Look, John—she’s finally learned how to wash correctly! I wonder how she did it.”
John replied, “Well, dear, I have the answer for you. You’ll be interested to know that I got up early this morning and washed our windows!”
Why was Lisa so quick to assume her neighbor was the one with dirty laundry, rather than her own window being dirty?
Do we look at the faults of others, while excusing our own faults? How can we change?
Why is it important that we don't judge others?
#13
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,284 posts
- LocationWhisky a Go Go
Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:07 AM
In other words it's just the the usual case of you talking shit and making accusations that you can't back up. Same old, same old.
Happy Derp Year
Yes Joke! That's exactly what it is! Case closed! Now you can get back to TVLand. I heard they're playing another re-run of Columbo.
