Mo. House passes welfare drug testing legislation

Originally published May 10, 2011 at 12:40 p.m., updated May 10, 2011 at 11:59 p.m.

Missouri lawmakers gave final approval Tuesday to a bill that would allow drug testing of welfare applicants and recipients and direct those who test positive to treatment programs.

Under the bill, welfare applicants or recipients could be given a urine test if the Department of Social Services has a “reasonable cause” to believe they having been using illegal drugs. If people fail or refuse to take the drug test, they could receive benefits only so long as they participate in and complete a drug treatment program and do not test positive again. Otherwise, those who test positive would lose benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for three years.

“Hardworking taxpayers don’t want their money to be subsidizing other people’s drug use,” said sponsoring Rep. Ellen Brandom, R-Sikeston.

The House gave final approval to the bill 113-34, sending it to Gov. Jay Nixon. The Senate passed the bill late last month.

Under the bill, only the adult who failed the drug test would be at risk of losing welfare benefits. The state would choose a third party to receive the share of the benefits that would have gone to the person’s children.

The adult treatment program had been added to the legislation with the support of Sen. Jolie Justus, D-Kansas City, who said it could help prevent people from testing positive multiple times.

“This helps people actually get rid of the problem that caused them to lose their benefits,” Justus said after the Senate passed its bill last month.

Collen Coble, the executive director of the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, praised lawmakers for adding the treatment language. But she said backlogs in many private and state-funded treatment programs could make it more difficult for people who test positive to get help for their additions.

“I fear the unintended consequences of taking money away from a family that is already living in poverty,” she said. “There will be some delay in your ability to get the treatment you need.”

The legislation would require that all electronic benefit cards include a photo of the recipient and be renewed every three years. Most welfare payments are not issued as checks, but rather as debit cards that recipients swipe when they make a purchase.

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Springfield, said including a photograph on the cards would prevent welfare recipients from trading or selling their benefit cards to other people.

Measures to drug test some welfare recipients have been proposed in numerous states this year.

Michigan was the first state to pass legislation to drug test all welfare recipients, but the measure was struck down by a court in 2003, saying it would be unconstitutional to test an entire group of people without a specific cause simply because they receive government assistance.

———

Welfare drug testing bill is HB73

Online:

Legislature: http://moga.mo.gov

More like this story

asb 2 years ago

How about alchohol testing too? How are we going to pay for this new nanny government mandate? Let's test the assembly members at the start of the next session. Breathlyizers in the senate thronerooms? This is moralistic right-wing litmus testing and should be vetoed, both as not the government's business and simply not affordable.

fultonian 2 years ago

If you're living off the government's dime you shouldn't be spending your money on drugs. Especially when it's taxpayer money. I think most of the funding will be coming from the amount of money saved when the bums start failing the drug tests and lose their welfare checks.

tonto 2 years ago

It hasn't worked anywhere else. Why would it be different here? It may be a veto lure for Gov Nixon, so he could be blamed for welfare recipients buying drugs with tax money.

AmandaLee 1 year, 10 months ago

TANF isn't a program predominately used by the homeless but instead mostly used by single mothers with young children. States receive a block grant to design and operate their programs to accomplish the purposes of TANF which are •assisting needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes •reducing the dependency of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work and marriage •preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies •encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

tonto 2 years ago

IQ tests might be more revealing.

spelchek 2 years ago

Not affordable? How so, say, compared to entitlements in general?

JMO 2 years ago

While I agree we shouldn't fund drug purchases with public money, this only takes away the benefits for the adult. Basically, it just lowers the total income to families with children. I somehow doubt Mom's going to give up her narcotics just because she's spending a bigger percentage of the grocery money. This is hurting more innocent people than it is punishing guilty ones.

rmsberengaria 2 years ago

Well, am not going to comment on this law rightly or wrongly since, am not up on this particular legislation.

With that said.....If parents are using narcotics around children those children are doomed for the most part into a perpetual dependency class, unless they are removed from that environment. Very Sad.

spelchek 2 years ago

How does ensuring a person receiving entitlements is drug free hurting them? I've worked jobs that required drug screening and don't remember getting hurt.

JMO 2 years ago

It doesn't ensure they are drug free, it just takes away their aid. Granted, they give it back if they complete the treatment program, but what about in the meantime? And I suppose the biggest problem will be who decides who gets tested? That's going to be a nightmare for the workers put in that position. All in all, it's just not a good situation.

wcywing 2 years ago

what would lead the gov to suspect someone is using drugs, would they treat everyone like a suspect? how would they enforce this?

MO is becoming more a police state/nanny state. look at all the laws they passing, especially for the cause of morality. but GOP says they are the party of limited gov.

tonto 2 years ago

It's just political posturing, and economically foolish. This idea of feeling good that our welfare recipients aren't using drugs will cost the state a lot of your tax money and will not reduce welfare costs. This has been and is being tried in a few other states and is a big failure. States which have looked at the cost and calculated the benefits have rejected the program.

wcywing 2 years ago

so everything is normal then? GOP says they a the party of fiscal responsibility. heh. btw, would this law be considered invasion of privacy?

spelchek 2 years ago

Proof please.

tonto 2 years ago

The National Conference of State Legislatures website has a very nice summary on this. The News Tribune really doesn't like links, but it's pretty easy to find. The federal courts have found drug testing for welfare recipients unconstitutional. The Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, and South Dakota legislatures have recently rejected drug testing programs over cost issues.

asb 2 years ago

Oh, I get it, don't fund drug use with government money . . . soooo. Test state employee. Test contractors. Test corporate wigs who get government handouts like TIFFs and tax breaks for saying really nice things about your senator. Test school children. Well then again these all have power behind them that would fuss if these good people were tested for government funded drugs. But there must be SOMEBODY we can demonize and pump up our moral cred with the voters with . . . There must be somebody at the bottom of the barrel who can't squawk but who we still have a money stick we can thump 'em with . . . Eureka! Poor families. Mom uses, punish the kids. Perfect. 34-0

tonto 2 years ago

Great idea, asb, but why don't we test .... wait for it...

LAWYERS!!

asb 2 years ago

Terrific, enforcement costs, extra testing cost 'cause they're not quite human, and the litigation costs. Good job tonto, a trifecta of ouch to the second oldest profession.

JMO 2 years ago

I'm an employee and a lawyer. Test me. I'll pass better than a lot of you.

rmsberengaria 2 years ago

I think it's knee jerk liberal/progressive reaction to anything that affects their lifestyle of transfer payments and dependence on government a form of slavery, that they have not realized yet. Kinda like silly callers on C-Span continually calling for Congress to cut their pay, like that will really lower the debt or ending foreign aid, 1/2 of 1% of the budget is going to cure all our problems.

rmsberengaria 2 years ago

To those that feel threatened it is always easier to attack the messenger in this case the Missouri Congress.

Souperstar 2 years ago

Are you basically calling these people victims? They (the ones affected) are using drugs...while being supporting by the public. Let's define victim with the help of google.com: vic·tim/ˈviktəm/Noun 1. A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. 2. A person who is tricked or duped: "the victim of a hoax".

Well they fit neither of those definitions, but the public certainly fits by definition for allowing people in these situations to continue to take from them, and use what they've taken in such a self destructive manner.

This is not punishing the kids, instead it is giving mom/dad incentive to get away from the problem. This is not punishing the kids, this is offering the aid (again) if mom/dad get away from the problem. This is not punishing the kids, and do you really think that mom/dad are taking care of them, while they are being born possibly addicted to these drugs or living in an explosive/toxic drug production house?

Your legislator/business owner banter is old too. Please, think carefully.

tonto 2 years ago

Then by your Google definition we, the voters and taxpayers, appear to be the victims of this silly con job. Here's the situation:

A small percentage of welfare recipients might be taking illegal drugs; and a few of them might be tested based on the potential suspicions of a social service worker who is paid so poorly that she qualifies for food stamps and her kids qualify for free school lunches. A few of those welfare recipient illicit drug users might be disqualified from TANF benefits if the testing works, and if the state of Missouri can persuade the federal courts that it is constitutional to do the testing. That is chancy at best based on other states' experience to date.

Theoretically, if everything went in our favor up to this point, a few additional welfare recipient drug users would be referred to a Department of Mental Health drug treatment program that would not have referred themselves or been referred by their families or law enforcement. The cost of the drug testing program will run into a few millions of Missouri taxpayer dollars, and the costs to try and defend the program in federal court will run into another few millions of Missouri taxpayer dollars.

Explain how this would make things better for real people in the real world. Please use small words. I can't figure it out so I must be pretty dumb.

tonto 1 year, 10 months ago

No, but I have actually read the bill and it stands no chance of accomplishing anything positive.

How about you? Have you read the bill? You need to understand what the actual program would do. Have you looked at the history of similar programs in other states? Have you looked at the court cases which find these drug testing programs unconstitutional? Have you considered that these single mothers' kids will be put in foster care while mom is in treatment? Have you considered that the legal fees will be more than the potential savings in welfare benefits?

wcywing 2 years ago

don't forget TSA and dep. of homeland (in)security.

JCLifer 2 years ago

I'd rather have the welfare recipients get sterilized before receiving any benefits. That would be an effective means to break the never-ending cycle of welfare leeches.

spelchek 2 years ago

Why are some of you afraid of trying to ensure that our fellow citizens are drug free so they stand a better chance of getting off welfare and becoming a productive part of our society? Do some folks need a hand up? Absolutely. Do some need folks need a hand out? Never. We subsidize everything for those in need, those in need do not need drugs.

rmsberengaria 2 years ago

I like that spelchek well put....Not offensive, plan simple truth. Actually I feel the same way.

tonto 2 years ago

It's a nice two-part fantasy you have going for you there. We don't have jobs for a lot (around 9%) of the people that are available, qualified, and willing to work. Lots more people are working fewer hours or at lower paid jobs than they are qualified for.

Children, and mothers of young children make up a huge portion of the welfare rolls. Inadequate education and the cost of child care are the major obstacles to welfare recipients entering the work force.

muleman 2 years ago

Do y'all want the streets in town loaded with homeless addicts ? Housing is a benefit too

tonto 2 years ago

Hang on to those fantasies. Reality is much too difficult for you.

asb 2 years ago

IF this expense and government moral intervention actually ends up saving money or lives, great. The odds are that it won't. Drug abuse doesn't cause welfare and the number of abusers in the system is too small to make a difference. If this were an attempt to control the behavior of other recipients of government money, it would be an onerous government regulation. Drug abuse is an issue, for which Family Services is already well authorized (if not staffed). Drug use, whether alchohol or others, is a moral or religious issue and should NOT be the basis for qualifying for assistance. Far too much "assistance" is going to entities doing far greater harm, with no strings, for this narrow moral beam to be justified.

3blindmice 2 years ago

why stop with welfare? why not test all those getting farm subsidies, contractors getting state money, and lets not forget all the bankers that got bailed out by all tax payers. fun isn't it. this could go many directions

muleman 2 years ago

What do y'all consider "welfare"? Social security disability income , workman compensation benefits , social security income for those that didnt work enough years to qualify for social security disability income , or were born disabled?

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID