Despite veto override, McCrory says he won't carry out welfare drug testing
Associated press/ September 04, 2013
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/04/despite-veto-override-mccrory-says-wont-carry-out-welfare-drug-testing/#ixzz2eQ2pFRZ2
Summery:
The law to drug test those on welfare was vetoed, however the senate overrode the veto overwhelmingly with a vote of 34:10. The one governor Pat McCrory wanted nothing to do with this law and says he was not given enough money to do so; therefore, will not carryout the welfare drug testing. He said that the drug testing would require an extra $300,000 dollars aside from the $145,000 that was put aside to carry out this new law. McCrory is receiving a lot of negative feed back for his statements. Governors are sworn under oath in ordered to make sure that the laws are followed, yet until he receives more money he says he will not carry out this law. The law will not be put into place until the next summer.
Opinion:
I feel as though one must be out of one's mind not to support this law. Public assistance programs are financed by tax payers. If the people receiving public assistance are taking advantage of the system and using the tax payers money to buy drugs they deserve to be cut off, and I don't know of any tax payer who would like to pay for drugs with their hard earn cash to fuel someone's drug problem when it could be going to someone who is really in need. I feel as though the governor is completely out of line refusing to participate in seeing that the law is followed, especially because that is his job.
I tend to support this law because I believe that government assistance programs should be monitored to ensure that people who are receiving assistance are using the aid appropriately. However, I am skeptical about the cost of performing regular drug tests on everyone receiving welfare throughout the United States. That can get very costly and my fear would be that a large percentage of the people tested would test negatively for drug use repeatedly and then money is just continuously being wasting on said person's drug testing. If the law is passed, there should be procedures put in place to carry out the testing, but also procedures that carry out the testing in the most cost efficient manner.
ReplyDeleteI believe drug testing is 100% necessary. While it may be costly to perform these required tests, I believe it is more costly to provide these undeserving people with assistance. If someone is abusing illegal drugs (which are very costly), they probably have money to spend. This means that they could probably deal with no or less assistance if they did not abuse drugs. The cost to perform these tests would be high, but the government would save more money by not having to pay these drug abusing individuals.
ReplyDeleteFor a person to receive public assistance, drug testing should absolutely exist for everyone. If a person sincerely needs help, and is not just trying to skate through on taxpayer money, or to support a drug habit, they should not have anything to worry about. Also, this would help to find the people who are actually abusing the system, and add to the amount of money going to people who truly deserve it, and reduce or even eliminate the amount going to the abusers
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am against a law like this solely because I believe the Fifth Amendment is meant to prevent this kind of thing. The government is not allowed to force a citizen to turn over incriminating evidence against themselves. While, yes, people using government benefits to buy drugs is an example of system abuse, I believe the gov't would be overstepping its boundaries by administering drug tests to these people.
ReplyDelete(I posted a second time because I made a typo. Lol.)
To counter what Gabe said, you aren't being forced. You don't have to go on Welfare or any other assistance program. By signing up for that program you are agreeing to the conditions of that assistance. It is within a businesses rights to drug test you, so why not the governments for something they are giving you.
ReplyDeleteI was about to agree with Will but then I did some research and I totally agree with Gabe, even though I think he actually means the Fourth Amendment. Yes, it may be frustrating to think about crack junkies using their welfare money to buy drugs, but "The simple fact of seeking public assistance does not deprive [an] applicant of the same constitutional protection from unreasonable searches that all other citizens enjoy." (Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
ReplyDeleteThs Supreme Court has struck down laws requiring across the board, suspicion-less drug testing for Welfare recipients except for "substantial public safety concerns and students in the public school system."
So yes it's irritating. But unless there is a suspicion, this is illegal.
I also understand the Governor's point that he can't enforce something without the funding to do it.
Thanks Alex. I probably confused unreasonable search and seizure with the self-incrimination prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.
DeleteHere are my links if you're inclined to check.
ReplyDeletehttp://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/02/federal-appeals-court-upholds-block-of-florida-welfare-drug-testing-law.php
http://jurist.org/dateline/2013/03/ilan-wurman-drug-testing.php