Hope it goes viral nationwide.


The Texas Senate passed a bill today that would drug test some welfare applicants and cut off drug users from receiving money. It now goes to the House. The bill passed Wednesday temporarily cuts off benefits to drug users, with a permanent ban after three failed drug tests. Money would still go to an applicant's minor children through a third party.

This is awesomeness.

and 'the war on drugs' continues,,,,

But isn't the bigger issue the money they are spending on drugs, and not the drug use itself?

money is usually the more important issue,, yes...

As Long as they are Slaves on the Welfare Plantation (Which Welfare is) Then they Have to Abide by the Rules; I don't want to pay for Someone Else's Drug Use.

If they test dirty more than twice, the kids should be removed and fostered out.

Msharmony, I've been keeping out of political forums here, because too often people want a fight, when all I want is to get a grip on others opinions. As one reasonable person to another, I am curious to know your view on this issue. Others too if they can be NICE. So...

Unless I mistook your "'the war on drugs' continues,,,," comment, it sounds as though you dislike Texas' new policy.

What if being cut off welfare once or twice makes a man and/or woman stop buying drugs so his/her/their children don't go without the assistance they need?

What if once he/she/they make that decision, their drug habit takes a back seat to their family and household priorities in the future, allowing them a better chance at gainful employment and self respect, overcoming the need for assistance at all and raising children in an empowering environment instead of a dependent one... not to mention keeping the funds they are currently buying drugs with in the coffers of the State for more important things like education, infrastructure, and highway patrol...all of which create jobs and stimulate the state economy?

Do you not think this policy is capable of producing this effect on some scale?

If not, what do YOU believe will happen with the implementation of drug testing for welfare?

Do you have ideas for how to better insure welfare recipients are spending state and federal funds they receive on oatmeal, bread and milk instead of drugs?

Or do you think this is not the problem they claim it to be and therefore completely unnecessary?

i understand , rather pay for a hundred drug tests than for than for one persons drugs,,,,


and at least they arent penalizing the children, though ID be interested in knowing how they will be deciding who to drug test and how the children will still get their needs if they are under the care of the 'drug user'

the last answer

because there are already regulations and laws in place that counter those concerns


1st, the food cards can ONLY Be used for food, and it is already against the law to sell them, so there is the deterrent for those who would choose drugs INSTEAD of feeding their families

2nd, regulations which require constant check ins , verifiable job searching, required job activities,,,etc,,, make it unlikely that many drug disabled candidates will remain eligible for MONETARY assistance for long

3rd, there are lots of things Id rather people not spend money on, but I wouldnt be spiteful enough to cut off their family's assistance because of it (although I Realize there is supposedly some way they plan to continue assisting the chidlren)

I feel its more of a way to cut off more impoverished people by creating a false image of them to justify their treatment,,,,,,


but,, I am one who believes in rules being rules until they change into new rules,,, so if thats what that community wants,, its their perogative,,,,

Bring it on . It couldn't come soon enough. All those poor neighbourhoods/communities ruined by drugs. I just know someone will try and sway my opinion on this, but I have my own thoughts on this subject. It's upsetting when you see children brought into this world, when their parents just slap them around. I think age plays a part, too, though. Older parents just seem calmer. People always expect something from nothing, but it's time they started to see what it means to earn things. I see it all too often how they like to bully people. Why isn't THAT part of it ever being tackled? Pensioners are too scared to walk to the shop at night, because of it. Who is anyone to try and terrorize another? This is a pretty disgusting world.

Okay, I get your viewpoints on everything but this.

Since it would only cut off those who are misappropriating taxpayer funds, isn't it justified? Especially if, as you've stated, there is a means of assisting the children despite the parents who are defrauding the system?

Personally, I don't see it as being much different than prosecuting people who collect unemployment while collecting a paycheck. These people are scamming the system just the same. The only difference to me is that hidden employment does not show up in bodily fluids.

yep, I was 'earning a whopping 300 bucks a month to feed two kids while working 100 hours per month,, do the math


but let the public believe what they apparently continue to choose to believe,,,

I dont think the treatment is justified, no

taxpayer funds are not the real issue, as I said before, the funds it will take to maintain such a system could and probably will far outweigh any taxpayer money saved by denying some person the 14 or 15 grand ( 3 or 4 grand per year) per lifetime cap that assistance allows them,,,,

I think this does more to try to reinforce the negative stereotype of impoverished people being on drugs, than it does to curb the problem or help anyoe

but than it never really is about humans, more about money,,,and those with money keep it as long as they convince the public that those without are less deserving and more damaged,,,,

but thats just my opinion,,,

life aint fair, noone said it was

impoverished will continue to have to rise IN SPITE OF,,,instead of because of,,,,

I am all for kids being taken cared for by reponsable parents.
Any parents that use drugs choose the drug over their kids.
Again. First time they test dirty offer probation and tretment. Second time dirty, pull the kids. If they stay clean a year, a judge should decide if the kids should be returned or, if they'd be better off in foster or State care.

I agree with the idea but would take it further in the spirit of realistic approaches

use of drugs alone does not impede parenting skills, many things matter like the type of drug the frequency ,where it is used etc,,

for instance, I know SEVERAL people who recreationally smoke pot and they are incredibly productive citizens and great parents as much as any person who 'chooses' to use beer or alcohol recreationally,,,,,



I think rigid judgment that affects the parent child relationship should have realistic and purposeful guidelines instead of just spite or labeling, or more incarceration,,,,

Totally agree with this. I have trouble believing that a high enough percentage of impoverished have drug habits to make a large commitment to this testing worth state funds.

I would think that only people with a long documented drug record or recent drug related incidences should be targeted for testing. I would also think drug counseling being available would minimize repeat offenders.

I don't know what Texas does, but know that care packages are handed out to children at some schools in other states to supplement welfare packages and make sure the children are eating in the evenings and weekends as well as the breakfast and lunches the schools provide them. This is the only way I can see them helping the children without giving assistance directly to the parents...unless they go as far as to foster the children of the drug positive testers.

I'll be curious to see what happens.

me too

I wouldn't think people on assistance could afford beer.


I may be a hard azz for thinking this, but I would consider someone who buys alcohol while they are relying on assistance to feed their family as either taking advantage of the system or at the very least not acting in the best interest of their children. They are certainly not setting the best example for their children of responsible decision making and accountability.

Drug users are free to tell people their life story. Maybe it will help justify them taking them. If more just actually told their story, instead of posing, then maybe they'd get listened to more. Respect is a two-way thing.