Nixon OKs Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Kevin Held, KSDK (Jefferson City), July 12, 2011

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has signed legislation requiring drug screens for some individuals receiving or applying for certain welfare benefits.

The legislation, signed Tuesday, applies to the program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Officials will administer drug tests when they have reasonable cause to believe an applicant or recipient is using illegal drugs.

Those who refuse to be checked or who test positive and don’t complete a substance abuse program will be ineligible for benefits for three years.

Critics say the testing law unfairly targets one group of people. But supporters contend that people who use illegal drugs should not get public assistance.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Question Diversity

    Here’s the catch: Only applies to TANF recipients, and only TANF benefits would be held back upon a flunked test. To do any real good, it would have needed to applied to SNAP and SSI, but the state has no control at all over SSI.

    The original bill would have applied to SNAP also, but there was enough opposition from the black politicians in St. Louis and Kansas City such that that provision was taken out. TANF is the “time limited” AFDC replacement in the “Welfare (Not) Reform” Act of 1996, and once that act was passed, a lot of ghetto blacks made the lateral move from AFDC to SSI, on the pretense that their children were “retarded,” (even though they tell us out of the other sides of their mouths that there’s no such thing as IQ.) SSI was the fastest growing Federal budget line item between the Welfare (Not) Reform Act and 9/11, and now it’s growing quickly again.

    TANF isn’t that utilized in the ghettos.

  • GWS

    Do you know who first proposed drug testing welfare recipients about 25 YEARS AGO?

    It was Louisiana state representative David Duke.

    The brilliance of his position on the subject began my reevaluation of the Republican party.

    I still have voted republican, but have been aggressive with them over their political correctness. Why does it take 25 years to get results? We don’t have that kind of time on issues like Third World immigration.

  • WASP

    LOL

    They tried this 10 years ago in Michigan and a black judge struck it down.

    Common sense is the white man’s voo-doo.

  • anon

    Critics say the testing law unfairly targets one group of people.

    What group of people would that be? Make them respond when they come up with these ridiculous tags.

  • FormerShowMe

    Better some than none! My home state is to be congratulated for its stance on illegals and now addicted welfare recipients. It’s about time we cracked down. Blacks, of course, object, because they know their own people comprise the vast majority of addicts and alcoholics on welfare. I say take their kids away AND their benefits away, send ’em to state-run rehab (or federal) – and they can choose to either get clean/sober or be on the streets with nothing.

  • margaret

    The TANF receipients who are turned down because of drug use will just get on SSI because they are disabled because of drugs.

    SSI pays about double the TANF allowance for an adult.

    The kids can get on SSI with some sort of vague mental problems. It takes a while and involves all sorts of attorneys, hearings and appeals. But a determined SSI applicant always wins in the end.

    Unless of course the applicant is a White American. Then of course draconian standards are used to determine eligibility.

    Anyone know what the racial statistics are on applicants who are deemed uneligible by the minority female hearing officers?

  • Anonymous

    It’s a good idea… but it’s only for certain welfare benfits… not all. What would truely be delightful is if they required female welfare recipients to get the Norplant implant which lasts 5 yrs and is 99.9% effective (the state could cover the cost). It’s been on the market for over 20 years and politicians have been suggesting it for welfare users since at least 1991. But here we are in 2011, and this extremely sensible idea has gone nowhere. If you can’t feed ’em, don’t breed ’em!!!! it should be that simple.

  • Flamethrower

    I know a better alternative. Get rid of welfare.

  • Anonymous

    “Critics say the testing law unfairly targets one group of people.”

    Indeed it does. It targets drug-addicted welfare-abusers.

  • james

    What a stupid idea. The drug testing companies are pushing for this. The government will just ignore the test results anyways. The drug testing companies increase their profits, the tax payer gets ripped off, again.

  • Greg

    This makes way to much sense for it to work. I defeats the whole reason for giving free stuff to people which is to demoralize the takers and piss off the makers and generelly destroy our country.

    see Cloward/Piven

  • Hard Right

    It won’t amount to anything. Officials need “reasonable cause” to administer the tests. The “officials” administering the tests are probably higher than the ones they are testing and are most likely related.

  • Anonymous

    2 — GWS wrote at 5:54 PM on July 19:

    Do you know who first proposed drug testing welfare recipients about 25 YEARS AGO?

    It was Louisiana state representative David Duke.

    The brilliance of his position on the subject began my reevaluation of the Republican party.

    I still have voted republican, but have been aggressive with them over their political correctness. Why does it take 25 years to get results? We don’t have that kind of time on issues like Third World immigration.

    ———————————–

    Yep and David Duke is still vilified by WHITES and especially by Republicans. I left that Party a long time ago. I saw the writing on the wall.

  • American Son

    This is the upside down world we now live in:

    I, as a productive taxpayer, must take and pass a drug screening in order to obtain a job. The payment from the job will be taxed.

    The taxes taken from me will now be distributed to those who won’t/can’t work, and they do not have to pass a drug screening to receive my tax dollars.

    How can anyone ever say that drug testing those that I support is wrong?

  • Cid Campeador

    “Yep and David Duke is still vilified by WHITES and especially by Republicans. I left that Party a long time ago. I saw the writing on the wall.”

    I’ve stated this before but it still applies. When the left needs a name to present as a classic “racist”, the only one they seem to be able to access is that of Mr. Duke.

    It’s like their using Hitler’s name to describe a real Conservative.

    BTW I’m not comparing Hitler with David Duke.

  • Anonymous

    15 — Cid Campeador at 11:56 AM on July 20:

    My point was that the RIGHT vilifies David Duke every chance they get. In fact they vilify and of us “racially aware Whites as evil. We all know how the left is, my point was that the so-called conservatives are just as bad.

  • Anonymous

    “Critics say the testing law unfairly targets one group of people.”

    If you are thinking Blacks and Hispanics, then that’s stereotyping. Question: Is stereotyping a sin if its statistically accurate?

  • Anonymous

    Why not just end the foolish and ruinous “war on drugs” instead? Let people decide for themselves what they want to smoke or ingest into their own bodies (as with alcohol). Put the drug cartels out of business. Since 1971 the DEA had had its budget increased 4000%. The “war on drugs” has proven almost as profitable for the DEA as for the cartels.

  • Anonymous

    Question Diversity, I know someone who is retired after having worked at Section 8 housing in Kansas City, KS for over 20 years. She told me that a lot of ghetto welfare chiselers from KCMO move to KCKS because Kansas’s welfare benefits are more generous.(Don’t ask me why, for Kansas is a white “red” state). While, don’t you worry, there are still PLENTY of KCMO blacks to go around, I believe that these black politicians fear the loss of a black population base, and therefore the end of their political careers. I have yet to look at any new legislative boundary maps, it is my understanding that Cleaver’s district (MO-5) will be much whiter and more rural….Yep, they like to force “diversity” on the rest of us, but they sure don’t like competing in truly “diverse” districts, do they?

  • Question Diversity

    19 Anonymous wrote:

    Kansas’s welfare benefits are more generous.(Don’t ask me why, for Kansas is a white “red” state)

    That does not surprise me at all. Kansas is a “red” state in terms of it voting Republican (usually), but it’s really liberal on race and has been for a long time. The Kansas-Missouri rivalry predates the WBTS, and is animated by race and slavery issues. Anything in Kansas named “Free State” essentially means (expletive) you Missouri slavers. So why wouldn’t they be generous when it comes to black welfare benefits?

    Similarly, Kansas has to be the aborticide capital of the country. Don’t forget Dr. Driller was based in Wichita.

    Illinois’s welfare benefits are more generous than Missouri’s, but strangely there seems to be very little of that phenomenon you describe on this side of the state. Illinois’s state budget is emaciated as it is.

    I have yet to look at any new legislative boundary maps, it is my understanding that Cleaver’s district (MO-5) will be much whiter and more rural

    Here it is: http://house.mo.gov/largemap.aspx?map=3

    My complete and comprehensive coverage of the process: http://goo.gl/p5hLv

    I followed the redistricting process with every ounce of the political statgeek in me. Nixon did veto the map, but it became law after Senate and House override. The Senate is more than 2/3 Republican, so an override there was a given. The House is 65% Republican, and they therefore needed a few Democrats to override, them they got from St. Louis and Kansas City blacks, happy that the new map protects Clay and Cleaver. I can see how the new MO-1 protects Clay (in spite of the delusional hopes of a few St. Louis doctrinaire white liberals who are upset that the whole city will now be represented by a lazy do-nothing no account black like Clay), but I think you’re right, that Cleaver could be toppled in a Democrat Primary by a white Democrat challenger in the new MO-5. However, while you and I think that, Cleaver doesn’t, and the black power structure in KCMO doesn’t, (they helped on the House override, after all), and the NAACP doesn’t, because the Hound of the Baskervilles over there didn’t bark. I was fully expecting the NAACP to drag this new map into court on voting rights act concerns precisely because the new MO-5 is so white, alas nothing.

    The angle that black pols in KCMO weakened the drug testing to keep KCMO blacks from moving to KCK is a very insightful one. I also tend to think that any Republican-black comity in the General Assembly was all used up in the redistricting override.

  • Anonymous

    Question Diversity, during the course of my life, I’ve encountered blacks from many different parts of the country, but I have a special disdain for KCK blacks. Maybe it’s because I’m not that far away from KCK (I’m from Springfield, MO btw). They’re just a little dimmer, needier, more helpless, more immature, more violent, more impulsive, and more down on their luck, even by KCMO ghetto standards. KCK has a population of about 150,000 (like Springfield), and has got NOTHING to show for it. Even Sedalia, at 1/7th the population, offers more…..I don’t even think there’s a bowling alley, movie theater, a reasonably decent grocery store or restaurant (amenities most people take for granted) in KCK….I’m sure that Kansas’ generous welfare benefits play no small role in all of this…While I do acknowledge the role that blacks played in ruining Detroit. I give them enough credit that at least they had ancestors who pulled up stakes from the Alabama cotton fields and moved to Detroit to WORK in an automobile factory to better their stations in life.

  • Question Diversity

    21:

    I think you yourself stated the reason why KCK blacks might be “a cut below” — Because the Kansas welfare draws the welfare collecting crowd like a magnet. KCK also has the KC Metro Area’s biggest Hispanic population, and the area bounded by 70, 635 and the River seems to be almost entirely black and Hispanic, though the northern half of that section is black and the southern half is Hispanic.

    Kansas City as a metro area has a bigger and historically more present Hispanic population than St. Louis. In fact, almost all of KCMO’s population growth from 2000-10 was Hispanic.

  • Anonymous

    Question Diversity, white St. Louisans are sharper than white Kansas Citians when it comes to black/white racial realities. In fact, I recall some politically active black people complaining about all of St. Louis city being in Clay’s district because some white southside Democrat could potentially give Clay a run for his money during a primary. However, white St. Louisans seem to be in the “Awwwww….aren’t they cute?” mindset when it comes to Mexicans. Perhaps Mexicans in St. Louis are so few in number that they’re not a menace yet….I don’t know what Mexicans are doing in Kansas or Missouri, for “Aztlan” that land we whites “stole” from them is hundreds of miles away….but they sure act like they’re in Aztlan…..KCK is almost as bilingual as Brussels now…During the course of my life I’ve spent a very short time in Mexico on a few occasions. I always felt helpless when I was down there because of my limited proficiency in Spanish, my inability to read signs and understand directions.

  • Question Diversity

    23 wrote:

    white St. Louisans are sharper than white Kansas Citians when it comes to black/white racial realities

    There’s a historical reason for that, which I’ll summarize as simply as I can – Kansas City’s black pop. is historically smaller and newer, and a KC white person, with roots in the plains, thinks of him or herself as a “plain ole regular American.” In contrast, St. Louis’s black population is historically older and bigger, and St. Louis whites have ethnic European roots, ergo have a built in ethnic identity, and it’s not a big step from ethnic thinking to racial thinking. A lot of that has broken down now. St. Louis was along the railroad line from MS to Chicago, Kansas City was not. St. Louis used to have industrial jobs that attracted blacks, Kansas City never really did, but they had the agricultural processing jobs that attracted Hispanics (see below).

    some politically active black people complaining about all of St. Louis city being in Clay’s district because some white southside Democrat could potentially give Clay a run for his money during a primary

    They might be, but the blacks in the General Assembly from St. Louis and the local NAACP aren’t worried, I think for good reason. The local urban doctrinaire white liberals are hoping beyond hope that (white) Russ Carnahan (holder of the district written out of existence) could beat Clay in the new MO-1 Dem Primary, and “backs it up” with perfunctory statistical evidence. However, they’re delusional, but I can understand why their delusion — They know that Clay (both father and son) is a notorious lazy rump. These white liberals might be liberals, but they want members of Congress who actually work for liberalism, not just vote for liberal legislation on occasion. Yet they hate “white racism” so much.

    white St. Louisans seem to be in the “Awwwww….aren’t they cute?” mindset when it comes to Mexicans. Perhaps Mexicans in St. Louis are so few in number that they’re not a menace yet

    That’s precisely the reason. The few patches of Hispanics there are in St. Louis City and the St. Louis area supplanted blacks, and it is for that reason only why those neighborhoods “improved,” because there was nowhere to go but up anyway. I don’t suffer these delusions, even if the Mayor of St. Louis does.

    There is a long standing historical patch of Hispanics over on the East (Illinois) Side, near the horse track. They’re cheap labor for all the horseradish fields over in the river bottoms in Madison and St. Clair Counties.

    I don’t know what Mexicans are doing in Kansas or Missouri, for “Aztlan” that land we whites “stole” from them is hundreds of miles away

    Various theories about why KC’s Hispanic population is historically bigger and older is all the agricultural processing plants, and that KC is on I-35 which runs straight to Mexico. Should the rumored “NAFTA Superhighway Truck Center” slated for KC become a reality, it’ll only make it worse.

    Some towns in Southwest Missouri are becoming very Hispanic very quickly because of their chicken plucking plants.