The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

It should be noted this is not a comprehensive list.

• Don't insult one another or the subjects of BDN stories. You may be ticked off at what someone did or said, but you can explain that without resorting to name-calling or obscenity. Remember that young people are on this site too.
• That nasty line that makes your buddies go "haw, haw"? You're better than that.
• Comments should be your own work, not copied and pasted from elsewhere, though brief quoted passages to make your point are fine. And please don't use all capital letters. There's no need to shout.
• Stay focused on the issue in the article. Off-topic posts will be deleted.
• This isn't a forum to chat about your personal life.
• Some ideas — the fate of the earth, abortion, gun control, the nature of God — aren't going to be resolved in a reader forum, so no need to get frustrated if others don't see your point of view. State your position once and leave it at that.
• If you mouse over each comment you will see a "Flag" button. Please use it if you feel comments on the site are out of line. Quite often, we won't see a comment until it's reported.
• Questions about why a comment was — or wasn't — deleted? E-mail us at web@bangordailynews.com and let us know your username and where you posted or saw the comment.

• Anonymous

  Excellent but why not routine drug testing for all welfare recipients?  You use, You lose!

• Anonymous

  It is about time!!!!!!! Go Legpage!!!!!!

• Anonymous

  I am not a lawyer so I really have a difficult time understanding why drug testing as a condition of employment is OK while drug testing of welfare recipients is “unconstitutional”.  I usually don’t say this, but for some welfare is their employment.

• Anonymous

  The idea that poor people have the money to move state to state just to get a few more dollars in benefits is ludicrous. These people usually don’t have reliable transportation. But I do agree that drug testing has a valid purpose. If people are dependent on drug use, it will be difficult to get them placed in the job market. And some of them could be receiving an illegal income under the table from dealing drugs. That may be income that makes them ineligible for the benefits our taxes pay.

• Anonymous

  If I have to pass a drug test to get a job, welfare recipients should have to pass one too! Go LePage!

• http://twitter.com/NorthernRants Bill Buck

  Way to Go!

• Anonymous

  This was tried in Florida without much success. People were required to pay for the tests themselves, and it was done by a company with which the governor had an interest. I would be OK with it if anyone running for public office is also required to pass a drug test.

• Anonymous

  while I’m not opposed to drug testing, I am opposed to calling receipients of TANIF “degenerates”! So someone who gets laid off and requires temporary assitance to feed and their family is a degenerate?

• Anonymous

  Love that  group photo BDN . Thanks for reminding me we live in a Patriarchal Society.
  Looks just like a crime family, eh? LePage putting out a contract on Welfare Recipients.
  I like the idea of drug testing for welfare recipients but the Hacks need to give
  something back.
  How about breathalyzer tests for the hacks before they go into the chamber.
  Nothing worse than OUI when passing legislation.
  In lieu of OUI testing how about stripping sovereign immunity from politicians
  allowing us to sue them in civil court when something goes wrong with government.
  Really- that’s how things work for us here in the real world.

• Anonymous

  All anyone has to do to verify that career welfare recipients go benefit shopping is take a stroll through any Maine city of any size with open eyes, or better yet, check out the police logs. Many of the people in my city, Lewiston, that are always in trouble are not originally from Maine and sure as heck didn’t migrate here seeking employment opportunities.  And that does not even take into account the many that do move here for the bennies and stay out of the public eye. As for drug testing, I agree that if employers and the military can do it, then why not agencies handing out welfare.

• Anonymous

  Good everyone who receives tax money income should be randomly tested, politicians included.

• Anonymous

  So, you must be one of those who will be losing their benefits. If you have money to feed your brain, you don’t need a handout from the State.

• Anonymous

  I hope Governor LePage can get this passed. There will be a lot of squealing from libs and professional welfare recipients, but keep chipping away at this nanny state gov.

• Anonymous

  “For some, welfare is their employment.”  Who, specifically, are you talking about?

• Anonymous

  Easy.  You don’t have a right to a job.  That’s socialism.  However, if benefits are offered to all qualifying persons, you have a right to those benefits, and cannot be denied.  That’s my guess as to the Constitutional ramifications of this ill-advised (because of the very co$tly lawsuit(s) that will come about) continued pandering to the exteme right by LePage. 

• Anonymous

  The only people who object to this are probably, in fact, drug addicted welfare recipients. 

• Anonymous

  Sure why not, sounds good.  Why don’t we do it after we require all Republican Senators and House members to take lie detector tests!

  Wiki Laugh

• Anonymous

  Calling all welfare recipients degenerates is uncalled for, irresponsible, and bigoted. Shameful.

• Anonymous

  Previous and current clients of mine.

• Anonymous

  Some, but not all?

• Anonymous

  Agreed.  And is it just me, or is be looking more like a mafia boss everyday?    It’s pretty obvious who’s side he’s on, and it’s not the average Mainer’s.  A fat cat if I ever saw one!

• Anonymous

  Exactly.

• Anonymous

  If you’re on drugs that are illegal, then I would guess that as a law breaker you probably don’t qualify, and as such, you can be denied.

• Anonymous

  So we agree that it is wrong to generalize the behaviour of all welfare recipients?

• Anonymous

  I do agree somewhat..but it seems alot of people on welfare are on prescription meds that the state of Maine is paying for.A different situation.

• Moose

  Its about time this happens. Drug testing needs to be done on the welfare system.

• Anonymous

  Just republicans??? You truly are a fool.

• Anonymous

  This law as purposed is about worthless.  If a person has never been arrested and convicted of a felony drug offense they cannot be tested.   I say if you have ever been convicted of an offense involving drugs or alochol you should never be able to receive public assistance.   Come on govner go after a law with some teeth it not  just something you can tout out at reelection time.  Give welfare abusers a boot and taxpayers a break.  

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZYORTDWPJES2P2GGE7NE6FQS5Q alex

  I have no problem with it. Those that do are taking money for food and welfare of their families or themselves and squandering taxpayer money on their collective bad habits. Fact in the cost to society of incarceration, family problems etc. and it is our own taxpayer dollars fighting more dollars.
  Good for you Paul. As far as the Liberals squawking about this, what about our older seniors depending on this funding while trying to exist?

• Anonymous

  Is the “average Mainer” on welfare or a person whose taxes help support other people?

• Anonymous

  In the case you mentioned the State of Florida relied upon information supplied by a think tank to attempt to justify their position. The court basically ruled that the information provided by the State of Florida did not stand up to scrutiny and barely passed the straight face test. The think tank that provided the information that the court ruled as unconstitutional was run by none other then the former Grand Wizard of MHPC Terren Bragdon.

• Anonymous

  Yes, for sure.  Isn’t that what I did with the original point that you called me on (“for SOME welfare is their employment”)?

• Anonymous

  http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110731/GJNEWS_01/707319923

  Story about a New Hampshire woman who moved to Maine for the better welfare. The BDN had linked to the story at the time, but for some reason took it down within hours…..

• Anonymous

  I guess it wouldn’t be so bad if the Gov. went after abusers of Corporate welfare with equal enthusiasm.  Oh, that’s right, those corporate businesses paid for his election.  Can’t we possibly reign in those millions of OUR tax dollars handed out to the gov’s buddies?

• Anonymous

  I’m a lib./centerist but think this is a great idea. Most libs do not want these bums to get a free ride. However,…..will these scum-bags  LOSE their welfare forever if they are drunk or high? I hope LePage can make the law tough enough to keep the far left wing lawyers at bay. We need to stop the give-away programs.  

• Anonymous

  So the fact of making all welfare recipients subject to random drug testing doesn’t give the impression of generalizing all welfare recipients as being drug addicts, when that portion of drug using welfare recipients are few, not all? 

• Anonymous

  I have been employed all my life, and I agree with Charlie.

• Anonymous

  Its amazing how many people don’t realize who is actually screwing them over.

• Anonymous

  about time

• Anonymous

  “How about breathalyzer tests for the hacks before they go into the chamber.  Nothing worse than OUI when passing legislation.”

  That is a great idea and it would certainly be setting a good example.  So translated that means that it will never happen.

• Anonymous

  I would say no, it doesn’t.  Does the random testing of all holders of US Merchant Marine licences give the impression that they are all drug users?  Those in the service?  Those driving 18 wheelers?  Any job that requires testing?  If it can be a condition of employment, I feel it should also be a condition of receiving assistance.

• Anonymous

  Welfare can be changed from an entitlement program.  There are programs in other states where recipients cannot get their welfare checks unless they have completed 35-40 hours worth of work activity per week.  They get their checks after they have done the hours, not before, just like a job.  If the program focuses on employment and getting people ready to be employed, the amount of welfare cases drop significantly.  People who are not interested in working don’t apply because they know they won’t receive the case benefit if they don’t.  This stops the generational welfare cycle and puts more qualified workers out there.  Drug testing for the purposes of potential treatment is a good idea.  When you are trying to put people to work, you want to be sure they won’t be denied a job because they cannnot pass a drug test.  If you know that ahead of time, the welfare social workers can work with the person on getting treatment.  Maybe they are still eligible for a cash benefit with the requirement that they participate in treatment. No treatment, no check.  Substance abuse treatment can be a component of that 35-40 hours, so can volunteer experience and education. It can work.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GBHAWY2DGMGS5W3VHFYLBPN7AU Jay C

  I think LePage should be drug tested.  Some of the things he says sounds like he might be on drugs…

• Anonymous

  So Gov. LePage wants to try the Florida experiment in Maine.  While there are a hundred problems with this plan, a few rise to the top.  First, what is the goal here?  If it is to remove people from the programs, what happens to them after they lose their lifeline?  Will we find them on every street corner looking for handouts or dumpster diving for a meal?  This is different from a job as with employment there are numerous options of places to work.  If you are disabled and collecting SNAP or TANF, there is no other place to go for this kind of help.  So we would have people who became addicted to opiates from their irresponsible doctors losing their ability to have housing or food. Where is the humanity in that?

  Another consideration goes to the nature of substance abuse and how to combat it.  After decades of prohibition, drug laws have done absolutely nothing to reduce the incidence of abuse.  In fact, the problem is exacerbated by our law enforcement policies.  We were all indoctrinated that drugs are bad.  This has not changed behavior so much as it has left us assessing blame to those who are afflicted by addiction without any interest in finding solutions.  This cycle is destructive.  America is increasingly a barbaric state with more incarcerated people than any nation in the history of the world.  Drugs are a major component of this.  Why double down on persecution of the addicted when it doesn’t change behavior.  The answer many readers here would suggest is to save tax payers money.  By cutting access to food, shelter and basic medical care, aren’t we really just saving a few dollars to create situations where even more money is needed to deal with the societal impacts of homelessness, hunger and sick citizens?

  Where does this all end?  When will the red meat eating government cutters be happy?  When 1% of the TANF tab is cut, then what?  This is what Florida got from this great idea.  Who is next?  If a mother smokes a joint after tucking the kids in, she would potentially lose the ability to care for them.  Is this a reasonable cost for a minor, not even criminal, violation?  Drug tests catch pot smokers more than serious drug abusers.  Is this how we want to treat pot smokers?  A majority of Americans smoke pot at least once in their lives. Does the punishment fit the crime?

  The small government people out there who advocate for this are hypocrites.  They want small for the purposes of taxes and reduced safety net programs but they want massive intrusion into our lives for the purposes of retribution against those who have lost their way and become addicted. Easy targets.   It would be okay to have the government with access to our bodily fluids.  Sounds like a big government to me.

  This has disaster written all over it.  Why not provide treatment instead of punishment?  Do people stop using drugs because of even greater poverty?  If we spent one half of what we spend on law enforcement on treatment, we could not do worse.  We would save a lot of money that is not helping to solve problems now and offer something that at least some of the time is effective to treat the abuse.

  This is insanity.  It will cost more to do the testing than will be saved.  It will do more harm than good.  It is uncivilized and inhuman to treat our citizens this way.  This is a case of picking on the poor and the sick.  I am disgusted by this.  We become more soulless as a people with each passing day.  Where does it end?

• Anonymous

  I don’t recall anyplace in the constitution that says you have a right to received cash from the state to pay for your food, housing, medical, education, etc. Since they are provided by the State to help people out during lean times then I see no problem with having rules and requirements to go along with them.  If we are providing them assistance and they are using that assistance for drugs instead of what it it intended for then I think we should be able to test and refuse  assistance to those who refuse or fail the tests. 

  I have no problem being asked to take a drug test. If you are not breaking the law you shouldn’t be worried. Truck drivers, fire, police, military, for example can be asked to take a test. If someone has to pass a test to keep a job, why not pass a test to get benefits?

• http://twitter.com/TheGuardianMH The Guardian

  How about random drug testing of state legislators – school employees – police officers too?

  Suspect this type of testing for recipients will result in a lot of chaos.   What will happen with the kids if they cut off all money?  And what about those getting SSI (which are often drug addicts or alcoholics)?

  Will they test for alcohol and marijuana too?  This could get very complicated. 

• Anonymous

  Both should be illegal.

• Anonymous

  hummm… I guess it’ll still be OK to blow TANIF monies on booze though.

• Anonymous

  You are making assumptions.  A law such as this sounds like illegal search and seizure to me.  No, I’m not an attorney.

• Anonymous

  How about drug tests for everyone!

• Carrie Ledger

  It didn’t prove a thing in FL, with 2% of ALL recipients testing positive and the taxpayer left holding the invoice for all of the drug testing costs. NO! NO! NO! Mr. LePage. This nonsense is not for Maine.

• Anonymous

  Who is actually screwing them over?

• Anonymous

  How simple minded you are…  I am not, in fact, a drug addicted welfare recipient, and I object to this. 

• Anonymous

  as a drug addict on welfare, i oppose this.

• Anonymous

  Or those who believe in the U.S. and Maine constitutions.

• midmainer

  this is wrong on so many levels. In florida they tried it, the courts have stopped it on constitutional grounds. Legal minds all over the country will tell you this violates state and federal law. It is illegal search and seizure. For those of you so intent on demonizing people receiving welfare benefits perhaps you would extend this type of drug testing, and make it so that all people getting government benefits would have to submit to a drug test whenever the state decided it was time. Good idea?????

• Anonymous

  you remind me of someone I know in Brooksville…….
  this would never happen in a transition community.

• Anonymous

  What a ridiculous assumption AC.  I strenuously object and I’ve never collected welfare nor have I ever been drug addicted!  Wait a minute, I used to be a smoker so I guess I was a drug addict.  But I’ve been clean for 15 years now.  Does that count (please note sarcasm)?

• Anonymous

  The biggest problem I see with a program like this is it really will just nail the weed smokers and miss those that have harder drug problems. Cocaine, barbituates, amphetamines, bath salts and heroin flush through your system in a day or two while THC attaches to the fat cells and lingers in your system for a much longer time. Alcohol, perhaps the biggest problem, wouldn’t even be tested.

  If you are military or a truck driver, you get no advance warning of a random test, hence no time to flush your system. How do you implement a system like this without giving advance warning? Who takes the samples and where are they taken? Not every small town in Maine has a welfare office. How many new workers would have to be added to the state payrolls to run this program?

  How much would a program like this cost the state versus potential savings and how much in legal fees would it cost the taxpayers for the state to fight the constitutional challenges, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court? What are the consequences and what happens to the children of those who lose their last safety net because they are not responsible enough to stay clean?

  While the rhetoric may make for great politics, it seems to me like it might only open up a new Pandora’s Box of ramifications, some with worse consequences.

• midmainer

  what job did you apply for that required you take a drug test?

• Carrie Ledger

  In my case, my father died when I was very young and left my mother with 3 kids to feed, house and clothe. Degenerate she was NOT.

• Anonymous

  What happens when you have a false positive?  There is a reason it is unconstitutional!

• Anonymous

  And who foots the bill for all the drug tests? They’re not cheap are they? And I’m sorry if I missed it in the article, but how does this create jobs? And, was his daughter drug tested when she took the job handed to her by LePage?

• Anonymous

  Gee, why is that not surprising?
  I need to add that besides those holding public office, all executives of corporations receiving government kickbacks, welfare, tax breaks, contracts, etc. should also be tested.

• Anonymous

  I’m sorry, I missed the part of the constitution that says welfare is a right. Would you mind directing me to that paragraph?

• Carrie Ledger

  I object to it and I’m gainfully employed and not addicted to drugs. This is a civil rights issue – it has nothing to do with drug addicts. 

• midmainer

  nope, I object to it, have never been on welfare, unemployment in my life. however I do get government benefits. I drive on roads, visit parks, use airports, rely on the police and fire departments, i benefit from those many things developed and regulated by the government, medical advances the internet, our broadcast airways, etc etc etc. Should all of us be subject, whenever it strikes LePages fancy, to submit to a drug test? that’s an awful lot of testing,,, I assume you would be Ok to pay for it too?

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NXPTPFL746OV2VGR5WBOEUF6W4 Roger

  I say why bother. Just end all welfare of all types. If you do not EARN money you do not get any. That simple. The fact that we have so many on this state sucking at the teet of the state who simply takes money from those that work hard and earn there money should be an embarrassment to all of us.

  What happened to the work ethic? What happened to self responsibility?  When did the standard of working hard for what you get change to the gimme gimme attitude we have now?

  A system that was supposed to give help to those who where in need has become a system of lifelong dependence. A system that is now passed from parent to child and friend to friend. They share how to “get” more and do less.

  As for the drug testing I agree all public employees should have to submit to random drug testing as do the majority of private companies.

• Anonymous

  Also for politicians, doctors, teachers, preachers, garbage truck drivers and helpers, sewer workers, Oh hell, everyone.

• Anonymous

  Okay maybe what I wrote was a little harsh.  I honestly meant no offense.  But I just don’t see the big deal.  So take a drug test. If you don’t take drugs then you don’t have to worry.  People need to take drug tests for jobs… so why don’t welfare recipients?  I really would like to hear why people do object to this, though.  And congrats on being clean George! :-)

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DQYJRNTL4E3A3B7OXXQVK74HZM Kathy S

  Guess he hasn’t gotten the memo about the fourth ammendment, which states we are to be safe in our person from unlawful search and siezure (by the government) without probable cause. Being poor is not probable cause. For those of you who think this idiocy is just peachy wait until its your turn, and make no mistake it will someday be if these fascists are not stopped now. Read the Constitution please.  

• Anonymous

  Seriously? Look at the the families that are on their third generation of layabouts. For some it is a way of life.

• Anonymous

  Paula is shooting off his mouth again.  Random drug testing for this purpose would be a civil rights violation.  Even if that weren’t the case, let’s think this through because he obviously hasn’t.  What drugs would they be testing for, and would they include alcohol, nicotine, steroids, Ritalin, anti-psychotics and anti-depressants, and other prescription drugs?  How would this information be stored or disseminated?  Would test results be protected by HIPPA laws?  Would police have access to the information?  Who will be making these decisions?  Who would pay for this expensive program?  What are the projected costs?  How accurate are the tests, and what are the chances of getting a false result?  (I’m thinking how you can test positive for heroin if you’ve eaten poppy seed cake within the past 48 hours.)  If a parent tests positive, what then?  The children don’t eat?

• Anonymous

  i would like an IQ test performed on all maine government employees

• Anonymous

  the govorner doesnt think that maine has any lawers has to hire ine from another state BE REAL

• Anonymous

  I need to think more about the ethics of drug-testing welfare recipients.  In the meantime, though, I have two questions:
  (1) What happens to those who fail the tests?  (a) Cut off benefits.  (b) Warning, then (a).  (c) mandatory treatment program, then (a). (d) prosecute, fine, and/or imprison.
  (2) What happens to the children of those who fail the tests, especially if we are using option (a)?  Are we bringing back orphanages?

• Anonymous

  OMG, lie detector test !!! The fire department would have to be on site at all times to put out the smoking detector fires.
  This is a good one. I agree, they all should take one. Ha Ha Ha.

• Anonymous

  Unfortunately though drug testing doesn’t even begin to address the issue. If you are bad off enough where you need welfare assistance, what is most important to you? Food, and a roof over your head. That is it. You don’t need pets to feed, that new Xbox game, a high def TV, steak dinners, iPhones, DirecTV, HBO, etc. If they can afford those things then they clearly do not need help from the taxpayers of Maine.

  Besides, why does everyones solution to everything seem to be to throw money at it? If people are so concerned why not donate your own time, your own food, and maybe even give them a place to stay and help them get things together. I think those who take advantage of the system might just appreciate things more.

• Anonymous

  Yeah, and a lot of them are selling their prescription medication as well.

• Anonymous

  Anyone of us cold stand to lose our employment if we are found to have drugs in our system during work hours, some of us could lose our jobs as a result of being caught using drugs outside of work time. We all have to be accountable for our actions, that’s they way it is. I agree it is going to be tricky and cause a huge uproar, but something has to be done-there is too  much wheeling and dealing of drugs (many in which Mainecare dollars pays for)  and people sitting around doing nothing to earn their keep. I hear an awful lot of people saying this is horrible and heartless, but is it so wrong to expect honesty,appreciation, and a little giving back for what you get?

• Anonymous

  Why is it illegal search and seizure? It is a condition of benefits, if you want benefits, you agree to sumit to drug testing. Same thing as serving in the military, if you want to serve, a condition of service is submitting to drug testing.

• Anonymous

  As my discus profile name suggests…law enforcement, ems and 911 in previous lives as well as my current state job.

• Anonymous

  This has been done in Fl. with a lot of expense to the state. Only a few recipients were found with drugs in their system.

  Gov. lepage and the lawmakers should take drug tests and blood alcohol levels on Mon. morning. They too are costing the state money. 

• Anonymous

  I don’t think anybody should be drug tested. But if welfare recipients will be, then lepage and the boys should be too. With blood alcohol levels on Mon. AM.

• Anonymous

  ” Legal minds all over the country will tell you this violates state and federal law”
  This excludes the current governor and his administration,obviously.

• midmainer

  In cases such as yours, it is part of your contract, something that you signed of your own free will, to take an optional job. Truck drivers, train personnel, pilots, all have to do the same thing. There is a specific reason for requiring folks like you to take drug tests, and again you agreed to it and taking the job is voluntary and performed on everyone.
  Completely different situation.
  This plan by LePage is a violation of constitutional rights, as a member of law enforcement you should be fully aware of laws concerning illegal search and seizure.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RHNBZKPADOWB6RDJEIMRZBFQGU BOB

  Almost any job that requires operation of equipment or driving are drug tested.
  I have a friend who was recently tested and his job is packing shoes in boxes.
  So if he needs to be tested to make a living why can’t people who get free handouts be tested?

• Anonymous

  Get a clue. Drug testing, as a condition to receiving benefits, constitutes an ‘illegal search and seizure’ under the Constitution.

  Just because the states pay for medical benefits, which are partially funded by the Federal government, does not permit them to violate medical privacy rules.

  Be careful what you wish for. Be willing to do away with other people’s rights, and you can expect it won’t be too long, nor come as any surprise, before your own are threatened, as well.

  The ignorance on this site is astounding!

   Brush up on your American history and grab a copy of the Constitution while you’re at it..

• Anonymous

  Garbage…..and not true.

• Anonymous

  “I don’t recall anyplace in the constitution that says you have a right to received cash from the state to pay for your food, housing, medical, education, etc. ”
  I don’t recall reading in the constitution that it is ok to conduct wars for oil. But we have two going on right now. 

  Maybe the house and senate in DC should be drug tested as well.

  The Pentagon has spent more than 10 trilllion dollars since 1990 without ever passing an audit. Are any of the many sensible men in the house, senate and pentagon going to be drug tested?

  Why is that not a concern to the right?

• Anonymous

  I feel certain professions do need testing.  Do you want a coked out, drunked up Captain navigating an LNG tanker anywhere near your house?  How about the driver of the fuel tank truck you passed on the interstate?  Do you want him cranked up on monkey dust?  I agree with you though that if they pass the law, those that pass it should be held to the same standards.  I feel that way about every law they pass.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RHNBZKPADOWB6RDJEIMRZBFQGU BOB

  I agree with that, all government employees should be tested.

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  Here we go with another witch hunt and even more wasted money.   

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  They are actually federal programs.

• Anonymous

  This suggestion is so unbelievably ignorant, so mind blowingly over simplified that it leaves me in awe.  This man is at least twice as incompetent as I originally believed.  I’m amazed that we are stuck with such a poor leader.

• Anonymous

  Starting with Herr Governor.

• Anonymous

  All but two jobs I have  had , have  required random testing.Two have required a test as a condition of Employment plus the random test once hired. I can also think of Three retailers that require this, Truck Drivers(CDL) ect ect.
  A 2006 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 84
  percent of employers required new hires to pass drug screenings, and 39
  percent randomly tested employees after they were hired. In addition,
  73 percent tested workers when drug use was suspected and 58 percent
  required testing after accidents on the job.
   So if the average working Joe/Jane can expect this from their Employer then why not those who are receiving public assistance, let alone those who have been on the dole for years if not a life time.

• http://twitter.com/AJWilliams24 Andrew Williams

  If you work hard and earn your money and use it to buy drugs or whatever else that’s your own business. When you are given welfare checks from the state because you choose not to work or can’t make enough money than using your money for drugs should be punished extra hard.  Mandatory drug tests for recipients of welfare is such a great idea.

• Anonymous

  Then why is drug testing, as a condition of receiving employment, not illegal search and seizure?

• http://www.facebook.com/people/Regina-Hosebeast/100002095287763 Regina Hosebeast

  “Robyn Merrill of Maine Equal Justice, which provides legal services for
  the poor, said random drug testing programs in other states have been
  found unconstitutional.”

  Perhaps, but what is even less palatable is the knowledge that so much of taxpayers’ money is spent on TANF for people that can’t support themselves but somehow can afford to buy their  illegal drugs.

• http://twitter.com/walloyd2010 William Lloyd

  All I can say is… IT’S ABOUT TIME!

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  The people who support these stupid policies don’t have any forethought at all, they really don’t.  People who are drug addicts end up getting into trouble with the law.  If they receive welfare they MUST have children to qualify for TANF.  When an addict gets in trouble with the law for drugs they usually lose custody of their kids anyway and then are no longer eligible for welfare.

  This is just a wasteful policy that gives conservative nutters something to make them feel like they have power over the poor people that they hate, but in reality it is completely useless.  All it will do is COST MONEY.  They might find a few people to go after, but they would have been welfare taken away without drug testing anyway.

  LePage is the biggest money wasting politician I have ever seen.  On top of that…this wouldn’t even hold up in court, anyhow.  Dumb, dumb, dumb.

• Anonymous

  Random checks of the housing temperature in the winter should also be made for those on welfare most of us retired people paying our way have it set below 65  let them have a max of 65 ..

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  It’s part of the Social Security Act…federal law.

• Anonymous

  wait a minute you say we dont have a right for a job??

  Working the system is a JOB!!

• Anonymous

  Drug testing all recipients?  How much will this cost?

  In Florida, testing has identified only 2% of welfare recipients as being drug users.  My guess is that the cost of testing everyone there has far exceeded any savings gained by cutting people off.

• Anonymous

  How about drug tests for bank CEO’s that took us down this road of resession. How about drug tests for the politicians who are wasting taxpayers money on such stupid endeavors as this rather than addressing the issues of creating jobs, raising revenue for infrastructure improvements that will bring jobs here? And etc. This is a red herring issue, just to divert attention from the real important stuff.

• Anonymous

  Fine…they dont want to submit a urine sample for testing…no problem that is your/thier  right. But, you want our money (not theirs) but since you dont meet the requirements for welfare then you dont meet the neccassary requirements for receiving our money.

• Anonymous

  So the #1 issue according to voters is jobs. I guess Paul sees himself creating dozens of new positions for drug testers in Maine…..

• Anonymous

  That does not make it a right. Sorry. Maybe you should pay more attention to the Tea Party, you might actually learn the difference between legislation and rights.

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  The problem is…TANF is a federal program under the Social Security Act.  Addiction is a disease under the law.  I’m quite certain that you can’t deny access to federal programs based on a disease.  And frankly, it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks about addiction being a disease because under the law, it is, period.  But hey, if you want your taxes to go up or even more services cut in order to pay for the lawsuit and not even accomplish anything then I guess that’s your choice.

• Anonymous

     If you’re not guilty of doing drugs, why would it bother you to take a drug test, only the guilty ones have anything to worry about.

• Anonymous

  Isn’t FL getting sued for this right now? 

  As of right now 180 out of  235 readers say they think that this is how it should be. I guess there should be more discussion on why this isn’t an option. It seems to me that if you want subsidies you should have to show that you aren’t already spending the money you have on drugs…..

• Anonymous

  Good question. The answer is because you voluntarily submit to that required testing as a condition of your future employment.  Employers are permitted to make testing a condition of your continued employment, as well, especially in jobs where sobriety is tantamount to safety – as in cases of school bus drivers or nuclear power plant operators.

  It’s considered in the interest of the Public Health and Welfare to do so.

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  I object to it and I don’t get welfare and have never used drugs in my entire life…and I’m a grandparent.

• Anonymous

  I thought you were talking about the President, not the Governor.

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  I object for two reasons…first, it would be incredibly expensive and a complete and total waste of money because:

  Addicts lose their kids.  No kids in custody means NO TANF.  
  There WILL be a lawsuit to fight it and whoever files it WILL win….more wasted money.

  If you stop and think about it, it’s a stupid idea because it won’t accomplish anything and will just cost a butt ton of money.

• Anonymous

  I don’t agree with our Governor on a lot of issues. This one I do. About time people are held accountable for their actions. My father taught me well and am glad of it. When stealing beer as a young teenager he turned me in, was arrested and paid the price; while learning a lesson.

• Anonymous

  Thank you for your reply.  I have been asking the question about why it was unconstitutional and your answer is the best received.  I agree addiction is a disease.  I really just have a hard time with people affording to buy drugs but depending on the rest of us to buy their food, etc.  I was going to comment on another post of yours…the one about conservative nutters supporting this idea.  Well, for the most part I am quite liberal but as I stated earlier in this post, if you can afford drugs you should be able to afford bread.

• Anonymous

  It is true. I was surprised at how few of the recipients had drugs in their systems. We live in an addictive society. Our lawmakers increasingly are showing impaired judgment, a sign of addictions. We need to have all of them drug tested randomly and constantly.

• Anonymous

  Florida tried the same thing and a Federal judge put a stop to it, why would LePage think any thing different will happen in Maine:

  http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/24/2470519/florida-welfare-drug-testing-halted.html

• Anonymous

  Well, people voluntarily submit to applying for welfare. And if that were made a condition of welfare that one didn’t like, they wouldn’t have to apply. Just like if someone doesn’t like testing for a job, they will find a different job.

• Anonymous

  The tea party is owned by the Koch brothers.

• Anonymous

  Then maybe these poor people could do some civic duties for their welfare benifits.  This may save some expenses in the towns and cities where they live if they can’t get a job and the welfare is rolling in maybe they can clean the firestation or shovel out fire hydrants in the winter and cut the grass in the park in the summer.  But to just let them sit home and collect is ridiculous.  I know that the welfare is not equivalent to a real job but there would be something that can be done done.

• Anonymous

  Please offer up a target corporation or 2 that is receiving corporate welfare at a state level

• Anonymous

  There are major privacy issues involved, including unethical use of government power.

• Anonymous

  Migrant workers are very poor and the operative word is MIGRANT

• Anonymous

  So you volantarily chose to go sign up for benefits, no one is forcing these benefits on anyone. You want the benefits, than as a condition of recieving those benefits you consent to drug testing. Pretty simple.
  Welfare is not a right, it is a privelage, just like a drivers licence. It is no different than OUI roadblocks which have held up in court over and over again.

• Anonymous

  Wall Street bankers were bailed out to the tune of 700 billion, and their culture of cocaine and prostitution has been well-documented.  Should they be required to take drug tests to receive bailouts and other aid?

• Anonymous

  “Robyn Merrill of Maine Equal Justice, which provides legal services for the poor, said random drug testing programs in other states have been found unconstitutional.”

  As far as I am concerned, this isn’t “random.”

• Anonymous

  Why is the privacy of welfare recipients any more sacred than the privacy of someone trying to gain employment?

• Anonymous

  I have noticed that several comments here allude to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution which states
  “The right of the people to be secure in their person,s papers, houses and effects, against UNREASONABLE search and seizure shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized”
  The key word here is “unreasonable”. 
  If a  mandatory RANDOM drug testing law were passed, I would offer that a federal judge (where the case would eventually land) would  find for the state, citing that it would not be unreasonable for the state to require such for those who are accepting money from the state in any form of assistance.
  In other words, if yer gonna take the handout, be prepared to pee in a bottle.

  http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/drug-testing-2 

• Anonymous

  I came from a similar situation. Before my father died in the early 1960s, he had worked in spite of being a disabled veteran of WWII. When his disability prevented him from working we received food from the government. I do not remember what it was called at that time. After he passed my mother worked as a cook for public schools and we received veteran’s benefits. Even alcohol was never in the house.
  I am sure there are a lot of people today in a similar situation and they do not deserve being called a degenerate, lazy, or dumb.

• http://twitter.com/WEE_ELA Wendy Ela

  Really?  This is the best Paula Page can do?  How about going after the Speaker of the House for the 1.2 million that he owes to the State and Federal government. 

• Anonymous

  Good point.  The Wall Street bankers who were bailed out to the tune of hundreds of millions should be drug tested too.  Their cocaine-culture is well-documented.

• Anonymous

  I see the penguin’s prosicution of poor people continues…..It will be ruled unconstitutional anyway, or maybe if we are lucky this will be the penguin’s second peoples veto.

• Anonymous

  I guess you could say that the specific reason for requiring those on State assistance to take a drug test is to prove that assistance money isn’t being used for drugs. 

• Anonymous

  The other alternative is that we allow the recipients to continue doing illegal drugs dealing with illegal people using tax payer money.  Perhaps the benefit that you are missing is that these individuals will be identified as having a need of rehab.  If this testing initiates the path of rehab, wouldn’t everyone be better off.  Is the goal to cut of lifelines or to repair them.  Your path does nothing other than to perpetuate an already endless, downward spiral 

• Anonymous

  Do you know how to tell when LePlaque is saying something stupid?

  His lips are moving.

• Anonymous

  I think the drug testing may be constitutional.  Or maybe it’s considered a government invasion of privacy without sufficient public purpose.  I don’t know.

  More of  a problem is what happens after the drug test.  An addiction is an illness.  Denying assistance to those who are sick while giving it to those who are not sick seems unfair to me.

  Testing them and then helping them by enrolling those testing positive in a funded rehabilitation program makes sense. It will increase taxes.  But it makes sense.

• Anonymous

  Lets give them free drugs so that won’t have to use their benefit dollars. 

• Anonymous

  Bonny there another whole world outside of Maine, check this out before you get yourself all excited: 
  http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/24/2470519/florida-welfare-drug-testing-halted.html

• Anonymous

  A breathalyzer would do the trick where he’s concerned.  I wonder what the law is concerning the Governor’s use of alcohol while he’s on the job.  Oh, I forgot.  Alcohol is legal.

• Anonymous

  Certain professions?  That could rapidly expand to include anybody with any power over anyone else.  The cost would be massive and require heavy taxation. 

  How above fixing all vehicles with breathalizers–so that no one can drive who drinks over the legal limit?  Another extreme invasion of privacy.

  The best way to prevent ignorant behavior is education and counseling, which have many side benefits.  Creating a police state is the wrong way to go.

• Anonymous

  Are you okay with increasing benefits if a recipients habit outgrows his stipend?  We wouldn’t want the welfare recipient robbing and stealing to support their habit, would we?

• Anonymous

  It’s not that difficult to understand Jdub…it is a matter of safety. 

• Anonymous

  Wrong. A person chooses a job to pursue and enters into a contract with the employer voluntarily. They could decide on a different profession. A person who’s basic human rights are being protected via the safety net has no choice. If they did most would have jobs. This isn’t stuff from the constitution. This stuff is about human rights. If you want to know what you’re talking about, read up on it. It’s pretty fascinating stuff.

  And not to put too fine a point on it, these TPTers have about as much interest in protecting your human rights as an Iranian Prison Warden.

• Anonymous

  where is the freedom the usa screams about?drug testing for employment is usually once like before you get the job.is it going to be the same way with people who get welfare? cause it seems to me lapage just wants to target the felones. i understand that people may feel sertain ways about people that have broke the law. but! remember they have paid there debt to there crimes. not all people that have broken the law. but do they desirve to keep going the rest of there lifes paying for the same crimes. it seeems child molesters are having things handed to them left and right these day why people that have commited lesser crimes have to sit in the backround. in the end i was under the assumption that living in the united states of america that we where allowed to live in freedom. it seems more and more of our rights are being taking away because our counrty makes bad financial decisions and then call it constitutional? or another way for them to protect us from acts of terrorism.  i woundering is it constitutional or is it  another way for the goverment/states to control who we are as people?! what people do in there spare time as long as its not done on the job is there right. but if this law is to pass state and goverment workers of all kinds should also have to follow suit!

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  Gosh, seeing as I took a college course that focused entirely on Social Policy, the law and constitutional issues pertaining to such I am confident that I have accurate information, thanks.  I find the Tea Party to be made up of the most ridiculously uneducated and inane people I have ever heard speak.  When I want to sound like a fool I will listen to them, lol.

• Anonymous

  So your solution is to give them a municipal job and pay them with welfare?

• Anonymous

  Testing has been out there for the certain professions that I listed for at least 22 years (after the Exxon Valdez debacle in 1989, testing for Merchant Mariners came about) so where is the rapid expansion you say will happen?

• Anonymous

  Again, you’re talking about expanding government power and invasion of privacy.  How far are you going to expand it?  We all have to pay taxes on this police state that starts testing citizens whenever they recent any government assistance of significant magnitude.

  If you start testing some people who receive assistance, you are going to have to start testing everyone who receives assistance.  You’re expanding government into a police state.

• Anonymous

  Wrong. A person chooses a job to pursue and enters into a contract with the employer voluntarily. They could decide on a different profession. A person who’s basic human rights are being protected via the safety net has no choice. If they did most would have jobs. This isn’t stuff from the constitution. This stuff is about human rights. If you want to know what you’re talking about, read up on it. It’s pretty fascinating stuff.

  And not to put too fine a point on it, these TPTers have about as much interest in protecting your human rights as an Iranian Prison Warden.

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  Apparently you have no clue about these programs.  EVERY recipient of TANF has a work requirement of 40 hours per week.  Unless they have an infant, a disabled child or are significantly disabled themselves they HAVE to participate in work, training, school or volunteer work…FULL TIME…it is a REQUIREMENT.  There are NOT any TANF recipients just sitting home and collecting anything, lol.  

• Anonymous

  How about we just drug test EVERYONE in the U.S. since they all benefit from taxpayer money in one way or another…would that bother you? Don’t you think you would feel like your rights were being violated? 

  There is no “logic” behind any of this other than to demean and discriminate against the poor. Anyone who supports this is IGNORANT. 

• Anonymous

  The assumption here is that people do not apply for benefits for any other reason than that they are in need and must do so to protect their own lives. As a society, we support people in need.

  As a society, we also have an overriding interest in the public’s health, safety, and welfare.

  Neither of these interests requires doing away with the individual’s rights under the Constitution.

  I really encourage you to educate yourself about the history of the United States and the creation of  the US Constitution. You won’t regret it.

• Anonymous

  OK, try applying for a job with US Cellular.  They will ask you to pee in a cup.  What is so horribly dangerous about peddling cell phones?

• Anonymous

  Why are they not concerned that there is nothing in the constitution that says we can drug test people?

• Anonymous

  So really, which drugs would be tested for, and why?  Alcohol is a legal drug.  Would they test for it?  If not, why not?  It is certainly way up there in terms of addiction and takes a heavy toll on society and families.  Shall we say that all recipients of government benefits should be banned from using it?  I wonder what the alcoholic beverage lobby would have to say about that. Same goes for nicotine addiction.

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  That child will be immediately taken from her and she will not be eligible for TANF.  A perfect example of why drug testing isn’t necessary.  Addicts get into legal trouble and their kids get taken and then they don’t qualify for assistance.

• Anonymous

  I think that it is obvious that they will test for MJ…..it’s illegal. Alcohol is not so as long as they are over 21 I don’t think that they could be told not to imbibe. That would be like testing for tobacco use.

• Anonymous

  First of all, there is an important distinction between private companies doing testing and the government doing the testing.  In one case, you have businesses with fairly limited reach and security apparatus.  In the other case, you are potentially creating a vast police state with labyrinthian power.

• Anonymous

  And I missed the part that says the government can drug test who ever they wish. 

• Anonymous

  First of all, there is an important distinction between private
  companies doing testing and the government doing the testing.  In one
  case, you have businesses with fairly limited reach and security
  apparatus.  In the other case, you are potentially creating a vast
  police state with labyrinthian power. 

  Maybe certain government-related and private jobs should require testing, due to potential disasters like Exxon-Valdez–but once you start expanding the range, the cost and invasion of the American public is huge.

• Anonymous

  I think a program like this would be refreshing to those who truly want help and not a hand out!

• Anonymous

  where is the freedom the usa screams about?drug testing for employment is usually once like before you get the job.is it going to be the same way with people who get welfare? cause it seems to me lapage just wants to target the felones. i understand that people may feel sertain ways about people that have broke the law. but! remember they have paid there debt to there crimes. not all people that have broken the law. desirve to keep going the rest of there lifes paying for the same crimes. it seeems child molesters are having things handed to them left and right these day why people that have commited lesser crimes have to sit in the backround. in the end i was under the assumption that living in the united states of america that we where allowed to live in freedom. it seems more and more of our rights are being taking away because our counrty makes bad financial decisions and then call it constitutional? or another way for them to protect us from acts of terrorism. i woundering is it constitutional or is it another way for the goverment/states to control who we are as people?! what people do in there spare time as long as its not done on the job is there right. but if this law is to pass state and goverment workers of all kinds should also have to follow suit!

• Anonymous

  Operating under the influence would still be illegal.

• Anonymous

  Why not?  We ask our military, police, and national guard to take random drug tests.

• Anonymous

  Oh, so because I believe in personal responsibility and accountability I am uneducated? 

• Anonymous

  why waste the time..some liberal federal judge is just going to void the law…don’t you know the states have no rights anymore…

• Anonymous

  And cut off from MaineCare, how do you think they are going to get treatment? Depriving people of food, shelter and medical care will not bring about positive results. Who are you trying to fool? I suggested supplanting money for law enforcement for treatment instead. That is a proactive approach, not perpetuation of the spiral as you put it. This is not intended to help people find care, neighbor. Let’s keep it real.

• Anonymous

  What makes you think that addicted persons lose their kids? I can guarantee you that this is not true except in a few extreme cases of documented neglect or abuse. 

• Anonymous

  It’s about time!!!  So many people have said this and I completely agree.  If they are being given money, it shouldn’t go toward drugs or alcohol!

• Anonymous

  Show me in the constitution where your guaranteed to a handout from the federal government. I am guessing you are one of those that feels that your freebies are in jeapordy.

• Anonymous

  No doubt, but what is the percentage of cases like that to the overall numbers of those getting assistance? Maybe if the drug testing was targeted instead of random, it might be cost-effective, but it can’t be, so the program would just be an expensive boondoggle.

  We’d all love to get those that are gaming the system off of it, but this approach is unrealistic, shortsighted, just pure political grandstanding, and not an effective response to the problem.

• Anonymous

  You didn’t answer the question.  If it were found unconstitutional to test for employment, than I would be against testing for welfare.  As long as it is OK for employment, I will support it for welfare.  It is the difference in standards that irks me.

• Anonymous

  Most of the people on Welfare are children.

• ReasonWillTriumph

  Aside from the cost of the tests, I see nothing wrong with this concept.

• Anonymous

  Why not?  we ask our military, police, and national guard to take random drug tests.  We need to be ready to offer them help if they pop positive though

• Anonymous

  I hope you”re the first person to be tested.

• Anonymous

  I never said it wouldn’t be…

• Anonymous

  Hadn’t thought about that. But why discriminate? 

  The right says that if you have nothing to hide, little snooping by our big  brother shouldn’t bother us. 

  Wonder if the reporters would mind asking lepage and the gang if they would be willing. 

  This is a discrimination against class. All lawmakers, corporate CEOs who pay virtually no taxes but use US resources, Pentagon ,  state gov. offices and legislatures. They use up a lot of tax payer’s hard earned money. 

• Anonymous

  I agree. It would certainly cut down on crime. Also test the legislature and gov.’s office…since they take tax payer’s money. Just to keep a level playing field. That would help cut down on corporate crime.

• Anonymous

  That is hardly the standard of review.  Like I said the ignorance of the Constitution, here, is mind-boggling. 

  I learned this stuff in grade school History, Civics,and Social Studies!

• Anonymous

  Oh well excuse me, you took one college course, my mistake, you obviously are an expert on the subject. I took a college course on literature, I guess that puts me right up there with Hawthorn and Dickens huh?
  Did you take Law 101 also? If so you should look into being appointed to the Supreme court.

• Anonymous

  Maybe it’s not called welfare, but Maine currently has 141 personal and corporate income and property tax
  reimbursement programs, and 133 sales tax and excise tax exceptions to the tune of $6.6 billion in corporate tax breaks.

• Anonymous

  I think it is. 

• Anonymous

  Thereby making it a complete waste of taxpayers dollars. I concede however, that the Fourth Amendment trumps my concern over money.

• Anonymous

  When I was a nurse, factories and everybody were being drug tested. Medical field, not so much. So there is more to it than meets the eye.

• Anonymous

  Look at this–the Constitution itself says it is incomplete and will need further interpretation by future generations:

  9th Amendment

  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

• Anonymous

  Yeah, and only the Jews had anything to worry about in WWII. Better watch your back.

• Anonymous

  It’s not an either/or scenario.

  Frankly, you sound a tad uneducated.  Make yourself responsible for having some intelligent basis for argument. Be accountable and do some reading.

• Anonymous

  “drug testing for employment is usually once like before you get the job”

  Not always.  Some employers randomly drug test on a regular basis and others automatically drug test after you have been off the job for 7 days, like on a vacation.

• Anonymous

  Well, if we are going to make assumptions, one could assume that most people do not apply for jobs for any other reason than they are in need and must do so to protect their own lives.  I need money to provide shelter and food both which serve to keep me alive so I apply for employment that will allow me to afford those things.

  We could go round and round with this.  If they were to determine it unconstitutional to test for employment, I would change my stance on testing for welfare in a heartbeat.  As long as it is legal for one, I am always going to believe it should be legal for the other.

• http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=520293632 Agy Wilson

  I don’t believe ANYONE should have that right, Jdub. But there’s a line between private drug testing and governmental drug testing. To do so without just cause violates the Constitution.  With the economy the way it is, and some people with disabilities relying on it, why WOULDN’T it be their employment? Some of us still believe we are no stronger than the way we take care of our more challenged members of society. Right now we are 37 out of 41 countries in income disparity (the poor being poor and the rich getting richer), do you really think making it harder for people is a healthy direction for this state, let alone this country?

• Anonymous

  Anything that I have to be sober to earn, they should be sober to use… test them frequently… if they don’t respect the system, they shouldn’t be getting the money, that’s why they are in the position in the first place… Not all of them, but some, I see through my job, abuse the system, and I think the accountability factor needs to be introduced. also, give them government followed debit cards… so no more using the $ for tats and cell phones

• Anonymous

  And I’m concerned with the practical effects of expanding power.  You’re going to create a massive governmental security apparatus.

  Besides, if you test for one kind of government assistance, you should check for all kinds of  government assistance.  Doesn’t that follow from your view?

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZNWYFLS7XHSCOPUO6EMTT52PEI OCHO

  Absolutely there should be drug testing if you receive any state aid.  If you fail a test for an illegal substance or anything you haven’t been prescribed you are done.  If you can afford drugs, you can afford to pay for insurance, heat, food, rent, etc.  The cost of the drug testing would easily be offset by the hundreds that would be kicked off the system. 

• Anonymous

  Please, give me a specific example of the Tea party wanting to eliminate human rights.
  Again, specific, with references to your sources.

• Anonymous

  Exactly.  So what would be the criteria for which drugs are permitted and which are not?  Alcohol and tobacco addictions take a tremendous toll on society and families and are very expensive to maintain.  If you were to go along with the Governor’s twisted logic then these drugs ought to be included.  But they won’t be, because they have powerful lobbies that would make sure of it.

• Anonymous

  “Did you take Law 101 also? If so you should look into being appointed to the Supreme court.”

  No, just as Maine Sec. of State, him being bettah qualified than Mr. Charley, and ll. .

• Anonymous

  It is about time!!!!

• Anonymous

  How about weekly drug tests for the Maine Speaker of the House. After all he stole millions from all of us. But the rules are different if you are a rich republican.

• Anonymous

  In addition, it’s just plain knuckle-headed to pander to the Republican base this obviously.  The problem of substance abuse and the intersection of it with AFDC, disability payments, etc is far more complicated than Penguin is pretending.  The fact that he would say something this ignorant (meaning that he doesn’t even to understand the basics of this issue) is unreal.  This guy is so far over his head in the area of public policy that it’s actually deeply concerning to me.

• Anonymous

  Excellent, thoughtful response.

• Anonymous

  This will surely cost the state a fortune in legal fees.

• Anonymous

  Who do business with Iran. 

• Anonymous

  That’s funny…because that is they way TANF is set up…gee, they must have consulted with you…good job!

• Anonymous

  ‘Factories and everybody’?  What are you talking about?

• Anonymous

  What is the false positive rate of the test ? 

  What happens to those poor innocent people ? 

• Anonymous

  LePage should hook up with that other misguided “misanthrope”  the governor of Arizona  Jan Brewer.

• Anonymous

  Yes, but this above all (in the Governor’s mind) is about cutting spending.  He doesn’t get the cause and effect thing.

• Anonymous

  Fat yes, but please don’t insult cats by association.

• Anonymous

  I think this is one thing we can all agree on, a good idea.     Even the drug addicts will be better off for it.  If they come back positive, maybe we can get them some help.   Short money in the long run.

• http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=520293632 Agy Wilson

  You do know the Valdez was due to poor work conditions (the captain and crew were sleep deprived, not DRUGGED as originally spun) and the equipment in disrepair. More of the problem from the transport end is SLEEP DEPRIVATION, not what is common myth.  Be very careful of the idea of pre-emptive testing, just like pre-emptive war, it’s a dangerous precedent.

• Anonymous

  Baboons would quickly rip the child to shreds and eat him/her. They’re funny like that. I’m not touching the question of which is a worse fate for the child. When you use extreme examples like her you lose sight of the issues. I think appalledbylepage asks some good practical questions. Maybe you could try responding with possible answers?

• http://www.facebook.com/people/Cecil-Gray/1027119962 Cecil Gray

  2% of those tested in Florida came back positive. More money was spent testing than saved by it. Let’s test all subsidy recipients, State Legislators, and others receiving State monies to be fair.

• Anonymous

  It’s not a case of one versus the other…

  Can’t teach someone who refuses to learn!

• Anonymous

  Are you paying attention?  If they lose their TANF benefits due to the ill-begotten idea of random drug screening, then they wouldn’t be able to feed their kids, so they would lose their kids.

• Anonymous

  Yes, and while we’re at it, let’s start drug testing those freeloading elderly people who receive Social Security and Medicare.  I mean, it’s our money, should we be SURE that they aren’t drug addicts?

• Anonymous

  Don’t forget the court costs that are probably being incurred because someone filed a lawsuit against the state of Florida…

• http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=520293632 Agy Wilson

  I repeat, Exxon Valdez was found to be SLEEP DEPRIVATION, because of the demands of the company, and short staff.  The NTSB found this to be a widespread, industry problem. And much of the equipment was faulty. 

• Anonymous

  “Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
  Martin Niemoller

  Be careful what you wish for.

• Anonymous

  Over 30% of Maine citizens, more than 400,000 residents, receive some sort of welfare assistance. If just 100,000 of those are considered head of the household and subject to testing, that in itself is a staggering number.

  Included in the testing would be the mentally and physically handicapped, who could not be excluded from the randomness of the testing, but surely a waste of resources.

  Surely, there are better ways to address the problems in the system rather than resort to shortsighted and expensive “solutions” such as this one.

• Anonymous

  LePage proposes drug tests for welfare recipients

  So vote YES on # 1   … first things first. 

• Anonymous

  Not only that, but 5% of people are addicts, so it stands to reason that 3% of them are working for the Tea Party or newly installed in a GOP think tank or GOP public office.

• Anonymous

  Yes.  The rules don’t apply if you are rich.

• Anonymous

  My friend, the Republicans don’t give people a break because they have a tough life (or childhood); or because they are subject to a grossly unfair system.  It’s simply sink or swim, and if you sink, it’s all your fault.  It’s a morality for slaves.

  It’s simplistic, it’s uneducated, and it’s cruel.  And Republicans can’t really push for more education, because once you get educated you realize that global warming is human-caused, based on the clear science–and that means the Republicans are revealed as wrongheaded puppets of Big Oil.

  There you go.

• Anonymous

  YES!  Test them!  I agree that for some, it is a paycheck.  But I would have to ask-would we then have to get them treatment or counselling if the fail the test?  Probably.  We can’t go as we have been.  I have met ppl that have never held a job, 2nd and 3rd gen welfare.  They don’t know life can be any other way. 

• Anonymous

  Okay.  But the point Jdub1975 seems to be making is that Captains should be subject to drug tests because they are steering massive vehicles with potential for great disasters.  What do you think of that?

• Anonymous

  I know very well what the cause of the Exxon Valdez was, it was a very hot topic of discussion while I attended MMA.  Even though drugs were not a cause, as a result of this accident, out came drug testing.  Hazelwood’s (Captain) second error lay in the fact that after aground he felt defeated and chose to get drunk (his first was leaving the bridge in restricted waters with a relatively inexperienced mate in charge).  When the Third Mate realized that the vessel was out of the channel, they tried to correct with rudder.  Not realizing that the vessel was on automatic helm and giving what he thought was enough of a rudder command to get it back in the channel he really only changed the heading of the vessel a few degrees (not enough to miss Bligh Reef).  I don’t remember ever hearing that sleep deprivation was the reason why the mate was not aware of the helm status, but it certainly could have contributed.

• Anonymous

  Robyn Merrill of Maine Equal Justice, which provides legal services for the poor, said random drug testing programs in other states have been found unconstitutional.
  So random testing would be unconstitutional………fine test them all.  How about the constitutional right of those who pay the taxes to fund the program.

• Anonymous

  Okay.  But the point Jdub1975 seems to be making is that Captains should be subject to drug tests because they are steering massive vehicles with potential for great disasters.  What do you think of that?

• Anonymous

  Obviously LePlague has been hitting the monkey dust pretty hard himself.  This is a lame attempt to endear himself to Tea Partyers, Fascists, and people who pride themselves on their complete ignorance of the law, or anything else for that matter.  It will achieve nothing in the way of savings, but it will end up costing the taxpayers quite a bit, as well as enriching some well connected campaign donors at a lab somewhere.

• Anonymous

  But, as we all know TPTnuts don’t use ANY public services or anything else that relies on tax payer dollars for it’s financial viability, because that would be socialized communism and an abomination to God. Can I assume you don’t believe you are a TPT member since you mentioned a few of the public services you and almost all of us (except TPTers) use? Or are you just one of those TPTgeniuses that doesn’t know these things are public services provided for or overseen by public servants?

• Anonymous

    If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

    I have to take a drug test to get the job that supplies the tax dollars for the welfare programs so I see nothing wrong with someone taking a drug test to get the monies that I have paid into the system.

    Just saying.

• poormaniac

  Yes they should. But then again they should NOT get bailed out !

• Anonymous

  If someone has a huge amount of power and responsibility, like a governor or a CEO, they have potential to inflict much suffering to many people–and so they should be drug tested.  That’s what I take from what you’re saying.  And I think it might be a good idea.  

• poormaniac

  Listen Libby , will you cut it out !

• Anonymous

  ANYONE  involved with the operation of a  US Merchant vessel,  ALREADY is tested.

• Anonymous

  How about this?  If everyone seems to have an issue with drug testing welfare recipients, I have the end-all solution.  Ready for this?  Here comes…….

  Get rid off all welfare 100% and instead, the state can “buy” urine.  Of course the urine would have to clean of all contaminants (sp?)  If your income or lack of meets the requirements, the state will offer to buy your urine.  It would have to be tested before payout of course. If the persons urine comes back tainted, no deal.  It would be wise of the urine supplier to provide the buyer with a list of anyand all medications that are perscribed by a doctor so there isn’t any surprises and they are denied payout..

  See? Problem solved.

• Anonymous

  Why’s Tarren out there doing that when he could be dressing up in green wool skirts and applying for welfare as a homeless, sea faring, millionaire who is conspicuously mentally ill, possibly high, definitely delusional, and believes he is working as a drug dealer who traffics prescription drugs in his parents’ boat off the coasts of Maine and Massachusetts?

  And I think somebody was trying to be kind when they said it barely “passed” the straight face test, because it doesn’t pass the straight face test. We should not be encouraging predators like Tarren and LePage by holding back on the obvious truth, especially when it is hurting millions of innocent Americans.

• Anonymous

  (1) What happens to those who fail the tests?  ANSWER Absolutley no cash benefit and any benefit recieved should not be readily convertible to cash. Second time fail, you are inelegible for benefits. If you can’t support your children after that, they go to foster care until you can.
  (2) What happens to the children of those who fail the tests, especially if we are using option (a)?  ANSWER See answer to number 1.  Are we bringing back orphanages. ANSWER See answer to number 1.

  There, happy BigDn?

• Anonymous

  Right to healthcare.  No reference needed, correct?

• poormaniac

  I support it and am far from ignorant. I would also suggest that anytime anyone is pulled over for a traffic violation that they are drug tested as a condition to keeping their privelege to drive.

• Anonymous

  What about all of the other benefits they receive? SSI, Snap, Housing, etc. etc?

• Anonymous

  This lame idea from our “shoot-from-the-hip” Gov is nothing but a soon to be forgotten, hot-air sound byte.  (Apparently his handlers were not on the scene.)  Don’t forget, he said unemployed people are to blame for the state’s lack of jobs.  And that towns will be denied state funding if they don’t comply with regulations that he favors.  Oh, and that repealing the ban on BPA might only result in women having little beards.  Oh, and that he wouldn’t meet with the NAACP because they’re a “special interest group.”  Oh, and that the state shouldn’t have to care for the elderly.  Oh, and he would tell the President to go to hell …  Kim Jung Il comes to mind but isn’t a perfect twin because he’s a bit slimmer and a lot better looking.

• Anonymous

  What would the state do with all this urine?  Will I get a higher price for my urine if I have children, or would you be buying the children’s urine as well? Can we all get in on this?

• Anonymous

  You are leaving out the other costs to society, not just the government benefit part. Take a look at what is going on in Bangor, Dominican Drug runners, Bath Salts etc. etc. We need to take extreme measures and we need to take them now. The things going on in this city cannot be tolerated. Send a clear message, if you want to do illegal drugs, Maine is not the place to do them.

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  When my children were young I had to go on TANF for awhile after leaving an abusive marriage.  It wasn’t even enough to pay all of the rent without a rental subsidy, let alone any of the other necessities.  Single mothers are the majority of the people receiving TANF and unless there are a massive amount of these women who exchange sex for drugs or sell them then they aren’t doing illegal drugs.  If they have addict boyfriends they always get into trouble with the law and their kids get taken away anyhow.  And when they lose welfare that way then at least the kids are in a place where they are going to have food and medical coverage.  What is intended to hurt potential addicts will only hurt children.

• Anonymous

  I’m sure they’d be fine with that actually.

• Anonymous

  Drug testing? YES! It needs to be an unannounced test. Leaving NO TIME to study for the test!!

• Anonymous

  Then I guess it should not be an issue.  I have not had the opportunity to study Maine welfare policy as I have been fortunate enough not to be in a position to use it.  I do remember working with families on the ASPIRE program and it didn’t seem to work as well as other programs I have learned about. I do know that the particular program I am talking about dropped employment welfare cases to less than 50 in one county.

• Anonymous

  Kim Jung Il is smart enough to keep his mouth shut.  His views on democracy are probably a tad more liberal than LePlague’s.  He’s also a better dresser.  From my understanding they should both join AA however.   Maybe they could join up together and be buddies.

• Anonymous

  I am fully aware of search and seizure laws and the suit filed by the ACLU in Florida but just because a Federal judge has placed a temporary ban on it, does not automatically quantify it as illegal search and seizure.

  I also believe while a prospective employer can’t force you to take a drug test, many require them as a condition of employment. I can see the argument on both sides but my heart tells me if you have nothing to hide, whats the big deal with making it a condition to receive welfare.

  I certainly don’t think all applicants for welfare are drug users, but I’d much rather see my  taxpayer dollars giving temporary assistance to a person or family with a real need more than some dope head who can’t hold a job and uses food stamps to buy Cheetos so they can spend whatever money they do have supporting their illegal drug habit.

• Anonymous

  Good! Test them all!

• Anonymous

  its an invasion on my taxes for people to live on the system …. sell their food stamps for drugs.. etc… there is nothing wrong with drug testing… what is wrong with there being requirements for “free” money… they dont have to work (they tell you they do, but there are so many loop holes, it doesn’t happen)… they don’t have to do anything but get the mail…. really…. come on…

• Anonymous

  You’re smarter than that BOB. I know because I researched you. The quip was about elected officials being drug tested prior to and during their elections. You’re taking a disparaging position on all government employees by suggesting they should not have the same human rights as civilians. Government employees have been getting pretty horribly beaten up by these No Deal TPTers and it’s only getting worse. You’re kicking the under dog. Be careful you don’t get bitten. Not too bright. My Grammy used to say, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say nuttin’ at all.

• Anonymous

  addiction is a choice… and MANY use recreationally – are not actually “addicted” but sell their food stamps to get the stuff….   gotta choose to put the stuff in to become addicted…. its not a child with lymphoma… come on folks

• Anonymous

  It is a shame that Paul LePage is a snarky punk.

• Anonymous

  I agree some of the pictures you see Lepage in he looks like he has had a few drinks.

• Anonymous

  The thing that really kills me about this clown is the drivel he uses to support his claims. This time, he supposedly received an e-mail from a woman asking if Maine’s benefits were better than New Hampshire’s, inferring that she would move to Maine if she could get more assistance.

  Does anyone really believe he got an e-mail like this, much less read it and responded with indignation? I wish, for once, he’d actually back up his claims with evidence, rather than resort to incessant pandering.

• http://www.infowars.com Pat Riote

  Basic human rights includes the right to fail, which is why the constitution includes the verbage the “pursuit of happiness” and not the right to “happiness” itself. Some times people are just down on their luck, and I don’t have a problem with helping a person in need, not one bit… But the 9th Amendment does NOT cover that. Specifically, the 9th Amendment covers the protection of rights to the individual FROM THE GOVERNMENT, and not at the cost of other people’s hard work.

  Quite possibly the reason a person is seeking government benefits is because they did not abstain from drugs. Addictions, though sudden and tragic, can be avoided. It might be tempting to give in and try something new, even knowing the risks, but that also doesn’t excuse a person from seeking help after the fact.

  If a person is seeking benefits, and on drugs, they are doing so by FRAUD and a positive drug test would prove in the court of law that said person is indeed committing fraud. If the person could abstain from illegal substances (or even legal ones, like tobacco and alcohol), then maybe they wouldn’t “need” social/state provided benefits, and not at the cost of tax payers. It is a privilege, not a right, to be awarded social/state benefits. Those privileges can be revoked because of numerous reasons, including criminal activity or a change in income. It is not a right.

• Anonymous

  I suppose the state could sell the urine on the open marketplace to people who wouldn’t pass the test.  This would be yet another reason this idea is unworkable, yet possibly profitable in some way to a select few. 

• Anonymous

  So sad  – we live in a place where people actually feel that those who take from others should have no level of responsibility…. they are NOT entitled… my retired father is entitled.. he worked for that money…. the welfare mommies in Capehart are NOT entitled… it is a… “gift” of sorts…. ridiculous that people ONLY want money spent with integrity when it comes to the rich…. the poor – who are spending money they never even worked for —- they shouldn’t be required to do anything…   

  Occupy CapeHart… clean it up…. make people accountable… OH NO… we can only act like that toward the rich…the rich should have no choice but give money to the poor….. and yes, even the lazy…. those who spend their days at “the clinic” … and those who just keep getting knOcked up…. yup… how DARE rich people live in the big houses they bought — when the welfare moms have to live in those free apartments that they never worked a day for……

• Anonymous

  Great reporting, particularly pointing out that in Flori-DUH, last Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Mary Scriven issued a temporary injunction Monday evening against enforcement of the law’s “suspicionless drug testing” of adults seeking federal welfare.

  The law went into effect July 1, but a single father and the American Civil Liberties Union contend in a lawsuit that the new law is unconstitutional and violates Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

  “Perhaps no greater public interest exists than protecting a citizen’s rights under the Constitution,” the judge wrote, quoting a 1997 Hawaii case.

  It will cost us a great deal of money to defend a boneheaded right wing idea that so far has resulted in 1% of the Florida assistance applicants testing positive for drugs.   How does the Governor plan to handle the application of a person who is legally using medical marijuana for extreme pain?    Ridiculous.

• Anonymous

  ” If your income or lack of, meets the requirements, the state will offer to buy your urine.” Please read my first post before replying.  As for the rest of your questions, I suppose the state could flush the urine down the toilet.  I know that’s what I usually do with mine.  You probably would be paid more based on need ie: kids / dependants.  If you really have to worry about the purity of your kids urine, maybe there are bigger problems at hand.

• Anonymous

  Start to cut from the top not the bottom. LePage is confused.

• Anonymous

  LePage should take a drug test

• Anonymous

  OR, better yet, this could open up a new black market in urine!

• Anonymous

  I have been on WIC years ago and feel that handing out nutritional vouchers, set up like WIC would be more nutritional then our current foodstamp program. That would put an end to the WATER DUMPING, SODA ,CHIPS and SWEETS purchased! Not to mention all the milk purchased for COFFEE BRANDY and ICE!!! Just yesterday I watched a lady purchase 2 FULL carts of food with foodstamps and then purchase 6 boxes of NAME BRAND CIGARETTES, 2 BOXES of CAT LITTER, Dog and Cat FOOD as well as a 30 pack of BUDWEISER BEER! I really felt like I helped buy her groceries so she could buy her EXTRA’s!!! Those items I couldn’t afford! Nor the two carts of groceries!

• Anonymous

  Thanks for asking, but no, I’m not worried about the purity of my (hypothetical) children’s urine.  (But can urine be described as “pure” in any form, really?)  Just wondering how your program would benefit children in need.

• Anonymous

  But if, as the governor states, the reason for such a plan is to better utilize limited resources, what justifies the massive expense just to send a message? There is certainly no evidence to suggest the majority of drug users in Maine are on welfare. If you want to send the message you are suggesting, the money would be better spent on law enforcement, not drug testing.

• yowsayowsa1

   I’ve consulted with Madam Pelosie, oracle extraordinaire, and she has told me that the liberals will REALLY be upset with our esteemed governor about this revelation.

• Anonymous

  Yes, because apparently only LIBERALS respect Constitutional rights.

• http://twitter.com/z_gryphon Ben Hutchins

  Do holders of public office have to be screened for drug use?  ‘Cause of the two demographic groups, I would tend to think they’re the ones whose sobriety is of greater moment to society.

• Anonymous

  Yes!  Test everyone!  Ban alcohol and cigarettes in Maine!

• Anonymous

  Isn’t your program essentially “water dumping”?

• Anonymous

  If welfare recipients have to have random drug testing than I believe that I also want the governor  the Legistature also tested.  I think that would be only  fair. I would be very interested to see the results of that test!

• Anonymous

  Pure: a (1) : free from what vitiates, weakens, or pollutes (2) : containing nothing that does not properly belong (taken from Websters in case you were wondering.) The parents would be paid more or less based on their income .

• Anonymous

  Yeah I’m sure that’s exactly what would happen. 

• Craig Fishburn

  Employment buy a certain firm that might require testing is not anything we are all entitled to. You choose who you work for. its pretty simple.

• Anonymous

  I agree with you—there is nothing wrong or unconstitutional in asking those who are in need to take a drug test. After all, many of us must submit to testing or checking—like in a DUI where we are stopped for no reason other than checking drivers for alcohol. Since when do my tax dollars go to people who are under the influence of drugs? Yet, I as a worker may be required to take drug tests to keep my job. Let’s pretend that welfare is their job and for some it is—then require drug tests in order to keep that “job” of welfare recipient. This whole nonsense about being in need is nonsense. Yes, people on welfare of any form are in need, but sometimes their need is of their own doing—like being addicted to drugs.

• Anonymous

  And, some only have regard for their own opinion thus believing that everyone else of a different opinion is unteachable. Other opinions may be valid, even more valid than those who seem so pompous regarding their own worth.

• Anonymous

  The capital letters should go on the beginning of a sentence.

• Anonymous

  Because you have to sign a release stating that you agree to it.  Otherwise, you don’t get the job.

• Anonymous

  Nope.  You can’t treat similarlty situated persons dissimilarly.  That is, otherwise qualifying for benefits, you can’t treat a postive tester different than a negative tester.  Due process.  No matter how loud the far right whines and spits, you can’t overcome the constitutional ramifications.  It’s a waste of time.

• Anonymous

  Excellent comments!

• Anonymous

  Normally I am against mandatory drug screenings…however, in this case I don’t see the problem with it. The state IS essentially supporting those who recieve welfare, so they should have the ability to screen them. If people on welfare don’t want the state controlling their lives, then GET OFF WELFARE. If you cannot afford food, then you shouldn’t be buying a 50 inch lcd and a nicklebag of weed. 

  As a note, I am not claiming that everybody who is on welfare abuses the system, as that is not the case at all. Although the above example concerning tvs and weed(or booze) is something I have witnessed many times. 

• Anonymous

  There are people that are church going, responsible and unfortunately addicted.  Alcohol is O.K., but marijuana isn’t, even though the latter is non addictive and non problematic.  Forget it.  Ain’t gonna fly.

• Anonymous

  HECK YEA!!!  About time.

• Craig Fishburn

  addiction is not a choice. next time you visit your dr. ask him about addiction. admit that you and the rest of these people have no clue about addiction and you need to be brought up to speed. tell them you are kinda stupid so perhaps a brief explanation that would be par to a sixth grade health class would suffice. even if it were a choice, what do propose. putting these sick people and thier kids out on the street? we live in scary times. wait for the day that your sons or daughters come home and say  mom and dad i have a problem….

• Anonymous

  Exactly, so I give up and LeP can “P” away a bunch of taxpayer money playing footsie with the Supreme Court.

• Anonymous

  Why does your job require you to be drug tested? I believe the initial purpose of drug testing employees back in the 80′s was to ensure that people like air traffic controllers, train conductors, and nuclear plant safety technicians weren’t putting others at risk. The creep of this intrusion will eventually require drug testing for purchases of gum. The fact that you have genuflected before the man is a poor reason for anyone else to submit to these intrusive tests. 

• Anonymous

  Opinions are not facts.

• Craig Fishburn

  Amen. If ignorance is bliss these idiots i call neighbors are the happiest people around!!!

• Anonymous

  no

• Anonymous

  Welfare is suppose to be a helper to getting back on your feet…not a full ride forever…drug testing,no problem,drug tesing our Leaders in Public Office,no problem.

• Anonymous

  Yes, but that is what some do….generalize about a whole lot of people who they do not know (not a political group or movement, but people who get benefits,etc. who would vary in their politics anyway) . It is arrogance and worse.  If someone speaks up for the rights of people , all of a sudden those ignorant of so much decide they know the person’s situation.
  Like many people, my place of employment required drug testing , once, before one was given the job. I could have cared less. But that does not necessarily translate into thinking that everyone should be tested. Let the Governor be tested then. What’s good for the goose…..

• Anonymous

  WowMaine dosn’t  tax Welfare checks yet? they should? they tax everything else

• Anonymous

  Time to test the Governor too then (if he is so interested in drug testing.)

• Anonymous

  Yes, good idea. Let’s test everyone then!

• hasacluemaine

  The Governor is just using common sense once again. If it is lawful for working people, who pay taxes that support welfare receipients to be required to take drugs tests, then so should it be for those who receive those workers’ money. Either all in or all out.

• Regular Joe

  I think drug testing at jobs that don’t involve the safety of others is intrusive, wrong, and hypocritical.  NO reason to test cashiers or bank tellers.  Ridiculous to say you can’t smoke a doobie so we’ll uphold the law and test you to be sure that you don’t even though there is no indication that you do.  All the while anybody can drink all night and come in and work, as long as their job performance isn’t affect (which is the way it should be).

  Saying that truck drivers are tested so welfare recipients should be too is just plain nonsense.  

  He’s shooting his mouth off again.  Like the article says, what is welfare?   Also, how much will this cost?  How often?  Just talking again and not giving any real details.  Why does he do this?

• Anonymous

  All personnel receiving Checks from state and Federal Gov’t should be required to submit to random drug tests. Armed forces, FBI, Sate and federal Gov’t employees.
  I am willing to bet you will get more drug users in gov’t then you do on welfare (they can afford to buy better drugs!)

• PabMainer

  You sound like a very caring and compassionate future nurse…..poor Florence just rolled over in her grave…..

• Anonymous

  after watching several seasons of law and order (eh hemmmm) i feel qualified to ask….

  isn’t ‘blanket’ drug testing individuals fundamentally unconstitutional because of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment?

• Anonymous

  I would read the 14th Amendment, the due process clause.  

  a quick wiki excerpt:

  Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.

• Downeasta

  Doctors dont prescribe cocaine.

• Anonymous

  It just amazes me how so many people think people receiving public assistance all just sit home and do nothing. Most have part-time jobs that doesn’t pay a living wage, have exes who won’t pay child support or lost their job through no fault of their own and are just trying to support their family the only way they can at this particular point in time. My 83 year old mother gets MaineCare. I’m sure she will test positive for something since she takes numerous prescriptions. Get real people. Aren’t there more important things we could do with the state’s money than conduct a witch hunt against those in need.

• Anonymous

  then we need to identify THOSE people and demand that your State Rep meet with their case worker’s supervisor to find out what the he77 is going on.

• Anonymous

  So, would a state worker have to observe the person peeing into the cup, in order for them to get paid?  This is beginning to sound expensive!

• Anonymous

  exactly

• ladybaroque

  Politicians should take drug tests…before they run for office!!

• Anonymous

  its not about privacy, it’s a 14th Amendment/due process questions (to me).

• Anonymous

  I have an idea.  Let’s make all welfare recipients, including children, wear armbands that say “POOR,” so they can be shunned and reviled wherever they go.  Then, when they are marched off to work camps, the rest of us can just sigh and shake our heads and say, “Too bad they are poor.”

• Anonymous

  and drug test the Legislature, they take our money also.  employers do that.  we are their employers.  let’s do a people’s referendum on that.  bypass these whoopie pie law making, tax supported politicians.

  anybody with me?  people’s referendum, drug test all politicians who receive public money (insurance, wages, mileage, per diem)

• Anonymous

  Drug testing is not the answer.. I understand where he is going with this, but it is wrong.. The reason for this is because they, meaning the companies that do this testing is funding these republican campaigns and that’s the reason they are asking for drug testing Lapage like all other republicans is just trying to help big brother make some money..  Besides i doubt Lapage would of thought of this all by himself.. He is copying what has been done in Florida.. It didn’t pass there and i doubt it will pass here.. More proof that he don’t know what he is doing he is just following through with whatever the other republican governors are doing in other states.. On the other hand if they did pass drug testing and the old saying is true that all welfare people are on drugs, then this could save Maine’s government a lot of cash..  But this would open up a can of worms that no one is ready to face.. For instance no more assistance for people that are on drugs means more homelessness.. Homes going into foreclosure again a breakdown of the banking system, crimes, people have to eat and they will beg borrow and steal filling the jails with more people more revenue for judges and the court system, the list goes on..  But now that medicinal pot is here then there are gonna be all kinds of trouble with that too.. And where is the money going to come from for all this drug testing? I thought we were broke? Way too many variables for this to go through..

• Anonymous

  “Guilty of doing drugs.”  That cuts it right there.  See, in America, we have this concept.  It’s a little deep, but let me explain:  innocent until proven guilty.  Amazing how the superiority crowd (well, moral superiority because we know how much they hate institutions of higher learning) finds guilt without due process.  GUILTY!  HANG EM! 

• http://twitter.com/z_gryphon Ben Hutchins

  Drug testing as a condition of employment is a question of employer policy, not public law.  I personally don’t think it’s OK, ethically speaking – it’s intrusive and high-handed, and reeks of an attitude of ownership toward one’s employees – but it’s legal because the requirement for testing is not, itself, part of a law.  It’s the same distinction as the reason why a law banning the expression of a particular sentiment would be unconstitutional censorship, but a private website operator deleting comments deemed unacceptable under the site’s rules is perfectly legal.

• Anonymous

  Move to a totalitarian country.  You’d love it, since it’s right up your alley.  Here, your kind of logic won’t be tolerated. 

• Anonymous

  The usual suspect  are on commenting on this story because it is about our beloved governor, go Governor LePage, But  on the story about the two loser women caught in Veazie with drugs and one of them pregnant they could care less.( oh, I almost forgot the unborn baby has no rights yet, so what if she is using drug).

• Anonymous

  When I joined the Army, I was observed while giving my urine sample.  I’m sure I wasn’t the only one.  Sure it was a bit uncomfortable.  If our fighting men and women have to submit to drug tests then why not people on welfare? 

• Anonymous

  Are you writing policy now?

• mommyoftwo

  Bought time someone woke up and realized that this bill is a good idea!!!!!  Hope this bill is passed…maybe we will be paying for less people to sit around on their behinds waiting for the first of the month to roll around again so they can get their next fix instead of worrying about weather their children are fed and taken care of properly!!!  And I am not say ALL people do this…but a pretty good percentage of these people do that!!!!

• Anonymous

  A person chooses to apply for assistance. they could turn to family,neighbors, the church. Someone might not like the financial situation they are in, but that does not mean that they are forced to get government aid.  Lose the house and live in the family car. Choices. The government forces no one to take aid of any type.
  I could repeat myself over and over but I don’t think it would do any good.
  I have absolutely no problem with helping people that are down on their luck by the way. however. If someone is recieving bennies, then what’s the harm in taking a pee test. It seems to me that if the handout is really needed, then it would be worth it.

• Anonymous

  There you go. Let’s test everybody instead of pick and choose! Only fair, right?

• Anonymous

  Well, for one thing, aren’t people in the Army given guns based on a clean urine sample?

• Anonymous

  Some banks, like the former MBNA required it.

• Anonymous

  Do you think some lugs care about that!

• Anonymous

  I’m pretty sure welfare recipients don’t do cocaine.

• Anonymous

  There you go!  Bragdon and Heritage Foundation……nuff said.

• Anonymous

  Your Grammy was a wise person.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NXPTPFL746OV2VGR5WBOEUF6W4 Roger

   I do not hate anybody poor or not. I do very much dislike paying very high taxes to support those who do not support there own life due to laziness. You don’t wanna and support yourself that’s your fault and those of us who work hard should not be penalized for it. 

  As for your assumption that one must have a child to get welfare your sadly mistaken. Drug addicts get SSI and all kind of benefits. Much of the welfare in Maine is based on income. Assets do not count for most of the programs. In fact There is a program to replace old ( so called inefficient ) refrigerators in Washington and Hancock counties run by WHCA ( Washington Hancock community agency ) they go to homes put a meter on the refrigerator and if the machine says it is bad ( this way of measuring is faulty and they replace perfectly good working ones all the time as it does not take into account if the fridge is in defrost mode as that uses a considerable higher amount of power then normal operation)  then you get a new one.  This program is based on income. There is a person in the Bucksport area who had one of these delivered they had a brand new Toyota in the driveway of a very upscale home. The surprise was this person had a beautiful Rolls Royce in the garage. This is but one small example of the massive welfare system we have.

  Helping people is a great thing but just giving people what they need without making them work for it or pay it back for the life of the person does not help them or society.

• Anonymous

  Where do some of these people come from?!  geez….

• Anonymous

  It’s an “invasion on your taxes” to pay for millions of drug tests, most of them negative.

• Craig Fishburn

   What if every tax return was audited and you had to prove every single last penny of expense. I mean really we all live off the system, some of us are just smart anuff to make it look like a job!

• Anonymous

  I like Lepage more and more everyday!!

• Anonymous

  Yes, but the question is whether that is ethically justified.

• Anonymous

  People who talk like that are very low.  Be glad, very glad, you are not like that.

• Anonymous

  Agreed,

• Anonymous

  That’s your interpretation of the 9th Amendment.  Is your interpretation specifically stated in the Constitution itself?  

  If not, then it’s just another interpretation.

• Anonymous

  Nope, his mind and conscience don’t seem to work that way.

• Anonymous

  Clinton would have failed, happy?

• Anonymous

  I do believe a Judge in Florida said no way……
  I think it’s ok….

• Anonymous

  Calm down…. Thats not what they are asking for…
  This is to target the abusers of the system…

• Anonymous

  If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. I have to
  take a drug test to get the job that supplies the tax dollars for the welfare
  programs so I see nothing wrong with someone taking a drug test to get the
  monies that I have paid into the system. Just sayi

• Anonymous

  Great post!

• Anonymous

  Liberals dont mind druggies getting welfare….
  I wonder why..

• Anonymous

  Yes, definitely alcohol being detected should be the end!!!! (I’d venture that would eliminate some of those on here who are so giddy at the thought of welfare recipients getting tested!)
  Let’s be sure to test the Governor too.

• Anonymous

  I think the people on here that are commenting against it are more than likely on welfare and high at the moment! I’d say far more than half do NOT want to go off welfare or off their drugs…you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

• Anonymous

  Meanwhile the ultra-rich lobby the government with even more money from their accelerating profits:

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/cbo-top-1-percent-almost-tripled-incomes-fueling-inequality/2011/10/25/gIQAzbMrIM_story.html

• Millicent

  so would have GWB. 

• Anonymous

  Republicans don’t write policy.  Policy writes them.

• Anonymous

  In theory, this is great. In practice, kids will go hungry.  But screw those kids, right?

• Anonymous

  You are soooooooo right…I would venture to say all who are negative to the drug testing and by the ignorant comments and excuses these are the ones who would fail the tests and would have to get a life….as you said “welefare is their job” and they work it well….

• Anonymous

  Yikes…….when you stop and look at those you mention (and there is more!), it it incomprehensible that such a person resides in the Blaine House. Maybe in such a place as Alabama or So Carolina,etc. but not in New England. An anomoly.

• Anonymous

  Well then, the governor should get in line.

• Anonymous

  Basically your argument boils down to:  If you’re starving, you’re not forced to eat: you have the option to suffer horribly and then die.

• Anonymous

  Ahhh…….a voice of reason and sanity.

• Anonymous

  They are like people who embrace the Bible and no other book, and take it literally, word for word.

• Anonymous

  Bingo!

• Anonymous

  Sorry, totally different legal standard of review is applied, here.

  You wouldn’t want it any other way – whether you know it or not.

  Your reaction is ‘knee jerk’ and emotional only. Hardly dependable without basis in the law.

• Anonymous

  Hey, isn’t the point that almost everyone would fail?  Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine.  We are a drug-addicted nation.

• Anonymous

  The 9th Amendment to the Constitution says there we have rights not listed in the Constitution, which is where federal law comes in.

• Anonymous

  Yes, exactly!

• Anonymous

  You’re saying you don’t believe in Social Security, right, because it’s not in the Constitution?

• Anonymous

  I agree!

• Anonymous

  Right, and oil-addicted too

• Anonymous

  You think big government is your friend?

• Anonymous

  Go live in the middle east or the middle ages.  You realize that we’re fighting two wars to combat that kind of thinking, right?

• Anonymous

  Republicans don’t write policy–policy writes them.

• Anonymous

  Republicans don’t write policy–policy writes them. 

• Anonymous

  You’re not a fan of Social Security or Medicare, are you?

• Anonymous

  Yes, so true, but some like to just pick on one segment. I guess they think they are superior or something. Maybe none of them smoke,or drink alcohol though….what do you think!

• Anonymous

  Why would you think that children are removed that way? It isn’t true except in cases of extreme, documented neglect or abuse. 

• midmainer

  then use the same logic on every government benefit. What about people that use our roads, our airports, our parks, what about corporate heads whose companies only make money because of developments that came from government science study, or all government workers from the governor all the way down. A government benefit is a benefit, whether  it’s food stamps, or our children attending public school.
  As far as using food stamps on cheetos, that’s a whole other story, are we then going to include with the food stamps a precise list of what they can and can’t buy? Or would we just position government employees in stores, and they would review the shopping carts before checkout, or perhaps we’d have citizen volunteers.
  All these things are wonderful water cooler discussions, but legally, and realistically they dont work, and they end up being an even bigger financial burden. Sometimes the honor system, while not perfect, is the realistic way to do things.

• Anonymous

  That is a very lame train of thought. Why are people of your thinking so quick to think when someone has a certain opinion, that that means they are also “a pusher or user.”   Just because people speak out in support of others ….say someone speaks out in support of the homeless or veterans……you think that means the person is also homeless or a veteran? Not so.   
  Anyway, I feel that if we are going to start testing people on TANF, for instance (which directly affects many children) then it follows maybe we should consider testing everyone, including the Governor.

• Anonymous

  The email that started it all:

  http://www.dirigoblue.com/diary/3920/the-email-that-pushed-gov-lepage-to-test-all-welfare-recipients

• Anonymous

  If welfare means any type of public assistance, then anyone who uses a road, sends their kid to a public school, calls the police or fire department, goes to the dump, or takes advantage of a tax break or subsidy of any kind ought to be drug tested too.

• Anonymous

  well argued!

• Anonymous

  I agree with this 100%  Something needs to be done about the people who abuse the system. I live down the street from welfare housing, and I see first hand people who don’t deserve it. They come to the bus stop in their pajamas in the morning with their children all dressed in designer clothing. My children get to wear walmart while these children have brand name clothing? They walk back to their little apartments that are nice and warm, and do nothing all day, while people like My husband work from sun up until sun down to make ends meet. Oh and don’t even get me started on their vehicles. Or the fact that they not only have “everything” they smoke their 5 dollar a pack cigarettes, party and have a grand ole time while we grunts provide them with whatever they need. It’s repulsive. Welfare should be for people who can no longer work. I am sorry, but I see help wanted all over Bangor. Wouldn’t they feel better flipping burgers to make an honest living!? Nope, they want it all.. for nothing. If you don’t agree with me, you come on down and hang out across the street from Capehart for a day.. Tell me how you feel about them then.

• Anonymous

  Whether it is ethically right or wrong to do this testing, whether it will cost a lot of tax money, whatever you say about big government, the simple fact is, that on these posts anyway, the majority of people favor testing. All I did was take a calculator and add up those for and those against. The “for” far out weigh the “against.” The poll reflects this as well. I would imagine that if the government wants to put this into effect, the majority of the public would go along with it. It appears to me that people are more interested in making sure that those getting welfare are not abusing drugs while abusing the welfare system.   

• Anonymous

  Ignore all the negative comments to your comment…I would bet money that all the negative feed back is from those who would fail the test and are working the system.What you said is soooo very true

• Anonymous

  You are assuming that the able-bodied are applying for benefits they don’t actually need.

  I am here to tell you,  your assumption is both ignorant AND irrational. Get a clue!

• Anonymous

  Tell you what I think, I smoke and drink beer, but your tax dollars don’t pay for it!  Maybe it’s because when I’m coming home from work and see people who’ve been sitting on their butts all day smoking and drinking kinda ticks me off. If it don’t bother you, then you must belong to the group!

• midmainer

  Very very funny that the very first time Bragdon reared his ugly head, it was smacked down by a Florida court. But the GOP treated him like a god up here. He’s just a stupid little man being told what to do by some very big money folks.

• Anonymous

  If you aren’t abusing the system yourself, and are clean.. why is this an issue to you??

• midmainer

  I’m not sure you’re understanding me, I object to it, to drug testing, I was responding to the guy who says the only people objecting are “drug addicted welfare recipients.”

• Anonymous

  Nope. You flunked.

• Anonymous

  sooooooo wrong.

• Anonymous

  My original response was deleted whereby I stated, in my opinion, you are a tad uneducated by regional standards, You have no intelligent and informed basis for your arguments.

  Be responsible and accountable by reading up on the Constution and early American History before commenting further – at the very least.

  And yes, to me, you sound uneducated.  I learned these basic premises in grade school/junior high…

• Anonymous

  What’s it gonna cost me?

• Anonymous

  Wow, can you even once just say “actually that seems like a good idea”. the man could say free ice cream for everyone and you’d attack him for it.

• Anonymous

  Go around and check out the people who are actually getting benefits.. I’m sorry but anyone against it, has something to hide.

• Anonymous

  Yep, you guessed it. I’m a layabout who is high and on welfare. It’s quite a feat considering I also worked 50 hours this week.

• Anonymous

  Don’t try and twist my comment by comparing veterans with people that are too lazy to work. And why test someone on TANF that has four children, their working on more for us to feed and clothe. Let them loaf all day with their bad backs, severe headaches or whatever else they can dream up. Talk about a lame train of thought, you got it! Enjoy.

• Anonymous

  The only people who should be whining about this are the drug users themselves. Get over it.

• Anonymous

  Stupid question, not relevent , no comment.

• Anonymous

  I never assumed nor stated such a thing.  I have many clues…I work on a daily basis with people on various types of assistance. 

• Anonymous

  I agree with you. Folks should go online and read some of the newspapers from other New England states. They all complain about the same thing. If Maine has such “luxury” benefits; why would the folks in Providence, Hartford and Boston be saying that all of the people who are collecting benefit have moved there just to collect welfare?
  The bigger problem is the lack of jobs that pay a living wage!

• Anonymous

  No, it targets all welfare recipients.

• Anonymous

  Oh, I see.  You think welfare recipients don’t have the same rights as you do.  Wrong!

• Anonymous

  I want to see LePage and all of his staff tested for drugs!  Let’s see how the high-profile politicians do with Operation Golden Flow!

• Anonymous

  Ok, maybe you do!

• Anonymous

  Who is going to pay for it? At $20 bucks apiece.

• Anonymous

  Thanks Gerald, but I’m unable to read the email (presbyopia) and when I zoom in on it the right half of the email is cut off.  Please quote the text of the email on your web page if you would.  Thanks!

• Anonymous

  Working people. Sorry I didn’t make myself clear.

• Anonymous

  With LePage on this one.  If I can be drug-tested as an employee, what’s the difference between me and a welfare recipient? Oh, wait, it’s that darn due process issue.  Gotta give the welfare recipients more leeway than those of us who are paying taxes and doing our part (and theirs).

• Anonymous

  When you sign your papers for your boss you agree to drug testing. That is a far cry from involuntary drug testing.

• Anonymous

  It isn’t mine. A Rep. to the House , from Ohio I think,  is pushing it. For all representatives in DC. 

• Anonymous

  You said that right!

• Anonymous

  That is the job of the police, DEA and Feds not the DHHS.

• Anonymous

  The people that get something for nothing should be tested.   If you are a tax paying citizen….no problem.  

• Anonymous

  Great idea. Then we can do away with the parks and recreation dept and half of the highway dept. and put all those folks out of work and on welfare.

• Anonymous

  If the government gives this money for the kids of people that are either too unlucky, too lazy, or are drug infested addicts….weed out the addicts first, because that disease isn’t curable most times.

• Anonymous

  So what if the first court he goes into in Florida catches him in a lie. 

• Anonymous

  You know you’re right. I flunked when I got in a peeing contest with someone who thinks they know everything. I’m old enough to know better. You be sure to wave to your neighbor when your going to work now, their kids need new shoes!

• Anonymous

  How about an IQ test for them too while we’re at it.

• Anonymous

  When you take a truck driving job, join the military etc. you agree to testing. You sign your name on the paper. You are not forced. Random drug testing is the problem. No warning no signature no agreement. Just pop in your house and test you.

• Anonymous

  You believe in personal responsibility? Then be responsibile for yourself. When you put your nose in others lives that is not personal responsibility.

• Anonymous

  Wall street is private Welfare is not. Test away

• Anonymous

  A great idea but it doesn’t go far enough. I would submit that anyone who receives public money should submit to random drug tests.

• Anonymous

  People follow leaders, leaders follow money and power.   The moral is:  you can’t judge right or wrong based solely on majority opinion.

• Anonymous

  He got another secret email. whoahhhh.

• Anonymous

  LOL one wonders. Impaired comes to my mind.

• Anonymous

  Let him go back to his ciggies.

• Anonymous

  I’m no lawyer, but was a truck driver who was subject to random drug testing. I see no reason to support someone on welfare who can afford to buy illegal drugs.

  God I hate agreing with Governor LePage. But on this I will agree.

• Anonymous

  Not twisting at all.  Logic.

• Anonymous

  Pee test is fine as long as the lawmakers who are rapidly sending the US into third world status should also get one. Impaired judgment is a biggy symptom wise.

• Anonymous

  Excellent rebuttal….excellent! 

• Anonymous

  Anyone who has their hands in my pocket taking the money I EARNED should have to submit to a drug test if asked.  I personally know of many people who would fail and lose their “benefits”.  It’s funny how their benefits are better than mine and I WORK FOR MY MONEY!  Not to mention all those on any type of government handout buying booze and cigarettes!  Seriously?  Is anyone ok with this?  What’s next?  Are we going to be mandated to invite them into our homes to live with us?  Good Lord, enough with these moochers!

• Anonymous

  Do employers who hire illegal aliens drug test them?

• Anonymous

  Two wars for oil , pipeline access and  poppy fields cost a lot of money. No teaching moments when you are killing innocent men women and children. And filling their country with so much depleted uranium that their babies are deformed. 

  What is there to learn from those teaching moments? Greed is no longer tolerated in a thinking society.

  Occupy Wall Street!

• Anonymous

  It is an invasion on my tax dollar when welfare recipients get food stamps and don’t have to pay to feed their children 1o meals a week. I seems that they get free breakfast and lunch at school, which I and other tax payers foot the bill for. By the way, I’m in favor of all our elected officials being subject to random drug testing also.

• Anonymous

  “I’m sorry but anyone against it, has something to hide.”  I will now have to take any further comments of yours as very dubious , as I know of many people who are not necessarily in favor of the drug testing and yet have nothing whatsoever to hide.   You did not make a vaid argument at all.

• Anonymous

  Well, our legislators and governor have nothing to hide either, right? Blood alcohol levels and drug tests on all of them on Mon. morning. Nothing to hide? Nothing to lose.

• Anonymous

  Good idea, I think they should test LePage too!

• Anonymous

  Actually, I don’t believe that we have that many US flagged merchant vessels. I believe that the only merchant vessels that carry our flag are those that carry relief foods to froeign lands. Most merchant vessels that make port in the US are foreign flagged and crewed.

• Anonymous

  There’s an old saying ” there’s a sucker born every minute and two to take him”.  Hope you enjoy being one of the former. Get to bed, you have to work tomorrow to help out thy neighbor.

• Anonymous

  In my experience as a corrections officers, the greater majority of addicts were turned onto drugs in their early teens if not sooner. Are you going to hold 13 year olds to the same standard as adults? I was addicted to tobaco by the time I was 13.

• Moose

  I have to take drug tests because of my class 1 so welfare should have too.. 

• Anonymous

  Actually they pay most of the taxes remember almost 43% of the US do not pay any taxes…Welfare recipients should be drug tested. They work me since I pay for them so I say drug test….

• Anonymous

  Since I pay their salary they work for me so I say yes drug test them….perhaps they should have to come and work at my house cleaning and mowing my lawn since I pay for them to sit around all day anyway…..

• Anonymous

  Welfare recipients also choose to be on the state, and should be required to be tested, why should I have to work 70+ hours a week while Joe Smoe who is on the state can sit at home and get high or drunk, on the money I have paid in taxes? In the area I am from there are way too many adults on disability and welfare and so are generations of their families. It is a career for too many of these and the state should be able to test them.

• Anonymous

  I could care less what you do as long as I am not paying for it…bunch of deadbeats sitting around waiting for their next check to go pick up their oxycontin while on medicaid….

• Anonymous

  Bet there were a lot more people paying taxes before congress passed NAFTA. Tax dollars for jobs to be sent overseas. Back in the day, when corporations paid their fair share, americans worked because there were jobs. But that was before the fascist takeover.

• Anonymous

  Legislators, governors, representatives in DC are paid by taxes. They should all be drug tested.

• Anonymous

  NO they don’t…they are living off my money so no frigging way they have the same rights…you want to sit around and get wasted everyday I am not paying for it..when you decide to live off others money you give up your rights

• Anonymous

  And putting people into treatment instead of jail. And stop the legalized taking of property for suspicion of drugs etc. We are a police state.

• Anonymous

  How much will this new system cost?  Wouldn’t it be easier to just not give people cash in the first place?  I think it would make more sense to give some kind of voucher for food, rent electricity, etc but not CASH!

• StillRelaxin

  Yep such legislation has about as much chance of getting “Off the ground” as Mr. LePage would himself if he were ever to attempt to leap from it.  While he has “Some” support for such silly, hateful and unconstitutional thinking in the end there just isn’t enough ignorance in our country to allow such to fly.  Now start testing EVERYONE who receives public money (Like the politicians who work for us yet think they rule over us) and such an idea might actually sprout wings.  Paul himself may still need a couple of jet engines.

• Anonymous

  We are already a police state. Another person was brutally beaten in Oakland , Ca. by the police. He has a ruptured spleen, which can be life threatening. The police didn’t even help get medical attention after they beat him with batons , so much so , his spleen is ruptured. Another veteran.

• Anonymous

  The drug testing in Fl. was very expensive and turned up a very few positives on the tests.

• Anonymous

  People who are too lazy to work
  People who work for the govt.
  People who belong to a union.
  People who have retirement and benefits from their jobs. 

  So many to hate, so little time.

• Anonymous

  Greed kills. 

  Occupy Wall Street

• Anonymous

  I think there are paid trolls on BDN. Every since lepage got elected, the online comments took a hard right. Notice, they never have facts. Just hate and name calling. Minimum wage position . Don’t need to know much…just spew.

• Anonymous

  Your insults are in violation of the terms of conduct of this forum.  You entered a contractual agreement to abide by them.   You owe lynne an apology.

• Anonymous

  Interesting. Did you hear anything about the captain being drunk. That has been written many times.

• Anonymous

  Anger, immaturity and insults.  You’re proud of yourself for it, aren’t you?

• Anonymous

  Okay, you 53 and counting can pay for them. We will ask the legislature to set up a fund you can put $1 into just like the Clean Election Fund, which is under study for constitutionality also, and see how many drug tests you can support.

• Anonymous

  Many of us feel this way about those that abuse the system. Not all employers in Maine require a drug test. That is the employers’ decision. So even that argument does not apply to all workers. So why should all those who apply for assitance be tested? Or, maybe what we need is a bonus for all those that pass their drug test. They can get a percentage more for their bread.

• Anonymous

  I was just wondering how much is this going to cost us, I mean for the testing , then for the the litigation ?

• Anonymous

  Actually, receiving support from the government is not a right, it is a priviledge.

• Anonymous

  No. The Occupy Wall Streetes will take care of them.

• Anonymous

  And I’ve been wrorking for over 30 years. Test the system suckers.

• Anonymous

  And I’ve been wrorking for over 30 years. Test the system suckers. Then kick them off if theytest positive.

• Anonymous

  Er, it is not ‘your’ money. If you did not contribute to social security you cannot receive a return on your contributions. If you worked at all your paycheck was docked for Medicare, which, did you know, only pays hospital costs. Not the cost of the doctors who provide your care. You have to pay for that. Everyone seems to think Medicare pays for everything. It pays for some, but not close to all of the costs of any kind of health care. Just sayin’.

• Anonymous

  So what?

• Anonymous

  Can you see Bill “I didn’t inhale” Clinton and Ted Kennedy taking a drug test?

• Edward Spencer

  This isn’t “class-warfare.” This is a measure to help ensure that people who receive state support aren’t using that money to fund their drug habits. It’s not that hard to understand, really. 

• Anonymous

  Remember, many working people also receive public assistance. They are paying taxes on their public assistance wages too.

• Anonymous

  Soundsm like a hot time at the trailer!

• Millicent

  They do pay taxes. Payroll taxes (social security & medicare) property taxes, gas, excise tax, sales tax, travel… Stating that 43% of the population doesn’t pay any tax is misleading. 

• Anonymous

  How is your post at all relevant to what you are responding to?

• Anonymous

  What is your point exactly? I assume you are not referring to me personally, which if you were, it would be a mistake on your part.   So if I were to pay taxes, and at some point, god forbid, need TANF or some other type of assistance, you don’t consider that paying into the system?  To use your phrase, just sayin’.

• Anonymous

  Nope, the majority can’t be right if YOU disagree.

• Anonymous

  I think the flaw in your argument is that NOT ALL employers require drug tests and ALL public assistance recipients would be required to participate.

• Anonymous

  Are you aware of how that refrigerator program from WHCA is funded?  Please enlighten us, because I do know and I will gladly tell you.  I also know that that program benefits renters, and if they qualify for the refrigerator, the refrigerator actually stays WITH THE APARTMENT, i.e. with the landlord’s property.  Who benefits then?  BINGO, the landlord.

  You would benefit from further investigation of your assumptions.

• Anonymous

  Are you aware of how that refrigerator program from WHCA is funded?  Please enlighten us, because I do know and I will gladly tell you.  I also know that that program benefits renters, and if they qualify for the refrigerator, the refrigerator actually stays WITH THE APARTMENT, i.e. with the landlord’s property.  Who benefits then?  BINGO, the landlord.You would benefit from further investigation of your assumptions.

• Anonymous

  No thank you. That broken directional light is not going to send me off to be drug tested.

• Anonymous

  Sounds like quite an angry person. I would just let it go.

• Anonymous

  NO BODY HAS A RIGHT TO LIVE OFF THE LABORS OF OTHERS. Furthermore parents have the duty to protect and support their family.

• Anonymous

  You have to almost feel sorry for them.

• Anonymous

  “So many to hate, so little time.”

  That is so true, (unfortunately) and sure comes to mind with many of the “impaired” comments we have seen. Be glad you think as you do.

• Anonymous

  Are you joking?  I’m thinking your happy pills are available to you, after all, today is the 4th of the month,  Spent all my hard earned tax dollars yet? 

• Anonymous

  The dirty little secret that no one will tell you is you cannot compare Welfare drug use rates with normal total population drug use rates. Total population drug use rates include only adults whereas the Welfare drug use rates include ALL Welfare recipients including children. THAT is why their rate is lower.

  Also, if I have to be drug tested to earn my money, welfare recipients should have to be drug tested to receive my hard-earned money.

• Anonymous

  But it is not required of all.

• Anonymous

  Look at the comment below yours here.  That same kind of “making it personal” remark they seem to have to stoop to all the time.

• Anonymous

  Come onnn, the US Constitution is ignored every day by the government. It started more than a century ago.

• Anonymous

  I’ve never hit an OUI roadblock and I would refuse to be tested if I did. If that sent me to jail, fine, I will be civilly disobedient.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  I have to take random drug tests, and I am not employed by the state like these welfare recipients, so they should take one.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  I am sure they would have no problem taking a drug test.  Many of us all ready have to anyway.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  Not true, I like my beer now and then, but I don’t drink it on the job, your position is incorrect.

• Anonymous

  The government forces people to accept welfare? Human rights do not include taking from some to give to others, get a clue.

  Once “human rights” are expand to where the government forces people to provide for others, ANYTHING can be defined to make a right.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  There is NOTHING saying they cannot drink alcohol!  The test is for ILLEGAL drugs, get a grip.

• Anonymous

  Sorry to disappoint you susieQ.   When I got hired at MBNA , we had to take a drug test first to be hired. No problem for me.   I have never liked even taking a penicillin for anything. Have never smoked , no addictions . Just like a few cups of coffee.
  So, just because someone does not think like you do, you make these assumptions. Not a very high Q there.
  I will leave you to your pills.

• Anonymous

  They don’t care about what the Constitution says, only what they want it to say.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  You really think many government officials are doing ILLEGAL drugs?  There may be a few, but not as many that are collecting welfare.  If they can afford to buy/do drugs, they don’t need assisstance!

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  We agree, now move on.

• Anonymous

  Private organizations are not subject to the same consistutional regs.  That’s how companies get to use it.  However, some of their methods are suspect (first test is relatively crude and a positive requires a second test but if one passes the second test the first and abvioulst fgalse test still reamins on ones record).

• Anonymous

  THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION BINDS THE GOVERNMENT. It is meant to limit what the government is allowed to do, beyond that the government is not allowed to do any thing

• Anonymous

  My memory may be a bit fuzzy, but I think enlisting in the Armed Forces is about more than just a clean urine sample

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  It’s quite simple, if you want my money, take a drug test.  If you don’t want my money, no need for the drug test.  I work both civilian and government work, I GET drug tested by both, so infact, it’s already been happening.  What don’t you understand about that.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  You’re soooooo wrong.

• Anonymous

  OK so start trying to get the Constitution changed to allow it.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  That would definately be a first from you then.

• Anonymous

  Part of the problem. Different legal standards for this group and different standards for others.

• Anonymous

  You cant compare someone who is working for a living to someone who is living off the taxpayers, even if you dont like what they are doing for a job. If someone does not have enough money for food and shelter they certainly shouldnt have drug money, its only common sense

• Anonymous

  Such twaddle.
  You are the one that needs to study the Constitution as written, not what YOU want to it say.

• Anonymous

  Actually what is unconstitutional is Federal welfare.

• Anonymous

  actually it is a disgrace if you actually dont need it

• Anonymous

  And you can’t learn if you already know the “truth”.

• Anonymous

  everybody that is paying taxes,workin their butt off and watching others live off the system generation after generation should be angry if you are not then you live in a very sheltered world

• Anonymous

  That is true, opinions are not facts and emotion should almost never be used instead of thought.

• Anonymous

  how many fingers should we wave with is one enough??

• Anonymous

  maine care patients take a drug test before they can be given narcotics.  Most know how to beat  the system   and it will be the same here. 

• Anonymous

  if they recieve more in benefits than they contribute then they dont pay any taxes pretty simple math

• Craig Fishburn

  It has nothing to do with your $

• Anonymous

  I understood your comment as a bit of sarcasm. Just had to take exception with the idea that it is ‘your’ money that is used for social security. Medicare is a bit more problematic. And, absolutely. If you have ever worked your taxes have been collected and should you have a need you can ask for some of that money back. I agree with your first comment and this one. Just wanted to clarify that social security and medicare are not welfare or an entitlement.

• Anonymous

  A uniquely Wall Street privilige, in terms of those pesky decimal points.

  Trillions.

• Anonymous

  To quote the article…..
  “Some believe welfare encompasses all federally or state-subsidized benefits.”
  I’d say that includes the lemon socialism of the TARP bailouts!
  Test the Bankers!

• Anonymous

  Spruce?

  Don’t be led down the rabbit hole.

  What they really want is a speakylyzer test.

  Means based, of course.

• Anonymous

  Is LePage wearing a toupee?

• Anonymous

  Breakfast and lunch for schoolchildren?

  I am shocked.

  Shocked I say, at what our society has come to.

• Anonymous

  MaryBelle, apparently you need to type more slowly.

• Rob Grant

  It all comes down to costs… Ask a member of any personell office for any employer that requires drug testing for employment… It can run from 500-1000 depending on how fast you want the results… Now tell a person they have to wait a month before they are approved or denied for welfare of any kind based on a drug test… In Maine, the dead of winter?? The first person to suffer any illness or death will have a lawsuit or class action lawsuit that would deffinately cripple the states coffers… Find a way to test these applicants quickly, accurately, AND most importantly at low cost and the state can jump on this… Is it worth the cost to find a few addicts, the studies prove most folks that ask for help are not addicts… All in all I feel this is a waste of time… Test for drugs with probable cause and then your talking open for business….

• Rob Grant

  Liked it, HELL I love that idea!!~!!

• Anonymous

  We have to go to work each and every day, some jobs have danger such as police and fire, other jobs can be boring or ho-hum. My point is we go to work to get our money, these people do nothing, and it would really tick me off to know we are giving money to people who are stoned or high on our money. You can see it now, go to the malls and parks, you see people who are messed up and you know they are not working….just saying!

• Anonymous

  Did you ever study double walled hulls?

  Think of the design of the ship.

  Designed to withstand human error?

• Anonymous

  But clearly the Constitution says that Wall Street has the right to public money.

  (sic)

• Anonymous

  Apparently, paid ignorance shillism (sic) trumps.

• Anonymous

  Speaking of rights – what about my right to the money I expended my life earning.  Why does the welfare crowd have a “right” to that?

• Anonymous

  Oh really Craig?  Where does the money come from then?  The money fairy?  If you work, it comes from your money, too!  If they want it for free, then they have to be drug tested.  It’s their choice, they can always get a job where they are not required to be drug tested!

• Anonymous

  It’s amazing that Jdub1975, who has no problem with random drug testing for, yes, poor people, has managed to acquire 216 “likes” in less than an eight-hour period! Does anyone else smell a rat? 
  Just last week, viewers from all over the country at a right-wing web site called Free Republic were provided a link to the Bangor Daily News website and an article about the Occupy protesters in Bangor and urged — and they sure complied — to check off their liking for any comment that expressed the usual mean-spirited sentiments that ignorant people have been indoctrinated by Fox News et al to embrace.

  BDN online editor: it’s time to end anonymity at this site and to pay attention to where those “likes” are coming from. Not to do so is plain irresponsible.

  How are we to believe that over 70 percent of those who have so far answered the BDN poll favoring Gov. LePage’s lamebrained and unconstitutional position is a reasonable reflection of how readers in the BDN’s coverage area actually think?

  I urge anyone else who thinks the BDN’s present online policies are just plain dumb to let the editor know.

• Anonymous

  No problem, drug test me any day of the week.  I couldn’t afford drugs if I wanted them, anyway I’m too busy WORKING!

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_25LJ6KETIP5DVBAPMUYRGCCDTU Brandon D

  Really LePage?  Florida, who has much more money than us to experiment
  with, tries this and determines it loses more money than it saves and
  you STILL want to try it?  So wasting money  on people needing
  assistance is awful, but wasting more on trying to stop wasting it on
  welfare is better?  So the impression I’m getting from LePage is that
  money loss is fine as long as it’s on his terms.  Sums up his
  administration pretty well so far.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_77PPY2GHJERXL74KODFG5AEXKE Rick

  I think it is about time! We should test them all! Just think it would save us money in the long run. When 50% wont pass, that’s 50% less we have to pay in welfare. Works great! If they are caught abusing the system, banned for life on the first offense. My taxes out of my paycheck pay some of these people to dump water from bottles to get deposit money just to buy a joint. TEST THEM ALL!!!!!

• Anonymous

  That is the way it has been with everything these people try to drum up (they really want to find it, you know, and are disappointed when they do not) and do not admit when they are wrong.  (think Summers and Webster et al.)

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_77PPY2GHJERXL74KODFG5AEXKE Rick

  I like this idea too. Test Quimby while we are on the subject! She is probably cultivating pot on her billion acres!

• Anonymous

  And just to get the attention this issue deserves I’m going to flag myself! Apparently that may require me to say something really obnoxious and dumb, something in the style we might expect from those cowardly anonymous teabugger fux! 

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_77PPY2GHJERXL74KODFG5AEXKE Rick

  Well maybe more pot heads should be president. At least there was a decrease in debt during his stay. How’s Obama doing anyhoo?

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  Absolutely.  Also, do you want a drugged up pilot on your next flight?

• Anonymous

  The title of that story is the best thing I have ever read in my life. I so hope he pushes this issue.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  I understand what your trying to say about the us merchant fleet, but it is not true, there are still many us flagged vessels.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  It would not help cut down on corporate crime, but I have not problem with them being tested.  Not sure where you get ‘corporate’ from government.

• Anonymous

  This is not Florida.

  How does Occupy A Job sound, I am thinking of starting a new protest?

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  His interpretation is more sound than yours.

• Alykins

  For once, we are in agreement with LePage!

• Anonymous

  LePage knows how to appeal to the working man! Why should I be drug tested at work while welfare recipients can sit home and get high on my tax dollars?!?!

  I’m not saying that this is all welfare “earners” but without testing what’s stopping them?

• Anonymous

  Waste millions on testing,workin people getting Paid to do a job..or millions on druggies doing nothing…let me think about that one…be interesting to know how many of the losers in the news latelyon bath salts,breakins,etc…are on welfare or ssi ?

• Anonymous

  Nothing could be worse for a child than to be raised by a hard core drug addict.  If a drug addict parent can not provide for for their children enough to keep them from starving, then the children should  be removed from the home.

• Anonymous

  What?

• Anonymous

  No, it targets drug addicts. It tests welfare reciepients.

• Anonymous

  Oooh, I’m scared. Children of hard core drug addicts should be removed from the home. No welfare for drug addicts. No. I know that is a difficult word for some to use, but try it sometime. No. No. No.

• Anonymous

  Where in the Constitution is the right to welfare?

• Anonymous

  Oooh, an uber liberal judge in Florida interprets a law saying that, I guess we have a constititional right to be stoned and get welfare. I’m scared. Medical marijuana is the real rediculous concept here. And, think about it for a second. Do you think that only 1 % of current welfare reciepients use illegal drugs? If so, they must be the most sober group around.

• Anonymous

  Riveting satire. How long did it take you to compose such artful prose?

• Anonymous

  I am with you. I dont know why everyone is getting so upset by this. I guess they think it is more important for a few peoples rights (even though its not a right for them to collect welfare) than it is to clean up this crappy (edited version) society we live in. Seriously, everyone knows that there is a large amount of people in that system using drugs. I also know there is some that dont, but why not weed out the ones that abuse the system, cost us money, and prohibit some of the other people that actually need help but cant get it because they are sucking up all the money. The people that are not using drugs have nothing to hide, will not get in trouble, and will not lose their benefits. Those people dont lose out, they actually gain because it frees up a bogged system that is their to actually help them. I always have a really hard time trying to figure out who these people are that think they are protecting the rights of everyone else. I dont know if they think life isnt fair or what. Ill tell you what isnt fair: all the people I see drinking that live in the section 8 housing on Ohio Street, with their two year olds walking around in diapers all dirty, all of which is happening at 2 in the afternoon while Im on my way to work for a few bucks above minimal wage. And dont say it doesnt happen, because over the last 6 months, Ive seen it several times, and its usually the same people there 5 days a week. Its a completely flawed system that has needed change for a long time. Thats is why and how so many people abuse it. I am completely shocked that anyone would be opposed that this. You need to stop acting like you have everyone else’s best interest in mind.

• Anonymous

  I have yet to meet a person who worked their butt off and held your opinion. Usually, they are marginally capable of remembering to use the bathroom and wash their hands, can’t balance a checkbook, raise their children to not be bullies or bother to vote.

• Anonymous

  None of the services you mention besides welfare provides money to drug addicts to by more drugs like welfare payments do, every day to drug addicts in Maine.

• Anonymous

  two if you use both hands

• Anonymous

  About the same time it took for your snarky comment.

• Anonymous

  Poll above running 73% in favor of testing. Anyone know where I can get a “I’m a member of the 73%” tee shirt?

• Anonymous

  There is this concept of moral hazard. That it is wrong to reward bad behavior even if by doing so some other worthwhile purpose is achieved. Liberals were very concerned about moral hazard when it came to big financial institution bailouts, but no so much on this topic, I see.  

• Anonymous

  Another cheap shot. Says more about him…..

• Anonymous

  Yes, I am.

• Anonymous

  I’m interested in arguments.  Why is testing justified. Why might it be unethical.

• Anonymous

  I favor the proposal, and I voted. Most drug addicts, whom I presume are against it are too stoned on Friday night to vote.

• Anonymous

  The US has more people incarcerated, percentage-wise, than any other country. Over 1%, last I checked.

• Anonymous

  Nice metaphor.

• Anonymous

  Totally off topic, but a nice ad hominim attack on the Governor. Brilliant wit.

• Anonymous

  You claim, without evidence or reason.  And your authority, as an anonymous opinion-spewer, is a big zilch.

• Anonymous

  You claim, without evidence or reason.  And your authority, as an anonymous opinion-spewer, is a big zilch. 

• Anonymous

  I agree with you and disagree with you. It is not that black and white. Many people do not have the opportunities that some of us have. Some have developmental disabilities, some children and no transportation or some have no skills, some have tried and can not handle a job In additon to that alot are plain old free loaders working under the table and somehow think they are falling through the cracks if they don’t get benefits that they truly do not deserve. Let’s create tons of jobs, all kinds where there are different skills needed (even low skilled workers). When they can walk down the block or drive 5 miles to a job that they are able to be hired at and able to keep that job then we can start the giant witch hunt. Until then the people on welfare do have to qualify for those benefits without violating their civils rights.

• Anonymous

  That’s a good analogy-breaker.  Seeking employment is also different than suffering due to lack of the basic necessities of decent life.

• Anonymous

  That’s a good analogy-breaker.  Seeking employment is also different than suffering due to lack of the basic necessities of decent life.

• Benjamin Freedman

  Has anyone actually tried to figure out the costs of drug testing vs. how much money would be saved by refusing beneifts to drug users?  The only numbers mentioned in the article are from Florida and got thrown out by a judge.  I’m not saying testing is better than not testing, but I think some actual data collection and research is appropriate before starting another potentially expensive governemnt program.  I’m all for bringing actual facts back into politics instead of governing by emotions and conjecture.

• Anonymous

  Clearly!  …

• Anonymous

  He is not for the working man/woman, he forgot where he came from.

• Anonymous

  The renter can not qualify for a free fridge. If the owner occupied building owner is low income that might be possible for the owners building because it effects that owners electric bill. Call liheap and get the complete story.

• Anonymous

  The phraseology, “by the people” is unfortunately a dangling participle. It does not answer the question, “Do you mean the people as individuals within their own sovereignty without regard to the collective we, or the people that constitute the Republic?” How these geniuses managed to never address this obvious screwup anywhere in any of their books, letters, or any other documents is summed up by the ambiguous Latin phrase E Pluribus Unum that appears on all of our paper money. The lack of a definitive answer to that question always leaves room for misunderstanding and interpretation. Now here’s the big secret! They did that on purpose.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  Now the true Liberals come out of the closet, thank you for showing your true colors.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  Exactly!  They even said they want there student loans forgiven, give me a break.  I paid back mine, they can pay back theres!  The only student loans I will pay for are my own children.

• Anonymous

  i think its a great idea. and something needs to be done about the child support system too. I wonder how much of that money goes to drugs. just sayin. Im all for paying child support but a check in the mail to just go and cash and do whatever you want with. think that should be regulated a little better as well in more ways than one .

• Anonymous

  I think Drug Testing SHOULD be a mandatory thing. If someone doesn’t get tested, then they just go and trade their foodstamp card or whatever for drugs anyway, so it’s not really getting used by that person to begin with. Besides, it would make people that’re actually able to get benefits back up to a more reasonable amount to live off of instead of the poor amount everyone has to deal with because there’s so many people that are on welfare that don’t really need it, or Lie to get it, or are just spending it all on drugs in the first place. 

• Anonymous

  His head is flat and his belly is round

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  ANY benefits related to a child that has been removed is lost when the child is taken away. This means Section 8, and SSI or SSDI for a child, foodstamps for the child, etc.  The ONLY things those people qualify for are what they would qualify for as a single person with no children, which really isn’t much.  They lose medical coverage as well as far as I know.  The children might still be covered, but through the guardian and not the parent.  All of this stuff already occurs when someone is an addict.  It really is so frustrating to read a lot of the comments here because most of them are assumptions and what they THINK these programs are like.  It’s nothing like what all the negative posts imply.  People on welfare have a hard enough time being able to just afford laundry soap and toilet paper, for crying out loud.  People on drugs don’t meet requirements and if a person doesn’t meet requirements they get sanctioned anyhow.  This random testing nonsense will NOT save a red cent that wouldn’t already be saved through existing methods.  It will only COST money.  What have all the witch hunts produced to this point other than wasted cash?  Nothing.

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  When a child’s parents is so addicted to drugs that they use welfare money to buy drugs instead of to provide for their kids then that is severe neglect because the amount of money a person gets in TANF is less than my monthly utility bills.

• Nicholas Weeks

  As a society, we have an overriding interest in the public’s health, safety, and welfare.  Wouldn’t you say then, that we were interested in keeping the public in need of assistance off of potentially life threatening substances?  When in financial hardship, and at a lower socio-economic status, its very common to reach out to undesirable people for help, or to  fall into depression, which makes you much more likely to engage in activities such as legal (prescription, alcohol, tobacco) and illegal drugs.  In Presque Isle, its very common to see people in certain parts of the community on welfare, who are also commonly known as on drugs (Such as low cost housing, and other areas) where most of the drug related arrests are made.  I feel that asking these people to receive tests, and assistance if testing positive for drugs, after they are in need of state assistance, could be the step they need forward to receive help, and counseling needed to get off of their problems, and make themselves more hire-able in the future, as well as helping to correct depression, and poverty as a whole.  If people need to ask for money, or borrow money from someone or an organization, I don’t believe that asking them not to spend the money meant for help on substances that can further depression and makes them undesirable for employment is too much to ask.  I feel that there is a large difference between violating human rights, and asking for cooperation to an at-risk demographic.     

• Nicholas Weeks

  You sound like a broken record Mary, I don’t think anybody has disagreed with your suggestion that law makers and politicians should also be drug tested.  I wouldn’t mind them taking monthly drug tests, weekly I think would be slightly costly and unnecessary however.  Please don’t let how upset you are over this article make you out to seem uneducated and silly.  

• Nicholas Weeks

  I don’t think it is too much to ask when people who are not creating any income for themselves take these tests, (And don’t have to pay for them) so that we may make sure money being given to them in order to help, is not further defeating any chance they have at gaining employment, or getting better control of their lives.  I think that people that are unemployed, needing assistance should not be using tobacco, alcohol, or any kind of unnecessary drug, because these things are a luxury.  They are meant for people who have disposable income.  Common sense should say that if you are in need of assistance, you should not be spending money given in good faith on luxury items that can cause more health problems, as well as dependence, and make you unlikely to be hired into professional employment.  On the other side of the fence here, you could be saving lives of people in a low socio-economic status, who are caught in depression and addicted to substances.  I am sure most people receiving assistance will test negative, but if this saves one life and does no harm to anybody taking the test, can you say its worth it? I can.  Also, just for my own edification, I was curious what your views are on both legalizing marijuana, and whether or not it is acceptable for people on welfare to be spending money on health-deteriorating luxuries such as alcohol, cigarettes, and illegal drugs?

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NQQ57LHQR4BYFHB3S6GP6JOE6U mainegurl

  they should be tested  also u should not be allowed to get pregnant while on welfare alot of people get prego just to stay on the system, if u r on welfare then u should have no right cuz it’s other people’s money they r spending plus the state should controll how the money (welfare) is spent (like tanf ) i seen a lady with 7 kids and they r all hers she was useing an ebt card at hannaford these people r called baby chains.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZXHRLOBWLPWK3DC3LMG4TVURSM Bob

  This is one thing that i agree with. I get tested at least three times a year (work in nuclear plants) and they should be tested

• Anonymous

  A simpleton’s answer to an impossibly complex problem. 

• Anonymous

  TANF is money that is supported by tax payers dollars. TANF is money that you can ONLY receive if you have children. That money is suppose to be used to provide for your children. If you are buying drugs with your WELFARE MONEY, you are buying drugs with your CHILDREN’S MONEY. I am far more disgusted by the idea of a parent using their children to get money from the state, and their children’s money to buy their drugs, then I am by the idea of them using my tax dollars. Absolutely I believe that drug testing should be mandatory to collect TANF. I think it also needs to be random drug testing, that way they do not have time to prepare for their est. No one has the right to use their CHILDREN to collect money from the state, and definitely doesn’t have the right to use their CHILDREN’S money to pay for their drugs. How many children could we be potentially helping by doing this? Helping how, you might say? What kind of homes might they potentially be living in where the family is on a very very small fixed income from the state ($611 a month for a 4 person family), and the money that is suppose to be buying their diapers, is actually going in their parents arm? If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t be upset over submitting to a drug test.
   
  Dealing with the users isn’t the only problem out there. There is the drug dealers that make twice, three times the money some of us do working….and then still collect from the state because as far as the state is concerned they don’t have income? Why should they be able to collect welfare? Imagine all of the people who need it, that aren’t getting help, because of the useless people who ARE getting help, and tapping out the resources, forcing guidelines to be more strict because the money isn’t there.

  It continues to amaze me everyday the mass amount of people living off of welfare. Fully capable bodies that could and SHOULD be working. What makes those people any different then the rest of us who have to work for the roof over our head? Who have to work to support our own kids? (Granted there are plenty of people who aren’t abusing the system, who use it as intended, or who are disabled and working is not an option for them.) There are plenty who need to get off their lazy A**, pull on their big kid pants, grow up, and go to work like the rest of us have to. STOP BEING LAZY. STOP TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SYSTEM. STOP LIVING OFF OF YOUR CHILDREN! Stop being an embarrassment to yourself, to everyone who knows you, and to society. You aren’t entitled to free living, so get a friggen job! And, incase you weren’t told, having the right to have children does not mean you have the right to have children and use them for the money, then have more when the 5 year mark for that child on the TANF program comes and you need more TANF.

  It’s crazy how lazy people are.

• Anonymous

  Why should they have??? Let them get jobs and get off welfare if they want to drink, smoke and do drugs. I have to pay for my beer, why should I pay for theirs? They could be using the money for transportation to get to work, or clothes for their kids. You won’t win this argument.

• Anonymous

  explain

• Anonymous

  I would like to know where you get your facts. “most of them negative”…….did I miss something, have they already tested them? Its a lot cheaper to buy the drug tests than to keep on giving the money away. This will surely clean up the streets a little. It will most definitely turn to more crime as well though. The people will be “forced” to steal  and rob the elderly and sick to get their drugs.

• Anonymous

  Let’s drug test politicians. One positive test, and OUT they go!

• Anonymous

  Its about time!!! You need to be drug tested to work, you should be drug tested to sit at home and do nothing as long as you are collecting tax payers money.

• Anonymous

  I agree government officials should be drug tested, BUT at least they have jobs (if you want to call them that) Welfare is just a reason not to work. They should all be tested. If they have money to buy drugs, they have money to buy necessities.

• Anonymous

  So should everyone who receives state benefits for doing nothing be required to take a drug test? What about LIEpage’s daughter??? Or all the corporations that receive millions/billions in CORPORATE welfare in this country???

• Anonymous

  then let’s test elected officials….all of them.  

• Anonymous

  plus, the issue of choice;  you don’t have to work there if you don’t want to.  

• Anonymous

  like the governor?

• Anonymous

  As a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen, I think it is a waste of my money to do drug tests on  welfare recipients.  Who do you think is going to pay for these tests that range from $25 – $250 each?  I would rather spend that money on more effective welfare reform.

  I NEED to know that my granddaughter’s bus driver is drug free and subject to random drug testing. 

  I do not need to know that the person in front of me at the grocery store is drug free because they are on welfare.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SHNOU64ZBOBIKWUF5IM6WSH7WA entitled4life

  How will drug testing people that go to work everyday help reduce welfare in Maine?

• Anonymous

  chances are, they are self-loathers

  in other words, they are closer to the problem than they’d like to admit, so they overcompensate with this type of behavior.  

• Anonymous

  well, i think the accurate tests are way more expensive than that.  plus the cost to administer.

• Anonymous

  3 requisites for welfare recipients :

  Take drug test.
  Mandatory birth control. 
  Name the babies daddy.

  1 question:
  Who voted for Emily Cain ??
  Sheeesh !!

• Anonymous

  14th amendment, due process

• Anonymous
• Anonymous

  43% of the U.S. doesn’t pay taxes because they do not make enough money to pay taxes on. I am sure that if the government raised the minimum wage that they would be more than happy to pay taxes. WalMart and McDonald’s would scream bloody murder, but the rest of us would get a break for a change. Anyone that receives a government check should have to submit to random testing. Cops, politicians, teachers, retirees, etc.

• Anonymous

  I’m sick and tired of seeing the money I work so hard for given away to people who use it for drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. It’s not “search without cause” as stated above. It is a precautionary and preventative measure. The opposition that will arise to this is one of the reasons this country is in trouble…we’re far too easy on those who CHOOSE not to be contributing members of society.

• Anonymous

  I smoke im not proud  BUT i also work and pay for my ciggs. I know way to many ppl who receive benefits who drink and smoke BUT do not work. I am all for this idea

• Anonymous

  I think they work and most ppl on state benefits do not

• Anonymous

  This was a repeat of my previous post (below) because I couldn’t find the original among all the pages and thought it had disappeared… Very emotional topic!

• Anonymous

  I think they have the same rights to work and be productive BUT most do not, and i am sorry that most ppl ruin for it for the very few that do work even though they are recving benefits, thats just the way life is.

• Anonymous

  What happens when they flunk governor? Do you have a plan for that? Are the kids cut off from the “gravy train” too? Is the state willing to feed and house all of the kids that would be effected? Are you and the rest of the politicians in Augusta ready to lead by example, or is this more of the old ” do as I say, not as I do”? The wing nuts in Florida have tried this and spent millions already to no avail. Carl Hiessen offered to pay for the drug testing of all politicians in Florida and was politely declined. They are on the public dime too, are they not? How about cops? Teachers? Drug testing is an assumption of guilt and you have to pee in a cup to prove that you are innocent. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Orwell hit the nail on the head when he coined the term “big brother”. 

• Anonymous

  I would guess that a vast majority of people on welfare are disabled because of a medical condition or are elderly.  These people take drugs that are prescribed by their physician for their ailments I would presume?  Some are probably even on the Medical Marijuana Program.  If this is the case what drugs are they going to be tested for?

• Anonymous

  Yeah, and can anyone define TEMPORARY?  Because it seems like Welfare is a career for some.  I still adhere to the fact that paying for all the children you want ot have is NOT reasonable.  You do have the right to have children but try doing it like others….be able to afford it before you do it over and over and over.  I personally am tired of hearing about people having more kids to get more money.  Be thankful for FICA or you would have to get a job and work.  Thus meaning you would have to wear something other than pajama bottoms all day long.  There is not even any pride left in society as a whole. 

• Anonymous

  MaryBelle, next time you get on public transportation or a plane, think about that statement that NOBODY should be drug tested.  People often think what they ingest is not really drugs, just make them feel better. 

• Anonymous

  I hope you are not really from Fort Fairfield.  My relatives in the County are hard-working people and probably too tired to be reading the BDN on a Friday night.

• Anonymous

  I think they should get tested, if they have nothing to hide than they wont mind. I have not had insurance for years and cant get any assistance and Im in pain everyday, why let these people get  benefits from the state and abuse it? Im not saying all do, there are some  out there that need it and dont abuse it and than there are some I have seen  it with my own eyes,  selling their food stamps to get drugs, lying about who is living with them and getting that persons check from working every week plus their state help. Also the ones that go to the methadone clinic, getting paid for their mileage when they are car pooling. The ones that need help yes but the ones that go there and use it for an income while getting their drug and than doing other drugs besides that.. It just makes me feel bad for those that really need help and have to subject to drug testing because of the other morons out there.

• Anonymous

  Foreign flagged ships are not allowed to trade between two US ports due to the Jones Act.  To do so requires US flagged vessels. 

• Anonymous

  Absolutely I am aware of double hulled vessels.  Another requirement of OPA 90 (the resulting laws after Exxon Valdez).  I am also aware that the Valdez went so hard aground that the reef penetrated so far into the vessel that if it were double hulled it would not have made a difference.  I am very, very aware that human error is the largest cause of marine casualties.  I was trained to maintain high levels of situational awareness and recognition of error chains (because once one link in an error chain is broken, a casualty can then be avoided.)

• Anonymous

  Are you assuming all people who accept public assistance are sitting around getting wasted or that some may be and the only way to find out is to test them all? Since all of us use “free” services paid through everyone’s tax money in one way or other, thus saving our own private funds, wouldn’t it make sense to test everyone? Doesn’t the money we save individually thus become a public benefit? Should we be allowed to use that money in ways that might not be legal?
  The only way to know for sure would be to exercise random testing for all. It could be done in conjunction with traffic checks, thus no extra inconvenience to us hard working taxpaying patriots. If we’re clean, what have we got to worry about -right? What should the Constitution have to do with it, right? It’s all about the money. That’s what it’s all about isn’t it – the money?

• Anonymous

  Yes I did.  And it is well established that he got drunk after the vessel was aground (I said that in the post you are replying to).  His drunkeness did not contribute to the calamity – it was his choice to leave the bridge that was the beginning of the error chain that eventually played itself out.

• Anonymous

  Just google this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Merchant_Marine . In comparison with fleets from much smaller countries, our merchant fleet is tiny. Especially when you consider tug boats are included.

• Anonymous

  So from your response you think that we should be paying welfare people twice to feed their children? Then they can free up a few more bucks for cigarettes and booze?

• Anonymous

  Well I am willing to admit to you that you have a better understanding of the Constitution than me.  That is my choice.  I am quite sure there are topics that I could run circles around you on.  Would I rub your nose in it and tell you how uneducated you are?  Never.  Because unlike you I am not pompous.

• Anonymous

  I have already stated earlier, to Mary Belle I think, that I would be all for that concept.

• Anonymous

  Sir, you are blind.  Presume much?

• StillRelaxin

  I like how you parse your words, “Many.” How many drugged up politicians do YOU find acceptable? How heartless of you not to care about those who are hooked on legal drugs while passing laws to rule the land. Anyone who’s mind is not sound from drug abuse of any kind deserves to be helped and or steered away from positions of authority and responsibility over others. Such test are available so why not try helping EVERYONE instead of only trying to harm people who folks like you and Mr. LePage seem to have nothing but hate for? Expand your mind and love for all brother Confusius. Working together we can make this world a better place with minds free of drugs AND narrow minded self-centered hate.

• Anonymous

  I think most of the people in Maine are behind the Gov. on this one. We have all seen the abuse of the few that creates headaches for the many. Most folks on welfare are short-timers I think. However, as another post indicated some make it a living – they hand it down from generation to generation. If it is ‘unconstitutional’ then perhaps we need to review this. The Gov’s onto something here, I wish him well!

• Anonymous

  Naval architecture as well? Is there no end to your omniscience?

• Anonymous

  I think self righteousness is a drug of a sort. It must produce a high like no other. Otherwise, why would we see so much of it? It’s contagious, too!

• Anonymous

  Your reply to Confucious was derogatory and violates the spirit of this forum. You owe Confucious an apology.

• Anonymous

  They will not be testing for nicotine or alcohol, just  the ILLEGAL drugs.

• Anonymous

  Speaking of Welfare….they really should limit what people can buy with there EBT cards…It is frustrating as an employed mother who doesn’t get assistance to go grocery shopping and can barely afford to buy HEALTHY food for my kids… but yet I see people putting there cigarette’s out at the door to go in and buy Lobster, Energy Drinks,  Filet Mignon and JUNK FOOD with there EBT card….why does the state allow that!!!!! It should be more set up like WIC so the food is actually nourishing and beneficial for the family to eat! Meanwhile I will keep working and cutting my coupons!

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  Sorry, but the services you speak of are not ‘free’ if it is our tax money.

• StillRelaxin

  Of course Mr. LePage’s proposed test isn’t for alchohol or any other legalized drugs. Do you think a politician amped up on whiskey and prescription drugs is going to suggest passing legislation that will result in exposing THEIR drug addictions?

  Come on Confucius start using that noggin for something other than a one sided voice for conservative hate speech. Life is more than ranting about how much one despises others. Such may have gotten Mr. LePage elected (Once) by a minority but it serves only in making “individuals” like you seem detached from the caring element that makes humans superior to all other animals.  We all have a right to know who is on our payroll while abusing drugs of any kind.Test em all!  We need clear thinking both outside and inside our government.  Why would anyone argue against that? Mr. LePage you’re first.

• Anonymous

  What’s next? Drug testing to get a driver’s license? Drug testing to vote? You should all read Orwell’s 1984 again. Big Brother has been watching for awhile. Testing for a check is a kneejerk reaction. The problem starts long before a person applies for a check. It all starts in the home with the parents. You can trace all of societies problems back to the home and the parents that failed their children. It’s very simple. And yes it is sad to say, but some people should never be parents. But how do we tackle that problem……I don’t know.

• Anonymous

  :)  good for you

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  My opinion is still there should be testing.  I am also all for testing government officials, I already get tested.  There are some that need help and want it, I am not here to babysit all the others that choose to abuse drugs and not work.  Yes, I know many of them.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  I would bet I am closer to being correct than your assumption, from the way you sound.

• Anonymous

  Opportunities are usually created by the personal choices people make in life.  A person on drugs cannot make the correct choice or decision to help himself so maybe we should consider drug testing as a way to get abusers the help they need.  The irony here is that I am drug tested routinely for my privelege to pay taxes to support those that don’t pay any.

• Anonymous

  ” assumption of guilt” ??
  Huhhhh ?
  How about assumption of you dont know what you are talking about ??

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  We are still able to make our own choices as adults.  Do not belittle the people that came from broken homes etc, and made it.  They chose how to live there life, as can most all other people.

• Anonymous

  Do you also believe, as I’m sorry to say a scary number of people already do, that if the police were to ask you to turn out your pockets it’s reasonable to comply? After all, “if they have nothing to hide then they won’t mind”? 

  That’s not the America I and perhaps eight generations of my forefathers going back to the American Revolution grew up in. 

  Perhaps you don’t believe in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights and what American fighting service personnel laid their lives on the line and died over.

  There’s no doubt that SOME people game the system, whether they’re pouring out bottled water purchased with assistance money so they can collect the miserable nickel a bottle, or whether they’re taking congressmen to dinner and helping them write self-serving legislation that makes all the rest of us a little bit poorer.

  So what. Criminality is exclusive to no class. It’s simply a matter of scale. The last two stanzas of Woody Guthrie’s great tribute to Pretty Boy Floyd go:

  Yes, as through this world I’ve wandered
  I’ve seen lots of funny men;
  Some will rob you with a six-gun,
  And some with a fountain pen.

  And as through your life you travel,
  Yes, as through your life you roam,
  You won’t never see an outlaw
  Drive a family from their home.

• Anonymous

  But, aren’t most crimes being committed by drugged out welfare recipients? I think this IS a public safety issue.

  I think it’s considered in the interest of the Public Health and Welfare to do so.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  Not the point, if they have a script, they will b ok

• Anonymous

  Ok. Does this testing include alcohol, tobacco? And what about those poor unfortunates who take medical marijuana for pain relief? What drugs specifically will they be testing for? Many people are hooked on opiate pain relivers, because BIG PHARMA and their Republican shills have allowed people to become hooked on analogs of the opium poppy. I think Lepage should focus on job creation and taxing the Rich, rather than spending poor people’s welfare checks on a far flung Florida trial balloon touted by the Governor of Florida. Doesn’t Lepage have a single thought or idea of his own?

• Anonymous

  they should also be nicotine and alcohol tested. why should I pay for these lowlifes to smoke, drink, and do drugs instead of working for a living? If you need assistance, I dont mind helping. But the other 90% should be given work to do to earn the benefits I pay for.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5TPYVBXDJHZJXIWFIZAXKOUSSE Sylvia

  about time!!  to get my JOB so I could EARN money I had to take a drug test…..

• Anonymous

  Nice retort! lol. Did it take long to come up with such a thought provoking comment? It is guilt until proven innocent, which is why it flunks on a constitutional level every time. You can stand shoulder to shoulder with our high school drop out governor on this if you choose, but most Mainers with blood flowing to both halves of their brain will balk on this one. 

• Anonymous

  If you can afford drugs, you can afford food.

• Anonymous

  Got some pretty heavy prejudices flying here.  But I guess Da Guv really *does* want to live in Florida.  Maybe he should move himself, rather than trying to drag the rest of the state along.  Easier all around.

• Anonymous

  Exactually what I was thinking, couldn’t have said it better.

• Anonymous

  If you want to drug test people who recieve taxpayer dollars, you have to include all the managment of the major corporations, banks, defense contractors, construction contractors etc.,etc. They recieve many more welfare dollars than the people who have to depend on assistance to live. And how about those obscene bonus checks they got after the big “bailout”? Most of the hourly employees of these corporations get tested already, but the people who handle the money, CEO’s, CFO’s, Accountants, presidents, VP’s on down should have to comply as well.

  This whole issue is nothing but a smoke screen to cover the inability of laplague and gang to provide the jobs they promised. They just keep attacking the workers and the people who are really struggling in this economy. Yet another bill that does nothing to produce jobs.

• Anonymous

  blah,blah,blah

• Anonymous

  “You give up your rights.”  Love it.  Suspend the Constitution so you can get your way.

• Anonymous

  right on ath20

• Anonymous

  However, I would like to state that the state shouldn’t be paying for their alcohol… and if you have children in this state and you get Cash on your EBT card, they use it for that purpose. Regulation, please!

• Anonymous

  ok, then, they also get the right to be drug tested as anyone else who works.  we are paying their bills, we have as much right to have them drug tested as our employers to us.

• Anonymous

  should be, but the entitlement crowd has us believing it is not.

• Anonymous

  and no one is ‘assuming’ that everyone on welfare is a fraud.  geez, stop saying that; it makes you look stupid

• Anonymous

  apparently thinks she is

• Anonymous

  OK. What about alcohol & tobacco. They are drugs too. It matters little that these two drugs are legal. They have been the cause of so much death and destruction. On the one hand you have Republicans screaming “less government intrusion”!! and then they come up with this lame-brained legislation, which is MORE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION. I think someone should sponsor a bill that would outlaw alcohol and tobacco in the State of Maine, I mean, to be fair.  

• Anonymous

  YES

• Anonymous

  Drug testing is a must!  It is for many, many people around the country.  Those receving assistance and are hard working upstanding people trying to get their feet on the ground should have nothing to worry about.  It is those who are not doing a thing to be independant are the ones that are outraged and worried.  I’ve seen this cylical way of life over and over again.  I have even had a young girl once say, “School is no big deal.  I will get a check in the mail just like my mom”  Sad but true.  I have to submit to random drug tests to get my pay check that I WORK for.  Why not ask those who are have money GIVEN to them to do the same.

• Anonymous

  And the elderly, shut ins, veterans

• Anonymous

  How is this discrimination against class? I work for my money and I have random drug testing.

• Anonymous

  I foresee if drug testing is required to recieve welfare, like with employment, they not only will not lose the welfare, the tax payer will have to pay for rehab if the welfare recipent can’t afford to. If someone loses their welfare, now it will cost twice as much to take care of all the homeless children. None of this reduces taxes.
  I think a lifetime limit on what one can recieve is a better choice and if you haven’t worked for 10 years first you don’t qualify for anything. I think if people are rewarded for not having kids, rather than rewarded for having them, that will greatly reduce taxes for all.
   Doctors, lawyers, police and politicans should be tested for drugs and alcohol and then maybe they won’t make such poor law and tax choices and medical errors.
   If LePage wants to enforce this then he needs to include cholostrol and junk food consumption as part of the testing and it does need to include people employed in the above mentioned professions that are supported by the tax payer. If he wants to exclude them then do away with it entirely as unconstitutional all together.

• Anonymous

  Finally..its about time…one way to save the state some cash!

• Anonymous

  Yes, they need to be drug tested. I’ve watched a welfare person whom just bought a box of doanuts ask for $10 back then buy a lottery ticket. Another, whom also had just bought junk food, gave the $10 she got back to her friend who bought a six pack of beer. I watched a third person pay for $17 worth of  junk food with a state card, then ordered 5 packs of cigarettes. When whe opened her purse I saw about 8 $20 bills in her pocket book.
  This system that was supposed to help those who really needed help has gone out of control. I don’t mind helping people that appreciate being helped. It is those that laugh in my face as their kids can’t wait to get to school to get their breakfast in the school cafeteria because they are hungry. That is a fact. I see it five times a day. Oh, I’m a school bus driver whom, as well as all drivers, has to submit for a drug test to keep my license. Welfare people should have the same test to keep their welfare or else loose it.

• Anonymous

  I think its a wonderful idea~I had to be randomly be tested and it did not bother me at all.  If you have nothing to hide..you have no problem taking the test.

• Anonymous

  I have no qualms about drug testing welfare recipients. If a person has a legitimate prescription for a prescribed drug then they should not be hesitant to take a test.

• Anonymous

  No he would not have failed…he smoked years before when he was in college.  3 mo. and your clear.

• Anonymous

  “Beggars can’t be choosers.” If it’s constitutional to drug test the taxpayer, then it’s constitutional to drug test the freeloader.  Judges that rule otherwise have an unconstitutional ax to grind. And frankly, I am ‘Taxed Enough Already.’

• Anonymous

  Yes, they need to be drug tested. I’ve watched a welfare person whom just bought a box of doanuts ask for $10 back then buy a lottery ticket. Another, whom also had just bought junk food, gave the $10 she got back to her friend who bought a six pack of beer. I watched a third person pay for $17 worth of  junk food with a state card, then ordered 5 packs of cigarettes. When whe opened her purse I saw about 8 $20 bills in her pocket book.
  This system that was supposed to help those who really needed help has gone out of control. I don’t mind helping people that appreciate being helped. It is those that laugh in my face as their kids can’t wait to get to school to get their breakfast in the school cafeteria because they are hungry. That is a fact. I see it five times a day. Oh, I’m a school bus driver whom, as well as all drivers, has to submit for a drug test to keep my license. Welfare people should have the same test to keep their welfare or else loose it.

• Anonymous

  SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Right~

• Anonymous

  dear voice,

  Blood flowing to brain……………
  How bout , how many people that work for a living and pay outrageous taxes
  see the testing as a good idea ??
  Not just how many Mainers support it.
  Ohio St. in Bangor and the projects in Lew/Aub are full of Mainers that would love nothing more that a continuation of the free ride system the dems have hooked them on.

  Talking about “smart”?
  High school dropouts??
  Obama , Harvard Grad etc. Law school star , etc.
  Cant stammer his way out of a wet paperbag , let alone understand how this country operates.
  So much for “smart”, smarty.

• Anonymous

  I cannot imagine that anyone would object provided the person has a legitimate prescription ordered by a doctor.  I object to children under a certain age to be determined being subjected to random drug testing. 

• Anonymous

  Its not a question of welfare recipients having the same rights as everyone else, its about those of us who work for a living, having to pay for the lifestyle of someone who spends the day taking illegal drugs when they should be out looking for a job.

• Anonymous

  The way I see it is if us working people have to submit to drug testing even before we get hired for a job (which in my opinion would be considered a “warrantless search”, to use Robyn Merrill’s words, as these possible employers don’t know us) and during our employment as well then people wanting to get welfare benefits should have to as well. They would be tested for ILLEGAL drugs like the rest of us. Before some one tries to say “the private sector doing drug tests is totally different”  you might want to remember that our troops are NOT part of the private sector and THEY GET TESTED on a regular basis. So why should those whom are not working but are receiving benefits be exempt from testing? I once received welfare and I would have had no problem being tested. Knowing that it meant the difference between us and our children being able to eat and have a roof over our heads or being homeless because we chose drugs over the health and safety of ourselves and our children. It’s a no brainer!!! Now, I know that not all people whom receive welfare do drugs etc, but one would be surprised to find out just how many people do.  I don’t know about the rest of you but I, for one, do not want my tax dollars paying for someone to support their drug habit.

• Anonymous

  How about the working poor in Maine? Should they have to surrender their constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure to get their LLIHEAP? Or food stamps? Do you and our drop out governor feel anointed enough to start picking and choosing. How much do you suppose it cost the tax payers of this state to subsidize WalMart and Marden’s employees that do not make enough to support themselves? Talk about welfare abuse. Should Ham Marden have to pee in a cup because he doesn’t pay his employees a living wage and they need tax payer help to survive? I am no fan of Obama. The man has never done an honest day’s work in his life. All politicians are like diapers, they are full of crap and need to be changed often.

• Anonymous

  I wonder if Mr. LePage has any connections to a drug testing company like Mr. Scott of Flordia does?
  My guess is that random testing will not pass the legal test of search without cause.  I am afraid the state will end up spending alot of money with the startup and then defending it in court and in the end it more than likely will not be allowed.
  Florida has wasted alot of money and it is still not settled, plus those that did get tested were found to be only somewhere in the 2% range that failed and another 2% refused to take the test for various reasons.  The Tampa newspaper did some math and came up with a total of 40-60000 dollar savings for a program that is expected to cost $178 million, I don’t know about anybody else but the dollars don’t add up to me.

• Anonymous

  Bill Clinton is a fasicst?

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YCJUDT3UAI3JZ4DHLWV7RTXTH4 Melinda

  And how exactly is this going to save our cash-strapped state any money?  When budgets and programs are being slashed, is this really what we want to spend money on?  For a governor who claims to be all about business, this is a lousy financial decision.

• Anonymous

  99 out of almost 700 comments showing?  The BDN must have a team of censors working around the clock.

• Anonymous

  If you’re living “on the state” with taxpayer funded assistance for food, heat, rent the very least you can do is pee in the cup when the man tells you to.  If you don’t like it then do like the rest of us and GET A JOB!  Otherwise just pee in the damn cup!

  Show of hands…. How many hard working taxpayers would like to know that the tax money they are required to pay the state is going towards people who are on welfare and have the means to buy drugs?

  If I have to give up part of my salary for you then you have to go pee-pee in the cup….Get it?

• http://www.facebook.com/antonio.giarratano Antonio Giarratano

  I think that the only people that have a problem with this are those that have something to hide.
  I need to be randomly tested for my work, how is this any different? I personally know many peopel on differnt levels of assistance that are also drug users, now, I know that I also know many that are not, but the point is, the ones that are should be tested because should out tax money and state revenues be buying these people their drugs?

  And if you feel that it is unconstitutional, then move. Last time I checked it didn’t say anything about the right to receive Welfare in the Constitution, therefore the agency that provides it has the liberty to impose what restrictions it feels is necessary to implement and further its use.

• Anonymous

  I agree that welfare fraud needs to be ferreted out and eliminated to the best of governments ability. What amazes me is that it’s not the welfare cheats who have taken the biggest chunk out of my retirement of late and my check for many years.
  It was and is the big corporations who don’t pay their fair share of taxes, the wealthy who don’t pay their fair share of taxes and the big fraud on Wall street that goes unpunished , and now wants to have no regulation. Why pick on welfare? Because they don’t have any money to buy the politicians! They are easy targets. I don’t want to pay for those who could be working if they could find jobs, but I hate having to make up for all the tax breaks given to corporations and to the wealthy, who only want more tax breaks!
  If everyone who receives any money from the government has to submit to a drug test , then I’m all for it. Those who get social security ,medicare,VA benefits, school loans , just to mention a few, need to be tested. Anyone who gets  a government grant/ loan should be tested.There would be a lot of people getting tested and guess who would foot that bill? The middle class , because , heaven forbid we ask the wealthy to kick in their fair share.!

• http://www.facebook.com/antonio.giarratano Antonio Giarratano

  You have to go to the bottom and Load more Comments. It only loads the initial 99, then it archives the rest until you select to view them. It has nothing to do with censors, it has to do with how many kilobytes the page is and how long you want to wait for it to load.

• Anonymous

  In my opinion. Reasons

  Third Way
  NAFTA
  3 strikes and you are out, giving the US the dubious distinction of the highest prison population in the world.
  Welfare Reform..took away a pittance for poor people while giving corporations megabucks
  Allowing news organizations to merge so that only a few corporations own them all

  Notice bill is seen with bush the elder all the time? They have the same ideas for america. The 1% rule, the rest are serfs.

• http://www.facebook.com/antonio.giarratano Antonio Giarratano

  You cannot drug test a minor, unless it is by court order or with parental consent.

• Regular Joe

  I am not a drug user but I think this is foolish and will cost the state more money than it’s trying to save.

  Accusing those who disagree with being a criminal is an old trick, but one we can see through.  Like saying that if someone has an issue with surveillance cameras, then one must be hiding something.

  Stop and listen to the concerns before you accuse and condemn.

• Anonymous

  go get them guvnah,sounds like a good idea,why should working people pay for their drug addiction!     I bet a lot of people who live in public housing like kenedy park in portland are shaking in their boots just wondering if they will have to pee in a cup!  about time we here some good news!!!!

• Anonymous

  HELL  YES

• Anonymous

  Just my 2 cents….If you receive welfare, I don’t think you should do drugs, smoke, or drink. if you can afford to do the above mentioned, you really don’t need welfare. It really bothers me to see people that get state help smoke like chimneys and drink alcohol when they should be using the money spent on those items to help better themselves and pay their bills. I am NOT against helping people that truely need help, just those who abuse the system.

• Anonymous

  At its surface, I agree with this idea. We need to accept that this will increase expenses for Maine overall though. In other states where such policies were started, they were abandoned because the cost of drug testing outweighed any savings gained by kicking people off welfare.

  But if Maine has the money to spare, let’s do it! I don’t want my tax dollars going to someone who spends it on drugs.

• Anonymous

  AMEN !!

• Anonymous

  It won’t save money, it will cost us money. It will cost us more to test than we save by reducing welfare recipients. But drug testing companies will get some lucritive state contracts, hopefully they will be Maine based companies!

• Anonymous

  Have always worked hard, I was brought up that way, always wash hands, would be glad to compare checkbooks for correctness and balance. Would also be glad to compare the ethics and manners of any of my children to yours or anyone elses, and already cast absentee ballot   what else have you got??

• Anonymous

  Why do we keep doing this? Trying to revisit failed ideas? 

  Do you know how expensive it is to drug test? Studies show that drug use rates do not change based on a person’s income. The cost of “catching” drug users severely outweighs the costs saved. 

  Further, it has already been found unconstitutional (violation of the 4th Amendment) to drug test welfare recipients. 

• Anonymous

  I see it on a daily bases…of course they are considered disabled because they claim to be acholics or druggies and they walk the streets all day long with their free cell phones and buying beef jerkie and non-substantial foods with their free food card….perhaps you should stop and look and pay attention

• Anonymous

  I receive welfare benefits (Food Stamps). I would gladly submit to random drug testing in order to keep getting benefits. In my opinion if people are in dire enough economic straights to have to apply for assistance there shouldn’t be enough discretionary income to spend on recreational drugs, narcotics or even alcohol. Then again, that’s simply one man’s opinion.

• Anonymous

  It’s not a feeling. It actually is unconstitutional. http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/2011-10-24-ACLUTanfOrder.pdf

  Unreasonable search and seizure. Drug tests constitute a search.

• Anonymous

  Maybe those who are against it, are too busy working and don’t have time tom spend all day insulting fellow humans who happen to be a in a bad place at this time of their lives. I diagree with this proposal, but don’t have all day to spend insulting other people.

• Anonymous

  Good to see that our wonderful Governor is right on top of the important issues…

• http://profiles.google.com/sdemetri Stephen Demetriou

  How about testing CEO’s, or the Board members of companies that apply for State contracts or tax subsidies, royalty deferments, State grants for alcohol addiction?

  Oh, that’s right, that’s their private business and we have no right to delve into that…

• http://profiles.google.com/sdemetri Stephen Demetriou

  Yeah, kick em out of their apartments or shelters, out of the jobs if they have one, let em sleep in the bushes and under bridges… a much better solution… Lock em up, put em in poor houses, make them dig around in the garbage for food… that’ll teach em…

• Anonymous

  As a taxpayer I certainly don’t mind helping out someone with your attitude. Good luck.

• Anonymous

  Ok while we’re “testing” everyone on welfare…..how about we test the legislature and governor while we’re at it…..they’re all public servants……test them all.   I bet it would be extremely interesting to see the results of those random tests.  

• Anonymous

  Hey, you forgot about sex! Surely you want to deny the indigent that indulgence as well. We all know they should be spending every available moment down on their knees in grateful prayer for how well life and our society has been treating them. Why, lots of time you and the rest of the shrill and sour people opining here have probably stuck your long noses over your neighbor’s shoulder in the shopping line and watched as — gasp! — they used their publicly funded benefits to purchase a box of condoms. 

• Anonymous

  In order to keep getting benefits would you submit to random full-cavity body searches? You do know, don’t you, that poor people collecting welfare benefits have been known to act as drug mules? 

  You do know, don’t you, more than a few of the many benighted people commenting at this site think that’s a great idea?

• Anonymous

  Agreed…. on that note since “we” pay their salaries perhaps they should be mowing our lawns and shoveling our snow.  I’d like to get my money’s worth if at all possible…

• Anonymous

  This is just the latest attempt by our blowhard governor to make himself look like he’s doing his job.
  He knows full well it won’t hold up in court, but not being one to pass up some press, he’s going to make it look like he’s actually doing something about a problem.  Those with  brains can see right through him.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YEGK23PV3UJRDYSZJKYUVCBPR4 Batsu

  I am all for it. If my taxpayer money is going to these people, I want it to go to people who need it and will spend it on supporting themselves and their families while looking for jobs, not using the money to buy munchies while they get high all day. I am also for putting a 2 or 3 year limit on welfare as well. I am tired of hearing stories of people moving to Maine just because it is one of the easiest state in which to get on welfare.

  And to those talking about constitutional rights:
  Welfare is not mentioned in the constitution. It is not a right to receive welfare. It is a government program, and they can set the rules for those who apply to the program. The program is voluntary. You DO have the right to choose to not participate in the program. So, in short, if you don’t like the rules imposed, don’t apply for welfare. That is your freedom of choice at work for you.

• pbmann

  They don’t pay Federal Income Tax but they still pay FICA/Medicare, State and Local Taxes, Sales and Property Taxes and Sin Taxes if they smoke or drink.  Stop listening to the rigth wing only , they have a ‘Protect the Rich’ agenda.

• Anonymous

  I think LePage and ALL Republicans should submit to drug testing.  They HAVE to be on something strange to be doing things like this… it seems that all the Republican controlled states are using the same play book… It’s SCARY!

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YEGK23PV3UJRDYSZJKYUVCBPR4 Batsu

  Umm…people should get drug tested because 1) drugs are illegal, at least the ones this article addresses 2) If you are going to get state aid, the state doesn’t want you to spend the money on illegal activities 3) If my taxes are going to welfare, I don’t want it spent on illegal drugs

• pbmann

  Wrong, simply wrong.  The working poor pays a higher percentage of their wages in taxes then do the rich and ultra rich, they just don’t have fancy lobbiests and paid mouthpeices working for them.

• Anonymous

  I think all politicians running for office should be drug tested and a lie detector from a questionnaire given to them all………….then I’ll think about testing public assistance recipients……….

• Anonymous

  Yes, and just bend over while “the man” shoves a latex-gloved hand up your arse. I despair for a real democracy in America reading what some of the natural-born slaves have to say about what is right. You’re not free men and women. You’re pathetic.

• Anonymous

  Welfare programs are meant to be a “hand up” not a “handout”  In my opinion they should induce as much hardship on the recipient as possible.  In turn the recipient would then be “motivated” to make a series of  decisions that would move them toward less dependency on the taxpayer.  If we continue to take a “hands-off’ approach to dealing with welfare recipients they have no motivation to better themselves. 

  Way to go Governor! Keep it coming!

• pbmann

  For some children the free meals they get during the day are the only decent meals they get.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YEGK23PV3UJRDYSZJKYUVCBPR4 Batsu

  I wouldn’t mind having them all drug tested, but it is not discrimination against class. It is a proposal for a  simple requirement of obtaining state aid. It is no different than requiring a photo ID to get a passport. If you do not have a photo ID, is it discrimination against non-photogenic people? No, you just get a photo ID. If there is a requirement against drugs, stop breaking the law and stop doing drugs.

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  Another reason this idea is stupid is because it would do NOTHING to stop people on welfare who are addicts from getting high.  This would only apply to ILLEGAL drugs.  The overwhelming majority of addicts in Maine are addicted to prescription medicine.  Those are NOT illegal drugs.  

  I’m very anti-drug and very conservative where drugs are concerned.  That being said…I’m even more anti-stupid, and this proposal is stupid because it will NOT do anything but waste A LOT of money.

• Anonymous

  The Government’s largess toward the Wall St. crowd was unforgiveable, and almost every elected politician was responsible, If every one of them are not replaced next year … We are responsible.

• Anonymous

  The peasants you’re addressing are unAmerican, craven and, frankly, terminally ignorant. You’re probably wasting your time, but then so am I. Still, we are sort of obliged to try. Thanks for trying.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YEGK23PV3UJRDYSZJKYUVCBPR4 Batsu

  ….I must have missed the part in the constitution where it talked about the right to sit and smoke all day long, luvGSD. You statement makes no sense. It is not about rights at all. The simple fact is that welfare is a government program, and the government can put whatever legal requirement on the program they want, just like obtaining a driver’s license. If you don’t follow the rules, you lose your license. Same thing with welfare. Neither is mentioned in the constitution, and have nothing to do with rights.

• Anonymous

  You worked with the ASPIRE program? I don’t think you did, or you would know how it is set up the same way as your “wonderful plan”, wouldn’t you? 

• TeaParty_aka_AmericanTaliban

  Are you also going to check to ensure the slum lords that rent to poor people have weatherized so well that their buildings hold the heat so that all rooms in their units actually maintain a 65 degree temperature when the thermostat is set to 65?

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YEGK23PV3UJRDYSZJKYUVCBPR4 Batsu

  Receiving welfare is a Wall Street privilege? At least make a coherent response. You just throw “Wall Street” or “Occupy” in a a response and think you have a snappy comeback…Come up with a solution instead of just complaining if you think it is wrong.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YEGK23PV3UJRDYSZJKYUVCBPR4 Batsu

  …I don’t recall the Constitution mentioning welfare in it at all…
  Welfare is a voluntary program. If you don’t want to follow the rules for it, do not apply. That is your freedom of choice right there.

• Anonymous

  You probably regard fj8760 as one of the noble poor, the folks who Bertolt Brecht observed in “The Three Penny Opera” were nonetheless “nobly underfed.” Well, that’s mighty white of you, boss.

• Anonymous

  Peter,

  Those are some pretty strong words.  I disagree  with what you have said. I believe that we are free men and women and I’m glad that I live in such a great country! 

  If you feel that our version of freedom is “pathetic’ then perhaps you should try a different country…. I hear those middle eastern countries are lovely this time of year.  

• Anonymous

  His post was not insulting, a poster just called me, personally, stupid because I
  have not aceceped his and yours apparently, opinion.

• Anonymous

  So stop taking it.

• Anonymous

  I lost my job 3 years ago.  I have since returned to school and am about to complete my degree.  I went to DHHS for help.  I was told that I could get help for my daughter (food stamps, mainecare) but I was not eligible unless I worked at least 20 per  week ( I was working 15 hrs/week) in addition to being a full time student.  I asked for clarification: So if I don’t work or go to school at all, the state will give me food and health insurance, but if I work part time and go to school full time, I am not eligible for help?  Yep – that’s how the system works.  Just to be clear, I have never before used these types of benefits.  I have always been employed and have paid taxes for many years. I’ve managed to pay my mortgage every month on time and cover my bills. Where is the incentive for people to do better?  No wonder people sit on their butts all day – sometimes all their lives.  Roxanne Quimby caught a lot of grief fro calling Maine a welfare state but, from my experience, if the shoe fits.

  So now  I am almost done with school.  I will (hopefully) sell my house and leave the state. 

• Anonymous

  The real problem is our Governor is just as ignorant.  Maine deserves better.

• Anonymous

  Much of the excess prison population is that we no longer have capital punishment.

• Anonymous

  She can’t.

• Anonymous

  Welfare is not a “right”, don’t want to be tested?  then get off your ar$se and go to work.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TIXR6KBCBDZJQJIFQCWWU47TN4 Yor

  Standing up for my rights has absolutely nothing to do with my character or with what kind of nurse I will be. I, like anyone else, am PASSIONATE about not letting my rights be violated. You however and your inability to understand that says a lot about yours. 

  I was no more hateful or vicious than any of you. Think about that….look at how many hateful comments regarding the welfare “scum and degenerates” there are that do not get deleted. And you think that is acceptable?!?  Since you so kindly had my comment removed, I will say it again! I am on TANF because my husband disappeared. I am in nursing school and I have a 4.0 grade point average and will graduate next summer…I took a drug test to get into nursing school and I had no problem with it because it was about patient safety.  BUT I WILL NOT BE DRUG TESTED JUST BECAUSE I AM A POOR, SINGLE MOTHER. 

• Anonymous

  As a 51 year old man who’s body is worn out from a lifetime of working on the water I would also submit to a full body cavity search. I have nothing to hide. I’ve been unable to work for 2 years due to constant pain and yes, I AM waiting to get approved for disability. I still find it wrong for people to receive Federal or State assistance while still having cash for drugs and alcohol.

• Anonymous

  If people are asking for something for nothing, they should be able to ask for it sober. The article was written in a negative slant. Is it possible the BDN is against anything our Governor is proposing?

• Anonymous

  Sounds like you are blind.

• Anonymous

  Another irrelevant post.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AO6B7CYXQUKSPZDD2MN3YGPKFI Kelly

  FINALLY! yes. drug test them. i don’t need to buy people’s food with my hard earned dollars while they buy drugs with theirs.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CO5KI7EP446IGXQ4NK3KM44AM4 Mike

  Wow that is great! If we enforce the the laws we have remove those  here that should be (they are welcome if they do it the right way) then that frees jobs up in all states then the ones that get free money won’t have to worry about the drug test and we the people wont have to fund the free drug centers and this would make the free med go down as well! Take charge of your own actions stop blaming others for your bad choices!

• Anonymous

  in Fla you have to pay for your own test and if you pass the test the state has to refund your money. 98% of those tested passed. that means 98% of the tests are being refunded at 25-45 bux apiece.

• Anonymous

  Not reintrepertion, modifing … Amendment.

  All that has been done on the subject of welfare is to reintrepert the Constitution.

• Anonymous

  How much will this cost the the state you will half to pay for all the people in a new deptpartment plus cost of test  ??

• Anonymous

  A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida’s new law that requires
  welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits on
  Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable
  searches and seizures.

  The ammendment in question was the 4th not the 14th.

• Regular Joe

  Oy. What about your taxpayer money that pays for state workers who MIGHT also use drugs? You want to test them, too?
  Do you even know how many people on state assistance use drugs?

  Hell, for that matter, I don’t think I want my taxpayer funded roads being abused by people who use drugs! Test all drivers! Oh, and I don’t want MY elections that MY taxpayer money funds being decided by drug users!!! TEST ALL VOTERS!!!
  Hell-drugs are BAD, mmmkay!! TEST EVERYONE!!!!!

• Anonymous

  Lets ramdom text  drivers of car , motorcycles ect  .

• Anonymous

  You think that program will run for free?

• Anonymous

  I’m astonished at how submissive you must be. Your many years on the water certainly didn’t toughen up your spine any. 

• Anonymous

  How about a compromise? Not all public assistance receiving citizens get drug tested. Just those who are not working? ‘Cause if they are working for public assitance wages they are paying taxes, right? Or are those wages so low they have no taxes taken out of their paycheck?And, what is next? All of those receiving public assistance will be branded so they cannot buy cigarettes, alcohol, enter Hollywood slots to spend the money they stole from the taxpayer? That is it! Let’s brand them! Tatoos are very popular and think of the jobs it would create.

• Anonymous

  people being tested for jobs are being tested by a private entity, not the government. furthermore tests administered to truck drivers, firemen, contractors and police, are done for safety concerns.

• Anonymous

  You do not speak for me.

• Anonymous

  voice,
  You make a number of valid points.
  We are probably closer to agreement on many issue than not.
  I differ on the handouts to lay abouts issue.

• Anonymous

  I’ll say!

• Anonymous

  I received this yesterday,

  DirigoToo
  wrote, in response to larryincamden:

  You’re wrong.
  It’s a human right to live with dignity, a human right. Not a constitutional
  right or your collective opinion. In fact I don’t care what you think. You’re
  an iddiot.

  Link to comment

  larryincamden
  wrote:

  Actually,
  receiving support from the government is not a right, it is a priviledge. ”

  Why can’t I find the post to respond?

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UKBKJX6FCFSXQ2ZE2WOGYHGOMU torrey

   I like Paul Lepage more and more everyday.  I’m a landlord with all section 8 tennants, so I see first hand the state and federal money being wasted on these people.  Lets weed out the ones that don’t need it or are abusing the system.  Keep up the good work Paul.

• Anonymous

  In response to your comment re: refrigerator program.  That was my point exactly – the renter may qualify if he or she is low income, but the refrigerator stays with the unit, NOT the renter.  Therefore, the LANDLORD benefits when/if the RENTER leaves the unit.

• Anonymous

  Well I know you pride yourself on being a “smarty pants.”  That is not what I said.  I said I worked with families that were in the ASPIRE program.  I was a mental health case manager with a private agency and that was not my experience with the program.  You seem to know so much more than the rest of us, so why is generational welfare such a huge issue here as people seem to think if this program is truly being run in this way?  It has made huge changes in other states. How a system is set up and how it is executed are two entirely different things.  My whole point was that changes could be made and if Maine looked around at how other states are doing things, there could be some positive changes made to put more people back to work.  You take from it only what you want and worry more about trying to upset or insult people than to actually make a point.

• Anonymous

  I am 100% behind the governor for having tests as a requirement for welfare or any benefits.  I would like to have any  legislature that vote against this bill or try to block it, be published.  I still beleive that the requirement for being a Maine resident for a year, should also be inacted.  Why should we, as Maine taxpayers, pay for drugs and have people move to Maine just to draw welfare.  We don’t need people like that  in Maine.

• Anonymous

  Sure, when drunky gov. Gives us a weekly alcohol test.
  I mean, I don’t think it’s wise to have a drunk cigarette smoker in the Blaine house.

• Anonymous

  Maine House Republicans passed a bill letting insurers charge up to 5 times higher premiums to older people than young, and cut limits on how far insurers can force people to travel to get the care they need.
   
  Republican controlled Maine legisature passed a bill stripping same day registration rights.
   
  And now Gov. LePage wants to strip welfare recipients’ rights against illegal search and seizure.
   
  I know what enemy I’m fighting , war veterans. Did you?
   
  XP

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UKBKJX6FCFSXQ2ZE2WOGYHGOMU torrey

   Emily Cane – can’t you see Maine is tired of you?  We listen to your bleeding heart nonsense on the radio and just shake our heads.  Get out of the way and let Paul get this state back on track.

• Anonymous

  Fortunately, what you call “our version of freedom” hasn’t quite arrived yet. Your suggestion kind of reminds me of those thankfully long-gone redbaiters of the ’50s and ’60s  inspired by Sen. Joseph McCarthy who used to catcall ”Why don’t you go back to Moscow where you came from” at anyone disinclined to see our nation turn into a fascist state. I and many generations of my tribe come from here and plan to stay. The culture of a place like Saudi Arabia or Yemen seems more up your alley.

• Anonymous

  I know your ilk does not seem to get this, but just because someone differs from you on this issue, does not mean they do drugs. But of course, that is all you’ve got. I had no problem being tested at place of employment, but that does not automatically mean I think one way or the other.  I know…..hard concept to grasp for someone who seems to think like you do.

• Anonymous

  Your posts are not irrelevant at all. Keep em coming!

• Anonymous

  It is his business, the government is giving his money away.

• Anonymous

  The PUBLIC health, safety, and welfare not an individual’s.

• Regular Joe

  Apparently you haven’t seen enough of her. Her name is spelled “CAIN.”

• Anonymous

  Get real.  If they have a drink on the week-end, they are buying it with money they earned.  Not spending money I have earned and is being given to them to take care of their children for basic needs, not vices,

• Anonymous

  I don;t believe that most of the people against this have anything to hide, at least on this subject, they are just liberals.

• Anonymous

  Of course not…but welfare fraud is running rampart.  I for one am sick and tired of supporting druggies.  The testing is no way near the cost of welfare programs.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JEEBL24CJFPKONGDGBVLUF44LU Violet

  I did not see husky266 call you names or spew out hate . . .I think that husky was just backing up his/her opinion.  You and SpruceDweller see hate and name calling all the time even where it does not exist (just posters who are disagreeing with you btw)  . . . sometimes IMO that you both use the above comments when your argument/position is weak. 

• Regular Joe

  So, really, just the mere fact that I pay taxes means that I have a say in every aspect of most everyone’s life because just about everyone’s life is affected by taxpayer’s money.
  DRUG TEST ALL VOTERS!!!!

• Regular Joe

  They money they earned is MY TAXPAYER MONEY!!!! TEST THEM ALL!!!!!

• Anonymous

  I am sure that you are right. We are probably on the same page more often than not. I do not like the lay abouts living off of my dime either. I just like to point out that the cost of the lay abouts is a drop in the bucket when compared to the expense of subsidizing corporations that refuse to pay a living wage. As dim as our governor is, he knows that the destitute are a much easier target than WalMart, McDonald’s, or Marden’s. The real abusers of the system, in my humble opinion.

• Anonymous

  NO ONE has nothing to hide, everyone has at least some skeleton in their closet.

  Most of us only have small skeletons but they still exist.

• Anonymous

  As a matter of fact it destroyed my spine if you must know.

• Regular Joe

  Do you really think that the bulk of the welfare fraud issue is caused by drug addicts on welfare?
  Do you have numbers showing how much the drug testing costs and how much drug addicts on welfare cost the state? Or are you just assuming based on the scare tactics the MHPC is using on you?

• Regular Joe

  *I* saw someone say that I and my kind are why Maine is in the terrible shape it’s in and that I disgust him. That’s sort of hateful. There is a lot of hate and anger here.

• Anonymous

  Gotta agree with DirigoToo. You’re playing the strawman, Larry, and deliberately, I suspect, playing dumb as you equate what DirigoTwo said about a “human right to live with dignity” with your “receiving support from the government”. You are, in fact, “an iddiot.”

• Anonymous

  Are you sure that you are conserned with increasing government power? That is the original point of the Tea Party.

• Anonymous

  Are you sure that you are conserned with increasing government power? That is the original point of the Tea Party.     

• Anonymous

  You are also not forced to apply for assistance. Their is no one holding a gun to the applicant’s head.

• Anonymous

  Another mis use of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Anonymous

  This is not a requirement for every maincare recipient. This is only a requirment for those who are on continued medication. (The new policy is if you are on painkillers for 90 days or more you are flagged as chronic opiate user, your dr has to have you submit to random counts and pee tests.) So, no is a totally inaccurate statement. I have several clients who have been on longer term scripts who have never pee’d, never had a count, and don’t have to sign narcotic contracts with their PA’s.

• Anonymous

  That ’s obvious. Sorry for you. Good luck with getting that disability. God knows you need it.

• Anonymous

  It always comes back to OUR governor.

• Anonymous

  I think if you do a little research, you’ll find other states have tried this (hint to make your search easier: Florida) and the cost of the program far outweighed any savings. If it worked, I’d love it. On the surface, it sounds great. In reality: Not worth it.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SCNJPPZDX7GEYELESV2YGQFLN4 Pat T. Riot

  Git’em!  Git’em! Git’em!  Get those _________________.  You fill in the blank.  Here are some possible choices, welfare recipients, union members, the unemployed, fraudulent voters, medicare recipients, illegal immigrants, gays, and others I can’t think of right now.  How the right wing loves to demonize some unpopular group and try to raise the mob to go after them with pitchforks and torches!

  Governor LePage is working from the ALEC script for America and turning Maine into Alabama North.  Great! 

  Drug-testing those who receive welfare has been held to be unconstitutional and probably will be again.  Anyone remember the Constitution?  The right wing loves to wave the Constitution around and tell everyone to stick to the Constitution.  Well, sometimes, anyway. 

• Anonymous

  Nope, as I have posted on this line before, the bailout of the Banks (including Fannie and Freddie), GM, unions, other businesses … is reprehensible. We need to get rid of every politician that voted for the outrages, possibly impeached for treason.

• Regular Joe

  I’m all for that but some in the TEA party are very keen on keeping the government involved in personal and social issues.

• Anonymous

  I think thay by State he/she is refering to state(government).

• Anonymous

  Social security is unconstitutanal, I collect SS but am disabled and paid into it for decades.

• Anonymous

  It’s good to know that at least one person in the world got their share of pomposity. Until you’ve lived my life, don’t judge me.

• Anonymous

  The Koch Brothers may have co opted the Tea Party Movement, I disagree but …

  The Tea Party has much agreement with the Occupy people but do not support Socialism/Communism.

• Anonymous

  BS if a law ias not ALLOWED by the Constitution then the Constitution has to be amended to allow it.

• Anonymous

  the random testing of us MM licensees and truck drivers is done because they represent a public safety issue.

• Anonymous

  Hey, you’re the one willing to bend over.

• Anonymous

  There is NO RIGHT to healthcare, if you want there to be amend the Constitution.

• Anonymous

  to avoiceinthe crowd.  I would like them to test for nicotine and alcohol as well as drugs.  I thought welfare was to help support their needs, not vices.

• Anonymous

  Which, in some cases, creates the need for more children.

  To claim that ”There are NOT any TANF recipients just sitting home and collecting anything” is at least as stupid as stating that everyone on TANF/welfare is stupid drug addled and lazy.

• Anonymous

  I’m guess if showing some empathy for the hard work that fj8760 has done for a lifetime and wanting to help him makes me deserving of your twisted comments, bring them on. 

• Regular Joe

  So, in effect, the state should own them while they’re on state aid. Sort of like a prison.

• Anonymous

  Some how I doubt that your 83 YO grandmother would test positive for illegal/recreational substances.

• Anonymous

  Please, I bet that most of the people posting against Federal welfare see the bailouts of wall st as wrong too.

• Anonymous

  Do you seriously think that what you are proposing is a good idea?

• Anonymous

  Thast, as usual, is crap. He/She is suggesting something, not writing legislation.

• Anonymous

  Where’s your empathy for all the poor people who don’t meet your high ethical standards? Perhaps a better question, where’s your empathy for their unfortunate children?

• Anonymous

  IF that is the case then they changed the rules because I was told by the agency that in order to get a refridgerator you have to own the home.

  So, if the refridgerator is in the tenants unit it is actually the landlords property not the tenant because they do not qualify for it. Call them and ask. In fact I am going to look around the internet to see what I can find on the subject.

• Anonymous

  Children have been left in abusive, dangerous, and worse situations, to “preserve the family”.

  They have even been left in homes where the “adults” are drug abusing/ sellers, prostitutes and involved with crime that could become violent.

  These cases are not common but do happen.

• Anonymous

  Yes, that poster only sees it when she wants to . Myopic…

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MLD4PUC2FDBZG3UWLM6KFTEBBM Mrs_O

  I was all for this until I read the problems that Florida is having after getting this bill passed. Very few are actually testing positive, and those that do test positive and are stripped of their welfare are contesting the decision.

   It is actually costing the state MORE money now than it did before this law was passed once you factor in: testing supplies, someone to oversee the testing, a lab to process the urinalysis, someone to read through the results – then if they fail: someone to explain for over an hour why they no longer have benefits, a court appointed attorney for their case, someone to argue the case of the benefits office (wash, rinse, and repeat – because it will be appealed if they don’t like the verdict.)

  Why are we even combating the problem this way? Wouldn’t it make sense to only give full welfare benefits to those truly incapable of working – not drug addicts, alcoholics or mental issues that can be controlled with medication – and instead of saying to a single parent “hey, we are going to give you food stamps, mainecare, TANF (sp?), and section 8 as long as you don’t make any money – BUT, if you get a job at McDonald’s making minimum wage, we are going to take it all away”, maybe we should be asking our government to ENCOURAGE people to work instead of making them dependent on our welfare system. 

• Anonymous

  Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lar. And for being so polite.

• Anonymous

  Your arguement is just an emotional rant, the children would not just be left out to die period.

  Please show where children are taken away from “parents” and left to starve.

• Anonymous

  The 9th Amendment says citizens have rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution.

• Anonymous

  So cashiers and tellers, that use illegal substances, are immune from being criminals?

• Anonymous

  Are you sure that  “We’d all love to get those that are gaming the system off of it”? I have my doubts.

  Do you also think that surprise inspections/investigations should be anounced first?

• Anonymous

  So when are their parents going to be held responsible for the feeding of their children. As a tax payer I don’t mind paying for the education of these children. I do however mind paying taxes that give the parents welfare and food stamps to feed their children. I see no reason to pay twice for the same thing.

• Anonymous

  I would bet that he would be happy to pee into a cup for you.

• Anonymous

  so his daughter should take the test as well … giving her the State House job was definitely welfare …

• Anonymous

  Do a Google search Penquis Refridgerator Program. It states that the people eligible for refridgerators are people that have had a energy audit for weatherization. The homeowner/landlord is the owner of any new appliances. A tenant many be using the landlord’s property. Bingo, landlord owns the refridgerator.

• Anonymous

  yeah i think your right. I pretty sure that the $50,000 worth of crack cocaine seized by the cops in Bangor last nite was going to be sold to the hardworking taxpaying citizens of our fine state.

• Anonymous

  How about testing everyone in Maine over 10 years old? I’ll do it gladly.

• Craig Fishburn

  This would effect the guy making 7 bucks an hour that has 4 kids and smokes a joint after work. So his food aid and subsidized rent should be taken away? If you made 250 bucks every two weeks you would prob. need some relief too!

• Anonymous

  The landlord is the low income person who must qualify for the program.

• Anonymous

  Yes, like 30 years ago!

• Anonymous

  Not all landlords are well to do.

• Anonymous

  That would probably be a good idea, but the Democrats would lose too many votes … never happen.

• Anonymous

  The state wouldn’t own them, it would just disperse money to them. Know where the money comes from?

• Anonymous

  GREAT move by our REPUBLICAN governor! Keep up the great work, Mr. Governor!

• Anonymous

  Thirty years ago I said that if the Federal Government does not fix the welfare system things would be far worse for the unfortunate when the end comes. We are nearing the final proof that Federal welfare and Keynsean ecconomics are going to destroy our government and then the poor will die from hunger and disease, or be killed by criminals.

  Where will the “dignity” be then?

• Anonymous

  So basically this disabled mother of 3 was considering a move to Maine and sent a letter to DHHS inquiring as to what programs were available for her and her family. Perhaps she has family here in Maine and was moving to be closer to them, who knows the reason for her move, its not stated in the letter. I should think it imperative that she know before moving.  But our illustrious Governor’s repsonse was to chide her, insult her, and pretty much tell her to get lost.

• Anonymous

  With the Obama Recession, there are fewer jobs.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TGPEJAVZQDGVWYX2F4YKMNO6HE Katie S

  It kind of sucks that everyone has to take  a mandatory drug test just because the few that do receive food stamps and/or TANF and choose to sell their food stamps for cash to buy their drugs or use their TANF cash to buy their drugs instead of putting their childrens welfare first. It’s those few that make it worse for those who NEED the help an are not addicts and take care of their children. It’s the same for social workers. They would rather investigate parents who love and care for their children rather than investigate the parents who lock their kids in basements, beat them, abuse them in any other way…..its all messed up. Do away with State government cause they sure as hell aren’t doing anything for us except violating our rights as americans. Federal laws trump state laws anytime.

• Anonymous

  The” unfortunate children” have no say in whether their parents do drugs or drink alcohol. Not saying it makes them bad parents, but it IS showing their children how to make bad life choices. Having had first hand experience in an alcoholic household I sometimes wonder if proper foster care wouldn’t have been a more healthy environment.

• Anonymous

  if the police were to ask you to turn out your pockets it’s reasonable
  to comply? After all, “if they have nothing to hide then they won’t
  mind”? …..

  if they dont the cop will just detain them while a dog is called in to sniff for probable cause.

• Anonymous

  This is a wonderful example of the point of this story in a round about way for those of us who are looking at this as a moral thing and not oh poor state beneficiaries. Today I watched two grown men and a woman with a child in a stroller go into the smoke shop buy their nicotine then go into the dollar store which is where I was going. While in there i could hear them talk about how the shirt the woman picked up for the child was 8 dollars and how that was to expensive. This just proves to me that most people on the state are dead beats and before you want to assume im making judgement about how would I know these people are on the state THEY WERE BUYING FROZEN FOOD FROM THE FRIDGE WITH AN EBT CARD. If they cant spend 8 dollars on their child but can spend more then that on a habit when chances are NONE of them are working class citizens that is SAD :( i feel bad for these children especially the ones i see walking in the cold weather because their parents cant afford a car but are smoking a ciggarette walking up the street with them. I do not have a problem helping ppl who trying and just cant get by but i dont appreciate the ones who abuse the benefits there is nothing wrong with needing help at one point or another we have all need a helping hand.I dont think drug testing is a bad thing if they are doing nothing wrong then it shouldnt be a big deal to them either.

• Anonymous

  My company is subject to drug testing at any time.  When this takes place we pay for the test.  So yes I know what the drugs cost. Its $75.  Now..think about all the programs our tax money pays for.  How can you even think of the comparison ?

• Anonymous

  Excellent point.

• Anonymous

  I, possibly incorectly, assune that by “keeping the government involved in personal and social issues.” you are refering to to attempts to scale back social expenditures and enforcing laws?

• Anonymous

  I think public officials, including police, legislators, department employees and gubernatorial candidates should submit to random drug testing throughout their employment

• Anonymous

  I thought he wanted to reduce the cost of government? This would cost Maine far, far more money on drug testing than it would save on welfare.

• Anonymous

  I guess that the word “rights” needs to be defined.

  Do you really believe that ANYONE in the late 1700″s thought that anyone had the right to what you have earned? No, they would have been outraged by the very by the very thought. They had just fought a war to free themselves from a King that thouhgt he had the right to take what was their;s from them.

  Acording to the Declaration of Independance “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” this means that rights are given to us by our creator, not the permission of any human. NO one has to pay for a right nor can they be bought.

• Anonymous

  Any one who disagrees with this is OBVIOUSLY on drugs and welfare…..I cant get a job without a clean drug test so why should they get free money without a drug test?

• Anonymous

  I would hope that fiscally conservative Republicans would vote against a measure that will increase the cost of government.

  Yes, I too would love to require welfare recipients be drug free. But I don’t want to pay for it when it wouldn’t save as much money as it cost!

• Anonymous

  So you would rather spend more of your hard earned dollars drug testing these people? Because this has always cost states more in testing than it saves on welfare.

• Anonymous

  After reading all these posted comments here…   sounds like the one’s protesting the drug test…  are perhaps the one’s who will fail… if TESTED….  so for your protest… of people having to take drug tests…  why don’t you donate an extra 100 dollars per month from your pocket…. to the welfare system, to help support our friends that need assistance… perhaps my taxes will come down a bit…  AND YES…  I AM DRUG TESTED RANDOMLY… Does it hurt….  not that I recall…..
  People don’t like change…  and this is one solution to getting the lifetime’s off the couch, out of the recliners and perhaps productive citizens again….   Just Sayin….   

• Anonymous

  I think LePage should be drug tested first. He has erratic behavior and is also on the State Dole.

• Anonymous

   That is precisely ‘the problem’ – not just part of it.

  If something is Consitutional for one group it also Constitutional for others
  and vice versa…

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GBHAWY2DGMGS5W3VHFYLBPN7AU Jay C

  and where is the money going to come from to pay for these tests?   So much for the fiscal conservative….

• Anonymous

  You mistake general alarm and irritation with pomposity.

  Look up the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution ie due process and what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy. People who display public drunkeness have no reasonable expectation of privacy. What is being tossed around, quite casually, here is testing all recipients of public assistance for drugs on mere suspicion. That is illegal.

  My ancestors came over on the Mayflower with practically nothing. Some governed in the early days at Plymouth and others fought, and even died in the wars that followed. These basic premises of democracy are rooted in my personal family history.  I don’t think I’m better than anyone else because of my heritage. I’m certainly not rich.  I simply have a deep and abiding understanding and appreciation of what makes our country great and am unwilling to see it cast aside as a matter of convenience for people who don’t want to even try and protect what they started at great personal hardship and sacrifice to themselves.

  I stand up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as set forth and I encourage others to as well.

• Anonymous

  If you are living off the taxpayers, then we should be able to be confident that the money you are receiving is not being spent on drugs.

• Anonymous

  I am quite sure you are pompous and your reply does not convince me otherwise.  Best wishes to you.

• Anonymous

  Your insults as to my level of education when in fact you have no idea what I have been educated in as well as no idea of anything else about me forms the basis of my opinions of you.  Where your ancestors hailed from and what they did changes nothing for me.  The last sentence of your most recent post is an example of a non-pompous way of saying what you mean.  So at least I know you have it in you.

• Anonymous

  “It comes down to the fact that a drug test is a warrantless search,”
  “There needs to be reasonable suspicion.”
  Forcing people who need help in to a warrantless search will just set a precedent for more warrantless searches.

• Anonymous

  and your idea was…………………..

• Anonymous

  “… Robyn Merrill with Maine Equal Justice Partners said she doesn’t
  think LePage’s proposal would make it through the Legislature, but if it
  does, she predicted a legal challenge here, too.

  “It comes down to the fact that a drug test is a warrant-less search,” she said. “There needs to be reasonable suspicion.”…

  Welfare reform has been one of LePage’s top priorities, dating back to when he was a gubernatorial candidate, but the drug testing requirement is his most controversial idea to date…”

   —

  The two position statements are not coextensive. One applies to eligibility with a reasonable expectation of privacy. The other applies to alleged criminal offenses where due process is being applied after an arrest.

  Furthermore, this is not ‘LePage’s idea’.

  Florida governor, Rick Scott, has already instituted illegal testing there and the numbers, as a side note, are less than compelling for positive drug tests.  His wife operates the lab and is on the receiving end of lucrative, albeit unconstitutional, payments for blood tests of citizen welfare recipients in Florida.

  Nowhere is it accepted that simply by virtue of being on public assistance translates, automatically, to potential criminal activity where presumption of innocence is still the gold standard.

  That would be the basis for the legal challenge, as it should be and not what she stated.

• Anonymous

  What you fail to recognize is that rights versus privileges is not even the question. One does not forfeit the individual right to privacy simply by applying for public assistance. That’s what is being argued, here…

  There isn’t one set of rules for one group and another for all the rest ie equal justice under law.

• Anonymous

  As a fiscal conservative, I want our state government to spend less tax dollars.

  Drug testing everyone on welfare would cost more than we would save kicking out the druggies. That’s what happens every time this is tried.

  If you think drug testing welfare recipients will help get them off the couch, that’s one thing– but don’t argue the cost of welfare as a reason to test, because this will cost us more.

• Anonymous

  What about the democrat lawmakers who forced banks to make loans to deadbeats because of misplaced compassion aka “white guilt” over the fact that they happened to be minorities? While drug testing them is probably a waste of time, I do believe anyone dumb enough to VOTE for them should be tested. Weekly.

• Anonymous

  I think its a vindictive attempt to place lawmakers who belong to a party you dont understand or agree with in the same class as bath salt addicted welfare layabouts. Kinda like how you racists tear down any woman or minority who dares call themselves conservative.

• Anonymous

  No, what is being discusssed here is Rights vs Priviledges.. Government support is not a right it is a priviledge that is granted, therefore subject to rules set by the granting authority.

  The rules for receiving government support is the same for everyone.

  Unless you are willing to say that our “voluntary” tax system is unconstitutional, there is no right to privacy. If one is wrong every other example must be wrong.

• Anonymous

  Really?  I never said welfare was a right.  I don’t mind being tested.  I was tested when I worked as a US Merchant Marine Officer and will be tested again when I start shipping out again.  In the meantime I am working, however it is a job that doesn’t test me.  You are barking up the wrong tree!

• Anonymous

  So you are OK with knowing that some of your tax dollars are going to support the illegal activities of that person in front of you in the grocery store?  I’m not…

• Anonymous

  Hey Lynne, some of us that support this type of testing care very much about kids.  If the people that potentially were subjected to testing cared as well, they wouldn’t put themselves in situations that might result in loosing the children.  Also, all that support such testing are not “lugs”.  You get quite upset when people stereotype you and your “ilk” (to use a word that you frequently do) but you seem to have no problem doing the same.

• Regular Joe

  Good grief. The ridiculousness of all this is just insane. Meanwhile, my inbox has 575 messages from this thread alone of all this bickering!
  WWJD, I wonder.

• Anonymous

  Apply the same standard of review with respect to insurance companies, as well. They employ thousands of ‘claim specialists’, at great expense, to review and then deny their own paying customers, ie ‘Insureds’, coverage for legitimate medical tests, procedures, and doctor proposed hospital stays…

• http://twitter.com/Shreknangst Bill Schreck

  - This is an example of another attempt to waste money and GOP-mentality budget destruction.  Count those who receive welfare.  Focus on 13 and older — since kids that young have been known to do drugs — or don’t we care about them and wish them healthy?
  - OK it’s about finding ways to waste money and hurt people while doing it.
  - So we focus on the parent(s) and so deprive children of benefits because one parent is a jerk and fails a test.
  - If you want drug testing, require regular medical exams covered by Medicare & Medicaid & include the tests as part of the required physical.  Court could challenge wanting to catch illness early and make sure people can work, … or just a healthy life.
  - LePage says, “Maine’s generosity encourages residents of other states to migrate here.”  I say: GREAT!  That means more families and a larger workforce to help expand Maine’s future… a workforce which can attract business and build our long-term future regardless of the minor short-term costs.- the key here is “9.6 percent of TANF applications” will be denied and therefore thousand of children will starve.  Hey – LePage is on record as wanting to KILL poor children.  Gotta Love it.

• Shiretowner

  I definitely think it’s a wise choice for the taxpayers to pay for the “underprivileged” to have state assistance in whichever form funded by taxpayers. Talk about a double whammy. Again, I would love to have more say over my tax payer dollar. LePage really has some disconcerting ideas over justifiable legislation – Florida as an example to follow is terrible for Maine state. 

• Shiretowner

  I protest the drug testing and I haven’t  been on state assistance in 15 years. I find random drug screening pretty intrusive on a good day, doing it ‘randomly’ to keep benefits is asinine. Instead, spend that money on educating those who receive benefits on budgeting, buying/preparing healthier meal choices within the budget.. Call me a whackadoodle. Get them invested in a better life through actual high school education/GED, trade skill experience/vocational schools.. Give them hope rather than more garbage.

• Anonymous

  I see now that I am able to view it full-screen.  Thanks!

• Anonymous

  Yes.  It’s very upsetting that a legitimate request for information would be derided in this way.  It confirms what I’ve thought of this administration from the get go.

• Anonymous

  First, the comment I responded to said “cocaine,” not “crack cocaine.” There is a difference concerning cost. Also, do you know the facts of this case regarding welfare recipients?

• Anonymous

  That’s an answer to a question I didn’t ask.

• Anonymous

  I’m with ya on that STG!

• Anonymous

  Interesting that the pro-drug testing people on here, who largely are in the “no government health care” crowd, are now advocating for medical testing by the government.

• Anonymous

  Batsu, recall harder. The 29th word of the Preamble is WELFARE.

• Anonymous

  This proposed drug testing, which mostly benefits the pharmaceutical companies who profit from the drug hysteria they proliferate, assumes suspicion without cause, which is unAmerican. Many of you need to read 1984 again.

• Anonymous

  Florida passed such a law that took effect in January 2011.  A court has now stopped the testing, and it is probably going to be found unconstitutional.  In the interim, 1.2% of applicants tested positive, less than the rate of drug use in the general population.  It has cost the state more than it has saved.  The move by the governor is pure political theatre, hypocrisy at its worst.

• Anonymous

  So your solution is to give them a municipal job and pay them with welfare?     
  ************************************************
  unions won’t stand for that!

• Anonymous

  P_Dizzle, Pretty weak

• Anonymous

  I could give you many examples that I have seen personally  where people get a refund under earned income credit that is double or triple what they paid in

• Anonymous

  people being tested for jobs are being tested by a private entity, not the government. furthermore tests administered to truck drivers, firemen, contractors and police, are done for safety concerns.     
  *********************************************************
  actually, the tests you just referred to ARE administered by the government…they are government jobs, with the exception of contractors.  In the case of truck drivers, they have a government issued CDL, so the license issuing agency (government) tests them.

• Anonymous

  I think your right ;0)

• Anonymous

  I thought we’re fighting two wars for oil…..?

• Anonymous

  OK..  perhaps testing all may cost us more… true in the long run….  but a random test  2-3 times per year may keep some clean…  and the one’s that fail…   less tax dollars….   If they DO need the check for assistance… than take funds from their check…  The check is free… for them.  
  BUT I don’t know what Maine companies would charge for doing this tests.  I can tell you… the company I work with does their own “in-house testing” and only costs $15.00 per employee.
  I will argue the cost of welfare to taking a test.  I DON’T LIKE GIVING MY MONEY AWAY TO PEOPLE WHO ABUSE THE SYSTEM…. I am tested to keep my job and pay taxes for these people needing assistance. Maine has a way of keeping people on the system for generations.
  To say… I fail once… my career is over…  Understandably you will only catch perhaps 10 to 15 percent of them…  but 10-15 percent is a start for a cleaner system…  

• Anonymous

  I’m impressed. I know you’re leaving a few things out. But it sounds like you took your life seriously. Now take this seriously: These TPTers are backed by foreign forces as sure as the statue of liberty is a man, and they aren’t here to make your children and grandchildren better people.

• Anonymous

  If you can’t afford to support yourself then you shouldn’t expect me to pay for your drugs, your ciggies, your booze, your lottery tickets or your pets AND you should be drinking water from the tap.

• Anonymous

  how about drug tests for politicians?

• Anonymous

  If something is Consitutional for one group it also Constitutional for others and vice versa…     
  ***********************************
  oh, good…so you agree that since it is not unconstitutional to drug test job applicants and many govt. employees, it is also not unconstitutional to drug test welfare applicants.

• Anonymous

  The drugs you mentioned are legal, although maybe they shouldn’t be.  And they aren’t ‘picking on’ one segment.  Why is it ‘picking on’ anybody when it is expecting them to obey the law?   I had a career that required yearly random drug testing.  Never did I, or to my knowledge any of my colleagues ever complain or whine about being ‘picked on’.  It was a condition of employment.  I had the option of quitting.  And if I could accept the drug test required by my employer to support myself, my family, AND that welfare recipient, why can’t I expect that welfare recipient to submit to a drug test in order to get his/her pay check which he/she doesn’t lift a finger to earn??  And whether or not the Governor has the right to require drug testing….maybe yes or maybe no.  But one thing is for sure.  Noone has the right to use illegal drugs, and if drug use is their priority than the shouldn’t expect a working taxpayer to pay for it!

• Anonymous

  Why are they not concerned that there is nothing in the constitution that says we can drug test people?     
  ***********************************************
  because the constitution concerns itself completely with the duties of and the limitations on the government, not on the individual. 

• Anonymous

  I would agree if random drug testing for welfare recipients were to be enacted.  But I believe that random drug testing for any class is unconstitutional unless it is to protect public safety. If it is to protect public safety, then I believe it ought to include alcohol, the most predominant threat to public safety.

• Anonymous

  Gosh, seeing as I took a college course that focused entirely on Social Policy, the law and constitutional issues pertaining to such I am confident that I have accurate information, thanks
  **************************************
  Oh, WOW!  45 hours of instruction…why, you are just brilliant!

• Anonymous

  Larry, I understand why you wouldn’t want to believe this, but social obligation is not a new concept. I’ve suggested several times that posters on this topic read up on Human Rights because otherwise we all sound stupid having the conversation. Having to correct you on such a basic premise as social obligation doesn’t just reveal your ignorance, but it damages my credibility for bothering to have a conversation with you on the topic. Please, read up on human rights.

• Anonymous

  BDN, why are the comments here 911 and counting, but the comments on this article are shut off at 39?
  http://bangordailynews.com/2011/11/03/opinion/contributors/question-1-protects-maine%e2%80%99s-history-of-voting-equality

• Anonymous

  Federal law does not have anything to do with social welfare. Social welfare is a human rights issue and the documentation for it is not found in the U.S. Constitution. It’s found in the Magna Carta and other documents that post date the Magna Carta.

• Anonymous

  Clinton did fail… oh wait.. you are talking about the drug test.  Yea… he would have probably botched that up as well.

• Anonymous

  How can anyone argue this with a straight face. Get high on your own supply…

• Anonymous

  Many of them seem to be a bunch of nosy busybodies.

• Anonymous

  Like shooting fish in a barrel eh? The TParty won’t express any opinions. That is rule number one. If you don’t agree with the TParty’s rule number one see rule number one. That way, they explain internally, they can’t be devided. After all a house divided against itself cannot stand, right? Well you’d have to be a fool to support the actions of an organization that does not publicize it’s goals, objectives, and methods. So, you are a fool. By the way, I published a more detailed version of this explanation and it got ripped down, censored. So your heckling will be noted. BTW it gave all the citations you’ve requested. Apparently somebody got their panties all in bunch about what I posted. But I’m not posting it again. If you want to live, smarten up.

  Yet I am assaulted daily with the thickest tar of stupid I’ve ever encountered that can be described as nothing but a warfare style wholesale elimination of human rights, specifically for American Citizens. 

  I’m getting ready to post a quiz on this rag. 

  Here’s the first quiz question you’ll have to get right:  Should a person be left without the most basic needs such as food and shelter from life threatening weather?

  BTW, I can see you, you need to lose weight and buy some better underwear.

  You do know they’ve planted public cameras everywhere that any 5 year old could access from the web, right?

• Regular Joe

  Let me guess.  You’re going to say “the taxpayer.”  If that’s what you’ll say, then I’ll say that as a taxpayer, I guess I have to right to have everyone who receives my money drug tested, including teachers, lab workers, librarians, legislators, the governor, crossing guards, linemen, etc.

• Anonymous

  Drug test anyone who takes a government check.

• Anonymous

  Bet if that happened , it would no longer be so important to test welfare recipients. 

  WE are losing billions on corporate welfare and our govt. is straining at the gnats. Guess they think it makes them look like they are responsible people. LOL

• Anonymous

  You nailed that one. Unfortunately he has found a way to dehumanize you in his brain and doesn’t care what you think. He thinks it’s funny to disrespect you and not give any real thought to his answers to you. This is how wars work. First, identify the enemy, destroy their communications and cut them off from rescue. Then destroy their food, water, and munitions. Then make an example of the most innocent. Remember, these asssholes want to take food and medicine away from poor, old, pregnant, babies, children, old, and disabled people. I’m done, but I’m sorry you had to learn this in this country.

• Anonymous

  Nobody is living off your money, not even you. You are an iddiot. Nobody as stupid as you has a job that pays for their keep. You’re just another welfarecase. You have just given up your rights. Did you know that the copywrite laws were changed and you’re as guilty as the next guy?

• Anonymous

  There is a good liberal. Threaten peoplt that will not bow down to your lies.

• Anonymous

  Not to sound as stupid as you Lar, but the internal revenue service that collects “taxes” as a survivor of the feudal system whereby rulers kept people in a state of servitude by “taxing” them. Today you can’t find a soul that knows this, but the taxes are not used for welfare at all. They are also not used for any public good. Taxes are  used as a way to decrease the power of the people. In the bible King Harrod had all the first born sons of all women killed. He didn’t do this because he didn’t want people to have food and medicine. And this is not irrelevant today. It’s about power and control. You disgusting people who want to hurt people who need help make me want to puke.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NXPTPFL746OV2VGR5WBOEUF6W4 Roger

  Welfare as a general rule simple lets people get away with being irresponsible and making bed life choices. Why not just make drug addict welfare to? Why not just make every person that works hand over all they make to the state and in return the state will provide welfare to everybody?

  I find it utterly amazing how far so many will go to excuse those who refuse to make right the bad choices they have made.

  I also find it reprehensible that those of us who follow the rules work hard and pay our own way in life have our money taxed and re taxed again and again to pay for those who do not follow the rules work hard and pay there own way. 

• Anonymous

  I did a little research. You don’t pay any taxes. In fact you get “tax credits”.  I think you are a little confused. Our tax money, now get this, never ever ever pay for welfare for Americans or anything like it and they never ever ever ever have.

• Anonymous

  People often forget that the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America is part of the social contract that is the Constitution of the United States of America. Many lawyers get confused because they consider the Preamble to be the same as a “Whereas”. It’s not. It is a resolution that has been made permanent, indisputable law.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NXPTPFL746OV2VGR5WBOEUF6W4 Roger

  “This is a discrimination against class. All lawmakers, corporate CEOs
  who pay virtually no taxes but use US resources, Pentagon ,  state gov.
  offices and legislatures. They use up a lot of tax payer’s hard earned
  money.”

  Somebody needs to have a reality check. Tell me one CEO who pays”virtually no taxes”? Only a person with no understanding of the United States tax system or the business world could make such a comment. This is completely false. The more money you have the more taxes you pay. Every legitimate dollar is taxed the more dollars the more taxes no way to avoid them. With the exception of the cheats but they do not last long and in the end it costs them much much more then they ever saved by not paying.

• Anonymous

  I think they should go even futher and test for nicotine also. I have to be tested for it to get a lower health insurance rate and if  people on welfare want help they have to be clean of drugs and tobacco.

• Anonymous

  Why is it constitutional to test those who are working and EARNING their money, but not constitutional to test those who are receiving money that they didn’t earn.   They have a choice. No test? No welfare.  Just like in the workplace.  No test? No job.  This is bizarro world.  Why shouldn’t they be tested.  Go into any supermarket the week that food stamps come out and stand in line behind some of the recipients and some of them reek of pot and cigarettes, and many of them are pierced or tatooed all over.  Maybe that is why they don’t have jobs?  They load up their carts with junk food or lobsters and many other things that those of us who are actually working for our money can’t even afford,  but they just throw it into their carts like it is free.  Well, I guess it is free for them, but not for us. This is what we need to make our representatives understand!!  This is not mean- spirited or snobby– this is the truth, regardless of whether or not anyone wants to acknowledge it .  Those of us who are paying for the lifestyles of welfare recipients need to contact our representatives and let them know that this law needs to be passed.  They need to start looking out for those of us who work and actually pay taxes instead of those who live off the system. Go Paul, Go!! 

• Anonymous

  welfare isn’t a right, its a privledge. Just like a drivers license isn’t a right. If someone doesn’t want to submit to the test which is there right then they should be ready to accept that there is no help. Maybe then the money they are buying the drugs with instead of buying food and paying bills will have to go to the things the rest of us pay for on our own.

• Shiretowner

  That is an awful broad sweeping statement. If we are going to impose drug tests on people lets do it on everyone. People coming out of bars, entering their respective places of employment, people leaving concerts. I d0n’t want to just target people getting state assistance,  want to target the entire state. Invasion of privacy to the extremes LePage wants is absurd. Hard working people trying to make ends meet shouldn’t have to compromise what is left of their dignity just to get state aid. I sure hope your tests come back clean the first time you need state assistance…

• Shiretowner

  I acknowledge a lot of people don’t know how to manage their state assistance well, and there should be something in place for that. Drug testing on employees (to me) is a gray area, and while I still feel it is invasive – there ARE other means of employment available if you don’t want to subject yourself to it. There IS no other means of assistance for folks reliant on state aid. There will always be abuse of the system as long as there is a system to abuse. Punishing the upstanding folks and the people who pay taxes isn’t the way to go about it.

• AionNV

  LePage should have to take a drug test.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NXPTPFL746OV2VGR5WBOEUF6W4 Roger

  O ok but you think it is fine to seize the money earned by working folks without a warrant or there permission to give it away to folks that did not earn it nor have and requirement to pay it back? That seems perfectly fair.

  So to sum it up.The harder you work and the more you earn the higher percentage of tax you pay to the point where you truly become a big business you should be forced to give almost all you earn to those who refuse to work or better themselves? Sure that sounds fair!!

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  Hard working people on Welfare!  That one made my night.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  There is other means, its called get off the couch and find a job.  Yes there are many jobs out there, people just don’t want them because welfare pays more, tough!

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  You are confused!

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  You are not making sense, I never said that.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KJEUWEYRHIPWV3PTTWWNUZ2CTQ mcmaineacjam

  If everyone getting govenment funds got tested, including the House of Representitives and Senators and all politicans, I would support it. I feel the Governors daughter, with her entry level  job that pays more then most jobs in the private secctor, is on welfare too. I hope they test her also. however, they always deem other US Citizens need to be tested, but would never consider testing themselves. There would be a lot more positive results coming out of Washingto then there has been the last few years!

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  You must read one post and skip the rest.  I am in agreement with testing them all.  So your point is what?

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AO6B7CYXQUKSPZDD2MN3YGPKFI Kelly

  yeah i would actually. it’s gonna be taken away from me either way so why not. other states give out bus tickets to maine so people can come thrive on our welfare system. i think that is absurd and i think it is only fair to the citizens who have to pay for it EITHER WAY to have a little peace of mind knowing that they aren’t supporting people who have drug problems.

• Anonymous

  About time is all I can say, they should have been doing this years ago.  It’s about time is all i can say.

• Anonymous

  My apologies for any mistake I may have made. But based  on the topic I’m thinking I’ve made a poor choice. I don’t plan to Knuckle Under to the Chinese, the French, the Germans, or anyone else. And I am prepared to take this to the MATT.

• Anonymous

  Confucius says, “Is is.”
  Nothing exists for your purposes but everything exists. 
  Things only appear to exist for your benefit because you use them for your benefit.
  There is no boundary between one thing and any other.

  Tell me that isn’t Christ-less, atheism and I’ll call you a liar.

• Anonymous

  Support? Apparently you haven’t looked at the poll. It’s favored 3-1. Support is no problem. Since the liberals are now powerless, this should finally be no problem. 

• Anonymous

  The Constitution is extended by virtue of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments to a plethora of activities in our daily lives.  Equal Protection on this one comes to mind.  You can’t treat people differently, and you want (because you’re so good and moral) to treat TANF recipients different than, say, those receiving VA benefits.  Don’t give the the “earned” crap.  Half my family is still in the Guard and I have buddies back and forth to Iraq and Afg.   But there are other government programs, grants and packages.  You can’t do one for one group (although I know you’d like to) and not for the other.  Beyond that, you have a 4th Amendment right against illegal search and seizure.  The test is an illegal search, the loss of benefits is the seizure.  Don’t like it?  Get the Constitution amended.  While you’re at it, you can all get down off your high horses, too. 

• Anonymous

  Well, since its not Constitutional to drug test the taxpayer for paying taxes, its not constitutional to drug test a TANF recipient.  But I don’t expect you to get it.  Vote tea party much?

• Anonymous

  Er, no, but reviewing a few of your posts, I don’t expect you to understand.

• Anonymous

  I’m going to refuse my next drug test because Emily Cain said it is unconstitutional, I’m thinking that everyone thats on the state payroll, welfare, and everyone that holds a drivers licence should be tested…

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  Just get a job, yes, they are out there.  If you cannot find one, I will find one for you, ok?

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7TM2WWUSPPTO2SNDBEXTLHSRQ Confucius

  That is just your opinion, there are others with law degrees that disagree.

• Anonymous

  I agree 100%.  Am tired of paying rent, fuel assist., etc. so that an abuser of illegal drugs gets a free ride.  I reallly don’t care what their “social status” is, an abuser should lose the priviledge of benefits.

• Anonymous

  thank you

• Anonymous

  At nearly all jobs now, you must submit to a drug test.  So, to collect a paycheck-drug test.  For many this IS a paycheck.  It is the only paycheck they want or care to get.  A drug test is the hardest thing they will do.  I say Yes to the Drug Test! 

• Anonymous

  If it is going to be illegal for drug tests then it should hold true for everyone

• Anonymous

  The time for this testing is way past due.  I agree 100%.  Tired of paying rent, fuel assist, etc. for those who sit back and hold out both hands.  As for “social status”, you don’t test clean, then, no help.  I would like to see this testing extend to alcohol, as well.  Cut down on drunks on the road killing people and the high number of domestic violence situations.  Strange how it is OK to kill people with booze or violence created by these “created” chemical changes, but ciggs are the absolute destruction of the world.  Ever hear of throat or stomach cancer or esophageal varicies?  My question to one and all is…if you can’t afford rent or heat or food, then, how is it you can afford booze?   By the way, I am not a teatotaler.

• poormaniac

  Excuse me , I get regular VA medical care and they test for drug abuse on a regular basis !  Time to get informed or get the VA to stop drug testing too !

• Anonymous

  I had to take a drug test to get my job.  Seems to me as though if people on welfare are going to live off money drawn from my paycheck, they should take a drug test as well.  As long as you’re not doing any illegal drugs (which no one should be, hence the name “illegal drugs”) then there should be no issues.  

• StillRelaxin

  Dates and time stamps beside our comments indicate that all you’ve done here is BACKTRACK and insert a position statement prior to mine here that makes it look out of place. To suggest that my comments or method of commenting are out of line when your’s are clearly dishonest seems…well, childish or perhaps petty. I’d tell you my point again but judging from your comments (As well as those I see have been deleted) I’d say your mind is too closed upon itself to get any meaning from my logic. Good luck getting Paul to step up like a man by ignoring constitutional law and VOLUNTEERING to be testing.

• Anonymous

  Biggest reason being drug tested for employment is most for safety reasons, take truck drivers for example, would you want some coked out drugged up driver behind the wheel of a 100,000lb truck? I know I wouldnt and I am one, and i know alot of construction companies also do drug testing for safety purposes… I dont understand why its unconstitutional either, i mean hey if all the welfare recipients were actually disabled then yea i could see where it would be, but i bet close to 75% are just on it out of lazyness  

• Anonymous

   Who will pay for the testing? Tax Payer. Who will pay for rehab? Tax Payer. Who will support the kids of the persons who doesn’t quit? Tax Payer. Looks to me like a bigger expense. 5 year lifetime limit on on welfare and a person has to work at least 5 years before qualifying, unless handicapped, in the true defination of the word.
  Stop looking for ways to waste tax payer’s money LePage. 
   

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UPF6SSWBQ2A33WKCPV2ISYMJ2Q John

  When I think of assistance for those who need it, I like to think that I’m paying for for the products and services that provide the basics; food, shelter, clothing. Now I realize that that list includes heating assist. medications, and mental health needs among others. I have no problem helping those who truly need it.
   What is discouraging to me is that our assistance programs that we pay for are FLAWED. An example of abuse is the ebt cards. When those who receive them can turn around and sell them for half the face value just to get cash that is wrong.
   
  How many of you like paying for tobacco products and alchohol, drugs etc, that can’t be purchased with the ebt cards? 

  I’m not sure that a drug test is going to fix the welfare programs but maybe it a step in the right direction towards fixing a flawed welfare program…

• Anonymous

  Why is it punishing for the “upstanding folks” who need help? I certainly don’t mind helping them. If anything anyone on state aid should want some means of keeping the system free from abuse since it hurts all of us. I have had to take drug test since 1985 on the job and somehow asking to weed out those who abuse my tax dollars is punishing someone?

• Anonymous

  Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? 

  I think it is more fair to say that the person in front of me at the grocery store is a struggling Mainer that really does not want to be on welfare.  Have your heard of the working poor? I have seen it first-hand, and they are not on drugs.

  I would rather see my tax money addressing the reasons people are on welfare to begin with. I wish the BDN would do an article profiling those who are on welfare during this horrible economy.

  I wake up every day grateful for my health, family and a wonderful job with benefits. How many of you out there can say the same thing?  One illness, accident or lay-off can change your life in a very short time.

  Yes, there is a drug problem in Maine – and that is another can of worms.

  Positive tests are not always accurate – and neither are negative results.  One negative test does not prove that a person is not doing drugs.  Doing drug tests on welfare recipients at the cost of taxpayers is not going to solve anything. It just makes it look like our government is working on welfare reform.

• Anonymous

  If they are trying to end welfare abuse with drug testing, then they should start with all the corporations that do not pay their employees enough to live on without help from the taxpayers in the form of LLIHEAP, food stamps, and Maine Care. Why not make the Walton kids or Ham Marden pee in a cup? They are much bigger abusers of the taxpayer’s largess than the 5% of people who may qualify as “lazy lay abouts”.

• kkmousse

  Well how about this for an idea.  Lets say you test positive for a drug.  Then the street value of that drug should be deducted from their wealfare check. Then everyone will be happy! For example if they test positive for Haroin and they are seeking treatment at a Methadone clinc. We can not deny them their treatment. But that should also be deducted from their wealfare check!

• Anonymous

  Instituting mandatory state-sponsored blood testing as a condition to receiving public assistance would be a glaring violation of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Try reading them and some associated case law and landmark decisions before you comment! 

  Applying for a ‘privilege’ does not require giving up all basic ‘rights’. At least not yet, it doesn’t.  You wouldn’t want it any other way. The ‘necessary evil’ here is that some recipients will make poor decisions.  As  argued previously – be prepared to do away with other people’s freedoms and yours will be next – guaranteed.

  There are other ways that the system could be improved. That’s where government should start.

• Anonymous

  LePage’s extremist views, will all but seal his fate for re-election. With every new law passed, American freedom, privacy and presumption of innocence, falls to the wayside. This is nothing but another nail in the coffin, lost rights of our patriotic, constitutional past and shouldn’t include big brothers nose, in our urine or blood.

  The only thing gained by such nearsighted legislation, is more government intrusion into our personal lives, more laws, more government bureaucracy, more government agencies and an increase in crime and anarchy.

  That such an idea would even be presented to the legislature, is preposterously anti-American! LePage would be better serving his constituency, if he tackled institutional government bureaucracy, waste and fraud. Streamlined, minimal government for the people, not bigger, more intrusive government.

• Anonymous

  why does TRUE = weak?

• Anonymous

  Crossing guards?  Those positions are filled by people who receive benefits from the city (yes they work for it at an hourly rate). Do your homework.  Linemen?  How is YOUR money going to pay them?

• Anonymous

  How many people on ‘welfare’ do you personally know, for a fact, are doing drugs?  How many do you personally know, for a fact, are cheating the system for benefits?  I don’t know one.  I have seen ZERO statistics on this, nor has LePage offered any hard statistics.  This is a baseless effort.

• Anonymous

  Name them then.  Do your duty and turn them in!  If you really know, for a fact, that they are cheating it is your responsibility to report it.

• Anonymous

  I get the feeling that you have not understood my postings. I think that you and agree, basically.

  I see the tax system in the US not as a holdover from the Feudal (European) system as much as a return to it. Up to the late 1800’s we had avoided such taxation.
  Once the concept of “human rights” was accepted by the people of the US, we
  became susceptible to the thought that we are our brother’s, and that everyone in the world is our brother, keeper and the government was the tool to be that keeper.

  Once we bought into such stuff Communism was the only way to accomplish that goal. Because
  of human nature that will only bring us to the end of our original, and still
  unique, form of govenment. To paraphrase Orwell everybody is equal it’s just
  that some are more equal than others.

  Since Wilson was president, the government has been corrupted and Roosevelt completed the destruction of our way of life, the income tax, Federal Reserve, government “welfare” … We were taken down the path to becoming Europe and its form of
  government (the path to…

  Through more than a century of ur “education” we have come to believe the social engineering of, what was called Progressivism and they took over the mantle of
  liberalism.

  Like I said we seem to agree.

• Anonymous

  The first issue I have with your ascertain is the use of the Fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution, this amendment has become the basis for almost every BS law and SC decision since its adoption.

  Our Fourth Amendment protection from illegal search or self incrimination does not apply here because the application for Federal “assistance” is totally voluntary; no one is forcing the applicant to apply. As much as those that disagree with
  me will make the statement that they are being “forced by circumstances”.
  Circumstances is not a person and does not have a gun.

  You are confusing “Rights” with “Privilege”. Rights come from our Creator (see the
  Declaration of Independence) Privilege is granted by some agent that is not our Creator. GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS. Government assistance is given by the government not by our creator.

  I’ve made this distinction before and proves that many posters either cannot understand the distinction, or they are lying to themselves.

• Anonymous

  I do wish that the post that I replied to was not removed, I believe that the statement made ”

  Larry, don’t make me hut you. You are
  misinforming people. Stop it. ”

  Shows the posters state of mind and should be  read by everyone here to see what happens when you disagree with many liberal haters.

• Anonymous

  first drug test all the politicians and government employees

• Anonymous

  First of all, you are confusing documents. As an historical point of reference, the word ‘Creator’ is found in the Declaration of Independence, memorializing the colony’s separation from England.

  The US Constitution, beginning with the first ten protections, the so called ‘Bill of Rights’, was written several years later.

  The referenced ‘unalienable rights’ all human beings possess, at birth, are not dependent on government, on either document, nor religious persuasion, or lack thereof, but are held to be self evident.

  I know you’re prepared to repudiate 200 years of SCOTUS opinions as well as basic premises of democracy, but just try reading the words first. Only then might you understand the concepts.