September 25, 2017
Nation Latest News | Poll Questions | Hurricane Maria | Orion Krause | Obamacare

Comments for: Plans to drug test welfare recipients gain momentum

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  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):

  • Anonymous

    isn’t that an oxymoron?

  • Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!  That is all I have to say!

    • There are legitimate arguments for and against drug testing for social services, but here is where short sighted governments are going to fall short in using drug testing to try and save money on social services: The simplest one is there aren’t as many users on welfare as the Republicans think. Secondly, when someone does test positive, addiction is a disease just like diabetes, so the people will wind up getting medical coverage anyway, and depending on what they tested positive for may wind up going to those hated methadone clinics. So the effort to reduce social services spending will wind up costing them even more because they will now have MORE addicts on the roles. When getting clean means getting their food stamps, TANF, etc, you better believe those that failed their tests will go to rehab.

      • Anonymous

         make so if they flunk the drug test, no services. You really think they will give up the drugs so easily  to keep welfare? They will continue to lie in hopes of being able to continue doing drugs and keep welfare.

      • Anonymous

        Simple awnser stop supplying them drugs (methadone) get rid of methadone clinics it’s not solving anything anyway they trade methadone for other pills or use the methadone it’s not kicking the habit it’s promoting it.

    • Anonymous

      I love it.. … and Ill do a dance the day it becomes law.. May even have a party.. 

  • Anonymous

    “We challenged it in Michigan. We challenged it in Florida. Both of those cases found that singling out this particular group of people for drug testing was unconstitutional with absolutely no cause.”

    ***********************************************************************************************

    Drug testing is done all the time for people who apply for jobs which ultimately provide the tax base.  Solution oriented, honest people understand that complying with a drug test is necessary because there is a percentage of people who would be bad news for employers.

    Drug abusers are a diverse population….. just as are taxpayers. Why should honest, non-drug abusers  be singled out when they comply in order to earn a paycheck which then becomes part of the solution to getting the economy back on track?

    Each drug abuser owns the individual responsibility to everyone else to clean up his or her  life so s/he can pass the same drug tests that everyone else can be subjected to at any time. Moral relativism is no excuse in this economy.   

    • Anonymous

       Who is talking bout  Drug abuse….

      • Anonymous

        Apparently most people here who disagree with you.

    • Anonymous

      Answer to the problem is drug test everyone that has a drivers license, if failed than they lose license and all states welfare.

      • Anonymous

         not every1 on welfare has  a license. many owes hugh  fines they will never be able to pay or drive even though they never had a license and have no plans to get 1

  • Anonymous

    Why would they consider it unconstitutional for welfare recipients. My husband, and others have to pass a drug test in order to keep their jobs. So does the military. What’s good for the them, should be good for all, especially the ones receiving welfare.

    • Guest

      this isn’t to help them keep a job, this is to feed them and keep them alive. Put a little love in your heart. Yes, I work.

      • Anonymous

        If they can afford drugs, they don’t need my help to eat!!

        • Guest

          EXACTLY.  Not only that, if they are going to lose their bennies, STOP USING DRUGS.  Pretty simple, really.

          • Anonymous

            here here

        • Anonymous

          not to mention tattoos

          • Anonymous

            I love it.. lol

          • Anonymous

            2 more payments and that sucker is mine!!   lol

      • Anonymous

         at the taxpayers’ expense. How are they going to find and keep a job if they drool all the time from too much methodone, among other drugs.

      • Anonymous

        Always going with the “love” route. Maybe its more loving to have some standards and make people live up to expectations of decency. You need some heart.

      • Anonymous

        Drugs are more important than food… You have no argument here.. Its very simple. As long as we are buying.. We arent buying drugs.. Very simple and very easy to understand.. 

        • Anonymous

           So perhaps your “love” should include an interest in getting these people off of the destructive drugs that ruin their life. But since you don’t really love them, just love their dependency on the government (a different drug) you really have no argument here.

          • Guest

            ….

          • Anonymous

            You got that straight.. Im mad that the people who are footing the bills for all this arent considered. Nor their day to day struggle to make it are even thought of.. yeah.. Im angry… and evidently so are a lot of people.. After all … this article is what we are commenting on.. The evidence is there.. just the fact that this is being considered.. So dont look now.. There are MANY who feel the way I do.. And you can cry alllllll you want.. But you will be hearing from us pretty soon..

          • Guest

            ….

          • Anonymous

            I have  no idea what your point is, or which side of the issue you are on… you simply call names and make judgments… why?

          • Guest

            ….

          • Anonymous

            No.. You have no point. It seems your mad at my point and your flailing with your words. Your too worked up.. Hit the pipe and settle down now. Everything that you have said is based on nothing and all of what you said is not true.  I dont think you can understand normal thinking. I feel that I dont want to pay for someone else’s drug habit. Nothing more than that. I will make no apology for how I feel. I work very hard. I have all my life. I was under the impression that society as a whole is against drug use. I think society paying for it would be viewed as wrong. So keep your misguided,  and false opinions of me to yourself. Thank you

          • I don’t know if you can hear me cheering and clapping or not!!  I laughed a little too!!!

          • amen!!!!!!!

          • Anonymous

            Since your crying over the civil liberties  and seem to be very passionate about it. Ill answer again. DONT TAKE THE TEST… no one has said that your going to be forced to take the time out of your empty day doing nothing to HAVE to pee in a cup. DO NOT PEE IN A CUP IF YOU DO NOT WANT TOO… Far be it from us to force you to pee in a cup. JUST DONT … Then your civil liberties are intact, You will not feel violated and you can go on about your day. I havent read anywhere and since ive been accused of not researching I have read steady. Not one web site not one article says anyone has been or will be forced to pee in a cup. So I do not see how any ones rights are going to be or have been violated. We also are not forcing people to accept welfare.. You DONT  have to accept the money. Its YOUR option. Nothing is forced here.

          • You are wasting your time!The Supreme Court in Michigan declared drug testing welfare recipiants was unconstitutional!End of Story!

          • The liberals have taught us that the constitution is a “living breathing document” that can be changed on a whim.  I find it funny that you now want to scream about unconstitutional lol

          • Anonymous

            LMAO… Yeah after alllllll that.. lol.. now we are going unconstitutional ..What a fascinating turn of events !!!

          • Anonymous

            I think I must have fallen and hit my head… because thats not what your comment said an hour or so ago…. are you changing them as the day goes on?..  

          • Anonymous

            and … again… Its like having an argument with a time traveler ….

          • yes, everything is edited.  That is why I wondered why every single comment says (edited by author)    I didn’t get any answer when I asked oleyane why that was hmmmmmmmmmm, interesting huh??

      • Anonymous

        It is not love to support someone else’s destructive habit. It is called codependency.  

      • Anonymous

        fine i can do that let’s start with tough love first though ok.

      • Anonymous

        tell you what…
        put a little love In YOUR heart.
        you want to support them, invite them to your home for dinner… have your church put on suppers and do other community oriented activities..
        if all that was offered was FOOD and not cash, then there would be no corruption and all those hungry people would be fed.  BY PEOPLE WHO VOLUNTEER TO FEED THEM
        the government has no RIGHT to take my money by force and give it to the hungry.
        AND not that it matters, but I do make very large donations to charities that I deem worthy.

        liberals never seem to do the same.

    • You should have been screaming FOUL when Ronny Regan Started the concept back in the 80’s!

      Conservatives cry about freedoms and the constitution when it comes to themselves but want to take it away from everyone else!

      • Anonymous

        Conservatives covet the Constitution, of course, as it provides for the Freedom to live your life as you choose as long as you’re not hurting yourself or anybody else, (most importantly)including their own children.  Drug abuse is not a victimless crime unless you live alone in a cave. Everyone who lives with or near you is affected even if you say they aren’t.

        Adults are free to choose any behavior they want just as others are free to form their own opinions, disassociate from such behavior and refuse to sanction the behavior through the tax money they provide to maintain the …health… of those in need of social services.

        Freedom needs the respect of personal responsibility as Freedom isn’t Free.

      • Anonymous

         Im trying to find out where it says in the constitution that people are to be forced to take welfare. If so, then maybe you have a point about not violating their rights with drug testing. But since they aren’t forced to take the benefits, they can be made to take a drug test to get them.

        • Your thinking sounds like it came out of a “Liberal” Play Book!

          Do you remember when Teachers where suddenly forced to give up their finger prints?

          They where told that they weren’t being forced, they could choose not to!

          They just would not be allowed to Teach until they did!

          It wasn’t right then and it isin’t right NOW!

          •  Have you gone now to the Ron Paul side.  At least now you have to be logical.

        • They aren’t forced to speak on a telephone either but it is still illegal to record a private telephone converstion without a warrant!
          OR<
          Maybe they should require phone taps on all welfare recipiants after all they may be making a drug deal!

    •  
       
       
      It’s Constitutional Because Lepage SAYS SO!
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCszcknZb_Y
       
      This Man is Wacky!

    • Anonymous

      But I don’t have to pay for your husband’s test. The company he works for does. Guess who pays for all these drug tests. You do.

      • Anonymous

        The cost of a drug test can nowhere equal the amount of money given per month, after month, after month!

        • Anonymous

          ever heard of a little state called Florida ? Check out how much their drug testing cost the taxpayers. Very few tested positive anyway . 

          • Anonymous

            I assume you can back those numbers up?  ” Very few tested positive anyway” I would bet it is more than a “few” who test positive.

          • Tyke

            Actually in Florida they found a lower % of drug users among welfare recipients than in the general population overall. Also the testing cost considerably more than what then ended up saving.

            http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_20013809

          • Anonymous

             So what. Just because the rates are low, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.

          • Typical Lib

          • Anonymous

            And should cost the taxpayers more?  Hardly a fiscally conservative argument.

          • Tyke

            It costs millions and saves only thousands.

            We cannot afford your horribly expensive wild goose chase when their is no return on the investment.

          • Anonymous

            2% were using drugs.

          • Anonymous

            od course they don’t test positive.. that is th epoint.. the ones on drugs will not come forward and try to leech off the systyem… so that means it is working

      • Anonymous

         it’s cheaper in that long run than keeping them on welfare. On but wait, then their kids will be in foster care. A better life for the children anyway.

        • Tyke

          Clever attempt at revisionist history.

          They sampled all current recipients at the time the law took effect.

      • Anonymous

        rather pay for a drug test than the drugs.. I cant believe the liberals are battling this.. Its clear and in the end its our money..  We have to get tested in order to work.. then you arent  sitting home stoned all say while we are all at work.. Id think everyone would be for this.. Unless your on welfare and smoking dope.. 

        • Anonymous

          The only way liberals get votes in from the social programs they promote. Ever notice that individual votes are not counted? That’s because there are more people on welfare than there are working. The republicans wouldn’t stand a chance. Nor would the working person. The liberals know the only way to control the people is to make them depend on you. Those who wont take care of themselves, vote liberal.

          • Anonymous

            Ok.. I see.. Agreed

      • Anonymous

        My last company had little kits right in the office the company medic could give it to you this was no big company so can’t be that expensive.

        • Anonymous

          It costs less than $10 per test.

        • Anonymous

          …excuse me moderator…..You can buy a DRUG test at the dollar tree now…pretty expensive huh?

    • Anonymous

      You know, the fourth amendment to the US Constitution specifically prohibits searches of one’s body — and this is what drug tests are — except upon probable cause. The fact that one is receiving government assistance is not probable cause to suspect drug use. As a matter of public safety, I can understand drug-testing airline pilots and truck drivers (“I took three bennies and my semi truck won’t start” — Commander Cody), and maybe nuclear power plant operators, but I was once drug tested for a job as a telemarketer. I passed, but that doesn’t mean my Constitutional rights weren’t violated. This mania for drug testing has gone way too far. Smoke a little weed over the weekend, and you can lose your job. Insanity.

      • Anonymous

        Simple.. You dont have to have a drug test… Dont.. but we arnt giving you money unless you do.. Choice is yours … 

        • So you dont get the money unless we can violate you!

          Brilliant!

          • Anonymous

            Simple answer…… EXACTLY …. I dont see whats so hard to understand. Pee in a cup  we send you a check… No biggie. I pee in a cup … I know MANY people who have to pee in a cup for food… its called a JOB… Whats good for one should be good for all!

          •  If you are dumb enough to pee in a cup that’s YOUR problem….just because you are a good slave doesn’t mean everyone is dumb enough to follow you….

          • Anonymous

            Nobody is twisting anyones arm. Simply refuse the test. In fact I hope there are MANY that do not.  Im sick of being a druggies slave. Do not have to take the money. Its not very hard to understand. We are not forcing anyone to take the money. Do not take it .Do not take the test. No rights will be  violated. 

          • Anonymous

            So the parent’s stupidity means the child can starve? Great plan. Typical ROBthePUBLICan response.

          • Anonymous

            So clever with your play on words!!  Someone has a lot of free time on their hands!!!!   Good point too..  So….. You feel that its ok that their are parents on welfare.. AND on drugs?…  Im just trying to see it your way ..since you were so clever with your word “play” and all. The parents are on welfare and on drugs. Thats cool with you. Then your cool with them also being on drugs and having responsibility of children.. Yeah.. I think that is  a great line of thinking. I cant believe the things I said..  Lets have a lot of jobless welfare recipients on drugs raising the children of the next generation!  Wow.. I can see it so clearly now!!  You are certainly a visionary!!  A real thinker!!  How about you stick  to your word play!

          • Anonymous

            yes
            there are millions of people who die every day… like bacteria
            and giving them MY money will not change that.
             

          • If they test positive for drugs then the children should not be in that environment anyway!!!

          • Anonymous

            Not that I disagree with that, however, isn’t the big argument that drug testing welfare recipients will save money? 
            Well, if we start removing children from homes as a result, we will then be paying more money for those children and most likely, in some form or another, the parents will receive money for rehab in order to get their children back. 
            Doesn’t sound like much of a savings. 

          • Do you really believe that children will cost more in foster care than a whole family on drugs cost the tax payer??  And I believe the issue is CHILDREN not money

          • Anonymous

            No, actually the issue is money…that is why drug testing welfare recipients has been proposed in so many states…so that the rolls can be trimmed of those that do not deserve the money. 
            If the issue was children, we would be testing more than just welfare recipients because it is not just people on welfare that are doing drugs. 
            Yes, it would cost more to keep children in foster care…the state pays $485 to a family of 3 on welfare…but they pay substantially more for just one child in foster care. 

          • I believe the benefits for a family of 3 goes much further than $485 a month.  Between mainecare, ebt, tanf, etc.  And the issue is not MONEY it is FRAUD.  Why do you believe I should pay for somebody who does not work, to do drugs.  If as you say a family of 3 gets $485 a month than how in God’s name can they afford to do drugs and feed their children?

          • Guest

            ….

          • So you believe that children should stay with parents who are using drugs because the system is overwhelmed?  I am just trying to clarify what you are saying of course. 

          • Guest

            ….

          • I want people who neglect or put their children in harms way ie. using drugs, to lose their children until they are clean.  I do not know how long they should be seperated.  I am not borrowing trouble on every level as you love to do on these sites.  All I am saying is that if someone want to take my hard earned money away from my children, then I am asking for proof that they are not spending it on an illegal substance.  I cannot imagine why that winds you up so much.

          • Guest

            ….

          • You are welcome

          • Anonymous

            I would have to agree with oleyane….What about the parents who abuse drugs but don’t need welfare….Is the environment any less safe?

          • No that environment is not any less safe.

          • violate ??? are you kidding me ? you think it’s ok for someone I don’t even know , using drugs, to take my money and possible use it to buy illegal drugs… what a moronic statement …. you are a perfect example of why our Country is such big trouble…OMG I just cannot believe the crap that comes out of these comment sections.. Maine…. you have totally lost your way

          • Anonymous

            We are just pounding our heads into a wall Paul. They know what they are saying, They are just worried about that mail box check. Will do anything and everything to protect it while you go to work.. Simple answer is this. We will pay. We will pay. They will take and take.. and do it stoned and we have no say in the matter.. And IF the law goes thru.. O what a crap storm that will be. While your at work.. they will cry foul at the top of their lungs until some liberal judge will award a case and it will end up costing us more money.. So pay them.. Shut up and go to work.. All I can tell you.. We have kept our head buried in the sand to long. Get to work and work hard. Budget your money while they spend it on drugs..

          • Anonymous

            Hi Paul…Mainers will do their independent thing yet. The
            small pack of progressive coyotes that circle this forum expose themselves for
            the transparent extremists they are with every post but do not see how
            desperate they’re starting to look. Many Democrats who have supported xxxxxxx-D’s
            for decades understand now betrayal of trust and find themselves open to new
            solutions as they remember the old Democrat party and hear these howls as part
            of the hunt.

            Mainers….the choice is yours contrary to what the coyotes
            are shrieking. This is the classic clash of government power versus common people
            power. Conservatives will continue to offer you new approaches. Keep your
            Constitution and Common Sense real close as you determine for yourselves what
            ideas represent positive energy and what others, fire.

          • Anonymous

            I cannot believe this either. If you are in the need I think there should be requirements to recieve free healthcare and public assistance. I think you should be required to fulfill some sort of public service, (volunteer time to a social/volunteer service, or simply get in a trash pickup crew, etc…) Show proof of hunting for a job within their abilities/qualifications (applying for a 60+k a year job you are not qualified for is not considered job hunting.

            heck I can guarantee I’d be flipping burgers at McDonalds before I’d collect un-employment/public assistance.

          • Anonymous

            I agree with this too…..Pick a load up in a van at the methadone clinic and take them to volunteer is some way shape or form…Help them build self worth back up…and then they can have their free drug treatment. I had Maine care when I got laid off and was pregnant…I would have been happy to volunteer for the privilege of free health care

          • Anonymous

            simple question, are you a welfare recipient?  If so I can understand where you are coming from,  if not, than see where other people are coming from.  If a person goes out gets a job, paying all their taxes, doesnt steal, lie or find ways to cheat, but just wants to take care of their family, than why should the people who are the state who get some or all the benefits, be allowed to get benefits, and sit back and do drugs, drink alcohol, or smoke cigs.  These are things that should only be allowed to do if you can work everyday and earn that money.  Well all except drugs that is, but I think my point is clear enough. 

          • They are paid for being unable to work not for being unable to smoke a cigarette!

          • Anonymous

            just like my employer … i had a choice… and frankly I WORK for the money that those slugs get for nothing
            why I do have to take a drug test so that the looting government can take MY money and give it a moocher who does not even have to take a drug test as  a condition of getting MY MONEY…

            you people need to stop thinking that the money comes from the government.. no money ever comes from a government, it comes from the taxpayers…. all of it… and the government can NEVER give money to anyone that it did not take by force from someone who earned it.
            change your mindset

          • It ain’t your Money!
             
            If you don’t believe it go to the State and  Demand a Withdrawal and see how far you get!

            If you really want what the Disabled get, sell all your property and jump out in front of a Dump Truck!

            Lets us now about your new “Glorious ” life of leisure life style afterwards!

          • violate???Give me a break!!!  Are you serious.  Peeing in a cup is violating someone?  I was violated then, when I went to WORK.  I did it so I could get their money that I work for!  Not just take the money but do a legitimate service to obtain. If they don’t want to pee in a cup then don’t go on welfare!!!!!

          • Anonymous

            “So you dont get the money unless we can violate you!”
            No…it’s totally on a volunteer basis, so it doesn’t violate your rights. Of course, it you don’t volunteer, then your application will be lost in the government quagmire. 
            Nobody is after the legitimate welfare recipients. If we are giving you money to feed your children, but you have money for drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes for yourself, then you need to get your priorities in order. There are legitimate recipients who need “temporary” assistance, and then there are parasites. Can you figure out which is which?

        • Anonymous

          It’s all so clear now….antilib means you are pro con. You don’t like progressive liberal thinkers, but you do like regressive cons

          I get it now!  Con the people…

          • Anonymous

            Sir the only people who are getting conned here are the working people.. Conned into working and paying for others to not work AND take drugs. Im sick of getting conned… We have been conned for a very long time and the min we say something about it all you people do is cry cry cry about it.. Quit your crying.. Hopefully you will get sick of hearing about us complaining about it and go out and get a job.

          • Anonymous

            You sir, are being conned by the conservative right.  FYI, I have a job…the same one I’ve had for 28 years.  I have two masters degrees and one is in Economics.

            The only thing I’m crying about are closed minded, myopic views that are poorly conceived, and rarely thought through.  I have just paid $11,975 in federal income tax and paid a higher rate than Mitt Romney.

            And yes, I am sick of hearing you already!  C’mon dude…..There are more people that read these comments than even you can imagine.  Pigeon holing the population into a black and white mold may fit your short-sighted agenda, but does not, I have found, fit reality.

            Have a wonderful day…if you can’t remain miserable.

        •  Looking at your spelling I think YOU may need one….

      • Anonymous

        Not only should drug testing be mandatory,  all of those on SNAP,TANF, and other alphabet programs should be required to spend 40 hours a week in public service positions, helping out at soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc. Those too “disabled” to do that should be required to sit in a chair at the town office for 40 hours per week. No Jerry Springer watching allowed.  That alone would miraculously shorten the rolls of those on the doles

        • Anonymous

           Public Service doesn’t work ,  they end up getting hurt and getting settlements.

          • Anonymous

            right and they take the cushy jobs away from the brothers of the politicians… we cannot have a needy person working a toll booth, when the politician’s brother “needs that job” and needs to retire on full pension after 25 years

        • StillRelaxin

          I love your ID! Sadly your thoughts aren’t so interesting. Drug test the poor if you like but as we’ve seen though out the country where others have stooped this low, it’s a complete waste of time and money (See Florida story above as a prime example).

          The only positive from such testing is that for a few months (Until those who don’t learn from the mistakes of others finally figure out what most of us have already learned) harassing these people and attacking their constitutional rights will make people with ignorant views on humanity happy. I hope hateful people don’t get their way on this but I also hope that if it happens, 1. Folks like you learn something from its expected failure, and 2. Those who’s rights will have been violated receive compensation (Via legal action) from our State coffers.

          • Anonymous

            Well I am glad that you admit that there would be a positive to this idea. I, as one of the 50% who pay income taxes do not share your hope that welfare recipients further take from society’s producers via the legal system. I must be so ignorant that I do not think that  I would learn the lesson that this would teach, but perhaps others would.  

          • StillRelaxin

            Yes, you’ve already missed what has been shown to be obvious to most people, so it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if you also were to miss another opportunity to learn from further testing that will again provide more evidence of a negative results for drugs among populations receiving State aid. Too much reality might be a shock to at least one of your unused systems. Anyone who bothers to look at the known data on this subject can only come to one (Maybe two) conclusions.

            1. These people show a LOWER incidence of drug use than the general population. Huh, conservative hatred doesn’t comply with known science or fact. Who’d a thunk?
            2. Conservatives who perpetuate the reverse false image really should move on to something that makes them look less “Uninformed.” Perhaps vaginal probing? Nah, done that one and looked foolish. I honestly don’t know how to help you folks out. Maybe read some books, take some classes, avoid Fox Entertainment “News?”

          • Anonymous

            1. May be true, I don’t know. but rate of drug abuse in this population is irrelevant to the argument that pre employment  drug testing and showing up 40 hours a week are reasonable expectations for an employer. Those unable to support themselves via the traditional employment process who rely on publicly funded welfare programs should be held to no lower standard.  For those 2% to 8% who are abusing drugs,  not addressing this problem while handing out cash or items easily traded for cash will surely lead to their purchase of drugs with this public money, which forces me  and rest of the 50% of us who actually pay income taxes to support their self-destructive habits. I support enough of my own self-destructive habits, I don’t need to support other’s.  For the small population identified as having a drug problem, they would need a different package of assistance tailored to getting them better, which I would bet would lead them off the public dole as a side benefit. No conservative  hate here, just practical tough love. Who’d a thunk?
            2. Man, am I glad you opened up the absolutely unrelated topic of vaginal probing on this thread. I wanted to, but I was sure that if I did, as a conservative commentator, the moderator would instantly delete the post for review. Did you catch Rachel Maddow’s  discussion of this topic last week on MSNBC? It looked like she wanted to vomit in disgust at the prospect of the horrific forcing of women to have an invasive ultrasound probe shoved into ladies’ nether regions by the jack booted control freak white male  conservative leaders of Virginia?.  The piece went on and on.  She did forget to even mention in passing, during these extended discussions over multiple nights, that the proposal did not include all women, but only those who were seeking an abortion.  The vast majority of abortions today are performed mechanically, not chemically.  How does she think abortions are performed? Via a magic want? Nope, abortions involve, gasp, (cover your ears here, liberals) inserting probes, sounds, suction catheters,  gauze on a stick and heaven knows what else in these same regions. That sounds a little more invasive to me than a plastic ultrasound probe. If you want to know the best way that liberals can help conservative causes is just keep stating your positions openly and honestly. By the way, the ultrasound requirement as outlined in the VA proposal, in my opinion, is counterproductive  to the anti-abortion cause because it gives liberals an issue they can skew to make those on the anti-abortion side seem foolish and heavy-handed.

        • pavint46

           Yes drug testing should be mandatory and you are very insulting to disabled people!!  I am disabled and would love to have a job but can’t get hired because of my handicap!  Do you know how boring it is to set around the house with nothing to do, no money to do something and/or no way to get to a place to do something??  And as for television,, it sucks there is nothing to watch and only idiots watch Jerry Springer!!!!

          • Anonymous

            I cant speak for everyone… I am a republican. I make sometimes harsh comments. But In my heart I never include disabled people nor elderly nor vets in my rants. I have relatives that are disabled, obviously I have elderly people in my family as well as vets. In my way of thinking I feel that somehow policing the system is protecting them. These are the people that have no other option and I believe truly that this is what the system is for. I feel that when people are taking drugs and are on the system we are enabling. I also feel that able bodied people should have rights to be on the system, but also that they should have an end to the benefits.. I.E. a means to a better life. I cant imagine that anyone would want to stay on the system that do not have to be. I cant see how you can live very well on what is given and that they would want better. If they are taking drugs and the system continues to pay for basic needs.. I dont see that there is any true way for them to get off it. 

          • Not to mention, wouldn’t we be helping the children of these drug addicts.  If they are addicted to drugs and the state of maine tests them, then their children can go into safe environments until their parents get clean.  And the added benefit will be that their parents won’t be trading their ebt cards for half the value so they can have cash to buy drugs.

          • Anonymous

            good point.. what makes anyon think that the money from the ebt card is going to be used to feed the children in the first place…
            this is why there should NEVER be cash handed out, only cheese, bread, peanut butter and whatever other FOOD that can be handed out.
            it is hard to abuse a system when cheese is the currency
            and anyone who is hungry will accept cheese gladly

          • Anonymous

            Or it can be set up like the WIC program…where you get vouchers for specific items and there is a list of items that can be chosen. This way not only are they getting the food they need, it’s healthy. Plus when you use WIC a bottle deposit is collected if applicable.

          • Anonymous

            I am sorry as it appears that I insulted you, pavint46. I apologize. I put”disabled” in quotation marks to indicate those who are not really disabled, but are taking the system for a ride. As a truly disabled person, you should be not too happy with these folks either, as they take away from the help that can be given to those who really can not work.  

          • Anonymous

            you know what… it is too bad that you are handicapped… but I cannot think of a single reason that that means that I have to pay you a penny by force of gunpoint and threat of jail time.

            I think your family or your church needs to be called on to help YOU and not ME.
            I do not know you, I will never know you and I should not be forced to pay you a penny.
            Maybe if you could wheel your self in, or someone else could wheel you into an old folks home and you could play cribbage or sing with the shut ins, you could “earn some money”
            I am sure there are charities who would throw some money your way for being useful.
            YOUR FAMILY should pay for your keep… not ME.
            I will pay for my children and my children will pay for me.
            that is how it should work…

             

          • Anonymous

            Oh my goodness.  You have reached a new low by expressing so much hostility towards a disabled person who is frustrated by their handicap.

            Here is where you really display your lack of knowledge:   IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY!   Have you ever heard of the word “Insurance?”   If you have auto insurance does that make you a scum bag if you put in a claim after an accident?  If you have homeowners insurance does it make you a scum bag to put in a claim if your home burns down?  No?  Then why are people scum if they put in an INSURANCE claim after suffering a severe break down of body or mind to the degree that they are no longer able to work?

            American workers and their employers are forced to pay for their own disability  INSURANCE throughout their working lives in case they become disabled. It is called SSDI (Social Security Disability INSURANCE.  It comes out of every pay check, and is matched by every employer.  It is a portion of another INSURANCE plan called FICA (Federal INSURANCE Contributory Act).  Don’t you think it uncanny how the word “INSURANCE” appears in each of these phrases? 

            You really should educate yourself (at least a little bit), so as to have SOME idea of the things you speak about.     

          • Guest

            ….

          • Anonymous

            I stated that people should get FOOD for welfare, NOT cash.
            and while I am eating ramen and tuna because that is what i can afford, I resent people on the dole getting to buy lobster.
            I have to make sacrafices so that others can simply be given MY money.
            yes, bread, cheese and peanut butter is fine food for people who are not earning it.

          • I have an honest question for you oleyane.  How come every one of your posts have been edited?

          • Anonymous

            Its called an audible.. He gets to the line of scrimmage and dosnt like the defense so.. and audible is his only choice of action

          • Anonymous

            welfare is not insurance.
            and I do not need the education you are offering.
            I TAUGHT Constitutional law in law school.

          • Anonymous

            I know that “welfare” is not insurance.  I find it troubling that you continually blur the line by grouping TANF recipients, elderly, disabled under SSDI or SSI, Medicare and Medicaid recipients, and poor children as “welfare” recipients.  By the way, the term “welfare” is basically extinct.  Remember when the word turned into “Workfare’ under Bill Clinton?  It is too confusing to simply use the word “Welfare” now-a-days and expect people to know which programs you are talking about.

            What really surprises me is your statement that you TAUGHT Constitutional Law.  Not only did you miss the 4th amendment and all the Federal Judges and Circuit Courts’ opinions about this drug testing issue, but I’m curious as to why you must subsist on Ramen noodles, canned Tuna, in addition to having to “pee in a cup” so much.  You cannot possibly work at a law firm.  I know too many lawyers and NONE of them have had to “pee in a cup” like you to obtain or to sustain employment. 

            “Constitutional law” is an avocation of mine.  If you really taught Constitutional Law, please offer me a little proof so that we can have some intelligent conversations.  Can you answer this?  Name the U.S. Supreme Ct. Justices who consider themselves “Constitutionalists,” and tell me what they mean by that word.  Thanks much.        

        • it might also make it more difficult to look for a job.

          • Anonymous

            Good point, there would need to be an exception for time spent actually looking for a job.

        • { Those too “disabled” to do that should be required to sit in a chair at the town office for 40 hours per week. }

          Most Towns already have a Mayor!

          • Anonymous

            Good one.

        • exactly………………….

        • Anonymous

          You must be one of them there ‘Job Creators’, huh?

        • Anonymous

          Maybe a sliding scale of hours worked for the amount of bennies you receive….anywhere between 20-40 hours per week…like any typical american. The more you work the more pay you receive

        • Anonymous

          40 hours a week? Doesn’t leave much time to look for a job, now does it?

      • Anonymous

        This whole thing is a political ploy meant to mobilize the Limbaugh/Colter republicans.  The stats prove it isn’t a large scale problem and the illegal search aspect is unconstitutional.  The fact that companies get away with drug testing for employment is just another hypocritical law put into place by the very same political party that claims it doesn’t want to interfere in our lives, the GOP.  More hypocrisy, more lies, more government intrusion, and all at the hands of the Republican party.

        • Anonymous

          You are so right.  All of a sudden I feel like I am ‘owned’ in our free country!

          • Anonymous

            I understand. I as a working citizen feel owned as well. I give up a day or 2 a week of pay  as well as my wife … We have no choice in the matter … But I realize.. nothing is free and without cost.. If we have a choice. I would rather NOT help people who are taking drugs. I would rather help them get OFF drugs. continue their benefits and hopefully get this country back to work. I think that being owned by drug users is quite a slap in the face. 

      • Jillian Kitchen

        When you apply for a job, you sign a little spot on the back of your application that says that you consent to a drug test. So, no, your rights where not violated because you waived them.

        • Anonymous

          Also .. we wont violate the rights of people on the system. Simply sign your name if you want to continue to have your mail box stuffed each month.. We wont twist anyones arm. If you feel that your rights are more important than eating.. then dont sign.. That sounds tough.. But those of us that have signed to have a job in order to eat have had to make that tough decision as well..

          • Anonymous

            Well put.

        • Anonymous

          you never had a RIGHT not to be drug tested by a private company.

          the US constitution SPECIFICALLY and ONLY  stops the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from doing certain things.  (with an exception for anything to do with slavery… all are prohibited from perpetrating the trappings of slavery).

          • There are labor laws and questions that they can and cant ask!They cant ask you if you have a disability ect!Check the laws first!

        • Be a Man!Stand up for your rights and DON”T check the box!When they say that they can’t hire you because they are a drug user!Sue them and make them prove it! Have a private test done just for youself and give them a verbal comunication that you do not use drugs!We have given to many of our rights away!Its time to take them back!

      • Anonymous

        So just because I’m A truck driver I can’t use drugs when I’m not driving? If it is such a violation why is government only crying foul for welfare recipients? The working person gets no help from the government. Why should I work when I can sit home and do illegal drugs that someone else has to pay for? It’s time for the working people to take back what’s theirs, Their paycheck.

        • Anonymous

          Maybe we should drug test all those who were bailed out on Wall Street and the banks. After all, didn’t they get a bit of government welfare? I’d bet we’d find more drug use in those people as a percentage then with those on welfare.try doing this and see how fast the r’s would pull their heads in and begin to cry foul!

          • Anonymous

            What about all the people who take grant monies and work at universities and public hospitals.  Here’s an idea.  Let’s make everybody in the country take a drug test every two weeks for the rest of their lives.  

          • Anonymous

            My opinion is every person in office who voted for that bailout should have been voted out of office. But as usual, the sheep voted to keep the same o same o. Why do so many voters fear change?

        • Exactly!!!

        • Anonymous

          I bet you make a lot more money than somebody getting a small social security check or SNAP for their groceries.  Yeah, it’s soooo much fun being poor.

          • Anonymous

            I make more money because I chose to make more. I like how you have to use the elderly in your argument. Most S.S.I. recipients have paid in for that right to receive those benefits. So try finding a new argument. That ones all used up.

          • Anonymous

            I grew up poor as could be.
            westbrook maine, no hot water, no tub or shower… we bathed in the kitchen sink, but we never took a penny of welfare.  at 8 I earned money for the family, at 10 had a couple jobs.
            THIS IS HOW AMERICAN WORKS… OPPORTUNITY, not hand outs.

          • Anonymous

            “…an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy (stuff) we don’t need. We’re the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War’s a spiritual war… our Great Depression is our lives. We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won’t. And we’re slowly learning that fact. And we’re very, very pissed off.”

            Someone with your handle sould be railing against the strong, not advocating more government intrusion on the weak.

          • Anonymous

            Ummmmm….Thats probably because he works! I am not saying anything about social security for the elderly that have worked all their lives, but the ones on welfare that are spending the money on drugs and lobster. Truly disabled people have nothing to do with this, it the punks and the crooks. True law abiding citizens have nothing to fear.

        • Anonymous

          it is a simple divide and conquer ploy.
          they get us pointing fingers at each other, while Olympia nd Jock make MILLIONS, if not billions off of a giant scam at university of phoenix

      • poormaniac

        Where’s the insanity in ‘ you break the law and lose your benefits”.  I’d also like to see drug testing in all government positions weather they be hired or elected !

      • How about you smoke your weed on your own dime.  PERIOD!!!!

      • sometimes there are requirements that go along with job applications…sometimes that includes drug tests…in order to work you must not be doing drugs.. baseball does it, football does it, and now we need to do it too.. that is if you want some of my money to get you over the hump, you must not be using it for drugs… illegal drugs.. how do I know this,, you take the test… it’s voluntary.. you don’t have to take the test, only if you want my money… don’t take the test, it’s perfectly ok… I and millions of others, fully support this idea.  it’s my money, I don’t get to say how it used.. I only get to vote for someone who may have an influence as to how it is used.. that , so far, isn’t good enough…. take the drug test and go look for work.. somewhere

      • Anonymous

        The search is not just for illegal drugs. It is for alcohol, too. My belief is that all government workers, from bureaucrats to politicians, because they take taxpayers money, should also be tested. If they don’t like it, “they don’t have to take the money”.

      • Anonymous

         it is unconstitutional to REQUIRE a drug test… it is NOT unconstitutional to make the drug test a preqrequisite for getting free money.  this is tit for tat.
        if, as you say, it were unconstitutional to test for drugs without PC, then NO EMPLOYER COULD DO IT… employers, on the other hand ARE allowed to do it AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT. 
        where is the problem?
        there is no inconsistency in the idea and the constitution.  nobody has a fundamental right to receiving hand outs.

      • Anonymous

        exactly hankwilliams, if you smoke weed over the weekend and get tested you lose your job!!  Your missing the point, why should these people be allowed to sit home not work and use drugs and collect benefits while the taxpayers pay to keep their lazy a—-home!  I say it’s about time to have them subjected to the same test that people have in the workforce.

      • Anonymous

         You wanted a job, you did as requested. You wouldn’t  have  gotten the  job  otherwise. 

         Is it really in anyone’s best interest to let people receiving assistance use drugs? Are they living up to their potential? Are they giving their children the best opportunity to succeed?

         I’ve been banging this drum for a long time. As I’ve stated, it’s not about catching anyone. It’s about helping them improve their chances for success. in the future. You don’t boot them off of assistance, you direct them to the appropriate aid  and monitor their progress taking appropriate action when needed. If at some point that does mean they lose assistance, it isn’t because they weren’t given every opportunity to   improve their lives.

    • Anonymous

      The reason that some people agree to drug tests for certain types of employment is because they choose jobs that involve Public Safety. It’s considered in the Public interest to have people who are not high while performing those public duties  which require a safety standard – like driving a school bus etc.

      This is not the same thing- at all.

      It is considered unconstitutional, in this instance, because welfare recipients would in effect be designated as 2nd class citizens by subjecting them to different treatment under the laws that apply to everyone.

      People who display public intoxication have no expectation of privacy, however someone who wants to have a beer or a glass of wine with dinner, even if they are on welfare, need not be required to submit to random drugs tests, especially at their own expense.

      This is just another attempt by the right wing conservative GOP/Tea Partiers to undermine the very foundation my ancestors built this country on – namely, the Constitution with respect individual privacy, equal treatment under the law, and the guarantee against illegal searches and seizures.

      Once people start handing over their rights willing in this way, we are screwed as the model of democracy.

      Do not be persuaded that this is necessary.

      It isn’t. It IS unconstitutional!

      And if you don’t understand what any of this means, you need to pick up a book on American History and/or copy of the Constitution and read it. Every American citizen’s future rights and freedoms depends on an informed, voting public.

      If you don’t think it can happen to you or affect something you take for granted, just look at what’s been tried just recently with regard to any woman’s right of access to reproductive health care, generally, AND specifically.

      Nobody who values their freedoms wants a government who can do this  kind of stuff, arbitrarily, NOR because somebody with a giant lab wants a lucrative government contract.

      Pay attention, Folks, and follow the money.

      • Anonymous

        I think it is a public safety issue Bath salts break in’s pill’s etc it’s a big safety issue imo.

        • Anonymous

          There’s another little aspect of the Constitution which you apparently missed in school regarding the presumption of innocence before being found guilty and a right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of your peers. Any of this ringing a bell?

          Seriously, you really need to brush up on your Constitutional and American Revolutionary War trivia.

          You will be amazed by how much you don’t know about stuff that affects your every waking moment.

          It’s actually pretty interesting how we all got here and why we celebrate the Fourth of July every summer.

          • Anonymous

            I’ve seen people selling drugs trading drugs using drugs while there old ladie’s are on welfare I know exactly what the constitution says and I don’t believe you should use it to defend drug user’s abusing the system The Military drug tests we pay for it, company’s drug test so your wife don’t get run over by a truck driver crashing from to much crank at the wheel. I think it’s more then fair, it couldn’t be any more unconstitutional then what our gov. has already done the last decade, were was you then?If I can be drug tested to earn a pay check then they can be drug tested to take it away from me. 

          • Anonymous

            So, you prefer to invent a standard where unconstitional is the preferable way to go?  The more unconstitutional the better?  The New red white & blue, as it were?

            Not I.

            The fact that this country has changed in some very fundamental ways since 9/11 and the Cheney -Bush administration decided to use it as an opportunity for a giant power/money grab, does not justify drug testing poor people and charging them for the privilege. Period.

            And despite what people like you tend to want to believe, your taxes are not ‘your money’. They are your contribution to things We the People, as a society, decided to support along our way and long ago.

            We already know Americans have been royally ripped off economically.  I prefer to concentrate on restoring the economy, at least in part, by going after the ones who caused this mess.

            I think I’d start with AIG and Goldman Sachs etc and work from there.

          • Anonymous

             no, you are 100 % wrong.
            the money I earn, is MY MONEY.
            the government does not have money, unless it takes it, by force from ME.
            you need to change teh way you think…
            remember everytime the government wants to raise a tax, or a fee or create an entitlement or a department… they ALWAYS say “this will only cost the taxpayers the same as a cup of coffee a week… now that is not too much, is it?”
            but there is NO END TO THE NUMBER of cups of coffee they keep taking.
            and they never lower the tax after the “thing” is paid for.
            IT IS my money

          • Anonymous

            The money you earn is ‘yours’ until you write a check and give it to some body else. Then it becomes ‘theirs’.  Or in the case of taxes, ‘ours’.

            I’ll make a deal with you, though.  You show me which sliver of I-95 is yours and I’ll make
            a point of avoiding it.

          • Anonymous

            either you are playing dumb, or you are incapable of understanding.
            if I EARN $1000, I will NEVER get to write a check for that $1000, I will get to write checks for about $635.  MAX… the government TAKES the rest of MY money from me.
            Do not tell me that the taxes taken was never mine… it was mine.

            People need to change their mindset.  IT IS MY MONEY, I EARNED IT.  not the $635, the $1000 IS MINE

      • Anonymous

        Working at Lowes or LL Bean is not a public safety concern.  Yet they are allowed by law to make a drug test requisite to employment with their company.  This is not right, not right at all.

        • Anonymous

          Whether it’s a good idea or not, private companies can invent their own standards and criteria for running their businesses. You can choose not to work there which is what a lot of people do without regard to drug testing requirements.

          I have to agree, it’s largely unnecessary and also must create a sort of controlling atmosphere, I imagine.

        • Anonymous

          Bean didn’t drug test me…

        • They are sneaky about it!

          They slide into the Job Application some means that says that you agree to take a drug test as a condition of employment. Everybody signs it because they know that if they dont they wont get selected.

          The only way to fight against these forms of discrimination in the workplace is with laws that prohibit it!

          Dont expect it to “””ever “”come from the right!

      • Anonymous

         you don’t think that keeping people off drugs has somethign to do with public safety?

        and you are wrong about all jobs that require drug tests have something to do with public safety
        many jobs simply require drug tests.

        • Anonymous

          I wrote neither assertion.  Try reading what I actually did write.

          In a free society, there remain things you can’t realistically legislate against.
          People will do what they re gonna do and you wouldn’t really want it any other way.

          Also, I am just not persuaded a majority of people receiving assistance are drug addicts, alcoholics, nor chain smokers with gambling problems and a taste for
          foie gras  and fast cars.

          Those people receive a different form of government assistance, n’est ce pas?

      • Thanks for summing it up so well!

        I feel sorry

        For those who can’t comprehend it,

        It’s their Constitutional rights as well that are being trampled on! 

    • Anonymous

      Can the police stop you and give you a breathalyzer test just because you were driving down the road? Of course not, and why, because it would be a violation of your rights. Here it’s ok because they are on welfare and receiving money from the state? When the state can pick and chose when to allow rights to one group that doesn’t pertain to another, look out!

      • Anonymous

        But they can say the smell something and rummage through your car for a hour…..and not find anything because what they smelled was a Skunk….So I would have to say of course they can…..

    •  As well as the ones making our laws……

    • Anonymous

       since they work for us i want my politicians drug tested.

    • Anonymous

      Let the druggies earn their money the old fashion way….commiting crimes

  • Anonymous

    I have no problem with testing as long as “ALL” Politicians get tested as well …………………

  • Anonymous

    Why would it be considered unconstitutional to test welfare recipients for drug use when most people that work are subject to the test across the board with no prior history of drug use. Many employers require it as a prerequisite for employment and ongoing unannounced tests there after. In fact, many companies will terminate you for tabacco use. This is all legal and constitutional, so why the hesitation to test those on public assistance????
    Too many double standards!

    • Anonymous

      There is nothing that says that a company can not control your like  . Unless state pass laws that says they can’t fire you if you smoke

    • Anonymous

      One group that doesn’t have drug tests as conditions of employment are the politicians. Talk about a double standard! All of them, top to bottom, should be tested regularly to keep their postitions. That would eliminate the hypocrisy

      • Anonymous

        hey no problem drug test em i’m all for it hopefully we can catch a few and remove those forever pension’s and pay check’s.

      • One way to get rid of Barney Frank..

    • Anonymous

      OK test every one in  Maine hows that an you pay for it an if you pass the state will half to pay you back hows that ?

  • Big government conservatives at it again.  Who pays for the testing? Time to go blue and send these social engineering extremist back to the real world.

    • Anonymous

      They had testing in Fl.  the person taking the test has to pay for the test an if they past the test the state had to pay back the people that past the test an it cost the state a lot of money .   They only  found 1% that failed so the state stopped  the test

      • Guest

        It has already been proven that most folks on welfare aren’t taking drugs. It’s the rich/haters that promote this to keep the focus on the rich and away from the political/rich theft

        • Guest

          If most aren’t taking drugs, splendid!  Nothing to worry about, right?

          • Great!

            Lets put cameras in your windows, and access to your banking stubbs!!

            If you got nothing to worry about you shouldn’t complain.

          • Anonymous

            thats not a bad idea.. Theres hope for you yet.. lol

          • Anonymous

            The little hummingbird drones will be looking in our windows before n time.  

          • dadoje

            Except for the cost to do the test.

        • Anonymous

           I find that hard to believe that most people on welfare aren’t doing drugs, at least in the Bangor area

          • Anonymous

            Me 2.. Id have to see it to believe it

          • Anonymous

             I’m in the Bangor area and don’t do drugs. Maybe you should go back to 04783 before your zip code changes to 04756 or 04736 to save the PO money.

        • Anonymous

           Well, the 8% or so that DO test positive are nothing to sneeze at. What could Maine do with the money it doesn’t throw away of the 8%?

          • Anonymous

            ummmm …. use it to drug test the 92% who test negative 

      • Anonymous

        Think about for a minute-I have seen a number of job seekers that get “clean” for that one upcoming test, and pass. Then go right back to what they were doing. I just took a drug test and have another upcoming one (for work). I would bet that random ongoing test would field a different result.

        • Anonymous

          ok as you say drug test are so great for welfare people how come Fl. stopped doing it ?

          • Anonymous

            Politics?

          • Anonymous

            No out of 300,000 only 1% failed an the state had to pay back all those people that pass the test so it cost the state money that’s why they stopped it

          • Anonymous

            A liberal judge was crying about it.. other wise it was working.. Positive test went down in the second quarter of testing… The facts are there  http://www.floridafga.org/2011/10/floridas-drug-test-law-for-welfare-cash-assistance-first-quarter-facts-2/

          • Wow I can’t believe you are going to cloud their whining with FACTS!!!!  LOL

        • RoostookGuy

          You’ve “seen” this, have you ?

          • Anonymous

            Its pretty hard to live as long as me and have not seen it.

        • Anonymous

          ya they need random pick of people after like the military.

      • Anonymous

        In Florida, it cost the state $178 million dollars to drug test welfare recipients and they saved $60,000.00. Not that’s what I call cost effective!!!!

        • Anonymous

          wow , someone who does research and has an educated  post. You must read more than the BDN. refreshing !!!

          • Anonymous

            Thank you. I try to keep informed unlike many on here.

        • Anonymous

          Would you mind telling us where you got the overblown stat of 178 million from?

          • Guest

            ….

          • Anonymous

            http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/08/98_of_florida_welfare_applicants_pass_newly_implemented_drug_tests_discrediting_governor.html

            Try googling Florida drug testing and you will find many more references. It’s called research, not pulling numbers from nowhere to back up my biases!!!

          • Anonymous

            “As stated in the quote included from the Tampa Tribune, the cash assistance program costs an estimated $178 million a year. The full cost of the drug testing program has not yet been calculated, but it is likely to be higher than the meager savings of denying benefits to 2 percent of applicants who tested positive for drugs.”

            So you take a line from an online article from a biased article and can’t interpret it correctly. I wouldn’t call that research.

      • Anonymous

        http://www.floridafga.org/2011/10/floridas-drug-test-law-for-welfare-cash-assistance-first-quarter-facts-2/ I must have read this wrong.. according to this page… I think it worked pretty well… The next quarter the people testing positive dropped quite a bit.. And in the end.. before some liberal judge cried foul it was saving money.. It did vary from county to county.. but still… I think its worth a shot

  • Anonymous

    Rewrite your comment…makes no sense as written….Thanks

  • Guest

    “Conservative” this means only with their own money. If you look at a lot of the GOP…..they didn’t make their money, they stole it from the working class!!! Yes, I work. No I’m not on welfare. What are we going to do with all the starving children when you drug test their parents?? This is only going to create HATE and HUNGER. The conservatives don’t car if anyone starves to death as long as they continue to get all their tax breaks etc. What a bunch of hateful, selfish folks. The “conservatives” are the ones that are most able to help those that can’t help themselves with all the money they have stolen from the working class.

    • Anonymous

      What are we going to do with all the starving children when you drug test their parents??
      ***********************************************************************************

      The power structure that was voted out of Augusta last election passively condoned parental behavior like this by actively enabling parental dysfunction with legislation that saw money as the solution. Intentions aside, years of abuse later we know how well the “hopey” thing worked out. These children need a chance at life but parents who actively deny their own children their own parents are the problem.

      No more belly-gazing…..the state should offer a military style parental boot camp unless these parents  voluntarily choose monitored responsibilty. There’s no place to hide when you know your worth, as any Parris Island grad can tell you.

      • Anonymous

        Those of us who actually graduated from Parris Island know how to spell it. I really like your idea about boot camps for parents who do not give up their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches NOT. You must have been in someone else’s Marine Corps and not the one I was in. The United States Marine Corps, the one I was in,  required us to take an oath to support and defend The Constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  

        • Anonymous

          I agree…the very same one…but of course, you never make typographical errors, do you…

          • Anonymous

            Sorry, I consider obviously abused children to be reason enough to search further for answers. 

        • You better get in your car and head for Washington ASAP because the domestic enemy in the White House is assaulting The Constitution you swore an oath to defend! Hurry now before its too late!

      • Guest

        ….

        • Anonymous

          Do you know how many liberties you’ve already lost while under the influence of Progressives?

          • Guest

            ….

          • Anonymous

            Yours is a losing argument but I will never convince you of that. Fortunately, other people are independantly reasonable, open to both sides of the issue and are capable of common sense. It is for them that I post my opinion but this is the last response you’ll get from me on this matter.  

          • Guest

            ….

          • Anonymous

            we already get drug tested at work, so according to you our right’s have already been infringed,, we just thought the rest of you should join the party.

          • Anonymous

            two wrongs dont make a right.

          • Anonymous

             Actually, anewvoice is 100% correct. Already, half of the population is required to support the other half. It is not optional. To add insult to injury, we are not supposed to question this state of affairs, or chafe at the requirements. Money is taken from us under color of law (that implies threatened of use of force) and GIVEN to persons who are demonstrably unable to spend it wisely. Accordingly, appalling quantities of money are sniffed, snorted, guzzled, injected, scarfed, or otherwise absorbed by indolent freaks who wouldn’t do a day’s work if they didn’t have to. On top of that, this is the demographic that preys on the rest of us; mugging, carjacking, raping, etc. Hey! What’s in it for us?

          • Guest

            ….

          • RoostookGuy

            Nowhere near as many as under the last two conservative administrations.

      • weezy

        Any child with a drugged up parent is waiting for someone to rescue them.  They are in constant danger.  A friend waited 10 years for her resuce, and said the day the welfare workers put them in safe foster care was the best day of her life.  She was able to study in school, no longer worry about caring for her sick parents, and made a great life for herself, Despite her parent’s choices for their lifestyle….she was given the freedom to not copy what she had seen.  Had she not been rescued, and given a chance for her future, the entire family would be unproductive.

    • Anonymous

      So basically you assume drug addicted parents are properly feeding their children. In reality, any children in this situation probably will end up in the same endless poverty cycle as their parents. The liberal base has let this go on way too long. I am sure there are means to keep children from starving and not feed a parent’s drug habit. BTW-I just took a drug test last month and have another due this week-all for the privilege of paying taxes to give to welfare recipients. Do you see any irony in this? I don’t think a little accountability would be too much to ask. 

    • Anonymous

       if people can’t afford to feed their children, why did they have them in the 1st place? Penquis provides free birth control. if people can’t afford their children without welfare, place them in foster homes.  a better place for most of these children than with the parents who don’t know enough to come in from the rain. stupid is as stupid does.

      • Anonymous

         I wish Disqus had a “love” button.

    • Anonymous

      if the money is goin to drugs anyways how much are them kids eating now?

    • Anonymous

       Just about exactly HALF the population is on the dole and I am “selfish” for resenting it? You’re durned tootin’ I resent it! You are always confusing EQUAL OPPORTUNITY with EQUAL OUTCOME. If you want to eat filet mignon, get off your butt and go to work.

  • Mr_Spuddy

    I say we all ought to be tested; a person with nothing to hide has nothing to fear . . . 

    • Anonymous

       This type of thought leads to further loss of liberty.

      •  
        The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it. Adolf Hitler Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adolf_hitler_2.html#ixzz1nPkrk
         
         
         

        • Anonymous

           Are you speaking of Aunt Janet and her TSA gang…?

      • Anonymous

        Only if you have something to hide…

        • Anonymous

          I am so sick of this argument – only if you have nothing to hide.  If people could see the bigger picture in this country and stop harping on welfare recipients you’d be truly scared.  Do you realize the president of the united states – no matter who he/she is – now has the right to claim you are a terrorist and put you in prison without a judge or jury or being charged and keep you indefinitely?  AND that Homeland Security IS watching citizen’s comments in newspapers and on social media?  You can be declared a dissident in a blink of an eye and be gone – just like what happened in the Soviet Union or Chile or Argentina.  WE ARE THERE NOW PEOPLE and all you small-minded people can think of is this crap.  

    • Guest

      With nothing to fear then, how about strip searches and cavity inspections before work every day? But not before your children are run through a lie detector test where they are required to answer personal questions about their parents. Doing so will ensure our civil liberties.

      • Anonymous

        Hitler did that with the kids

      • Anonymous

         Short answer, a positive drug test will tell you if you need a strip search.

        • Guest

          Perfectly simpleminded

      • Anonymous

        comparing apples and oranges .. typical liberal.. Making something into something its not.. VEry simple concept .. Nothing needs to be read into it.. We dont want to pay FOR DRUGS !!!!… no more to it than that.. while we are at work.. we dont want to pay for you to sit home hitting the horn..  We dont care if you sit in a bean bag chair and eat Cheetos alllllllll day.. or if you stay in bed allll day..or whatever it is you do while we work.. Do it.. I just dont want to buy your crack.. and since its the working peoples money it shouldnt  be an issue.. Id like to go further.. Cigs and alcohol should be on that list as well.. 

        • Guest

          ….

          • Anonymous

            If the shoe fits… As far as cigs and beer… Yeah why not. If you can afford 8 bucks a pack for cigs and how much ever beer is.. then you should be all set. That stuff gets expensive..I smoke and I know how much it costs.. You could easily eat on what is spent on cigs.  At the checkout line I have seen it time and time again. No cash for food .. but plenty for that stuff…Ive seen people buy steaks with food stamps to feed their pets because stamps do not allow cat or god food.. I think thats just great. Most people that are working cant afford steaks to eat but their money is taken to buy steaks for pets.. And you think  a drug test is unfair?

          • Guest

            You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot with your small caliber mentality by your continual reference to food, beer and cigs.  It would take a walnut size brain to believe that those items are the issues that have brought us to this point in time.

          • Anonymous

            well i just seen a signature on facebook said beer was cheaper then gas so drink dont drive.:)

          • Guest

            ….

          • Anonymous

            Im paying for my cigs.. your not.. neither is anyone else.. You buy your own drugs..  If you buy .. crack it up.. I dont want to buy other people cigs mine cost enough

          • Guest

            ….

        • Guest

          Typical wingnut, always making personal attacks, a pathetic pack of pachyderms you’ve become always so eager and willing to give away rights so many have fought and died for.  It’s not apples and oranges there attackdoggie, its apples and arsenic.

          The problem isn’t that you don’t what to pay for DRUGS, you clowns don’t want to pay for anything, including two wars, Medicare part D and billions in tax breaks.

        • Let go of that dollar!

          It ain’t yours after you spend it paying your taxes!

          And you didn’t purchase the citisen’s rights  with it!

          • Anonymous

            Maybe not… But we can control where its spent…. and they dont have to take the money either.. Choice is theres..

        • Anonymous

          “hitting the horn” lol LOVE “Outside Providence”
          I am torn on this….although I don’t believe that Pot is anymore harmful than alcohol, or tobacco, which are both legal….If you don’t have a job to pay for these things you shouldn’t have them….case closed!

    • Anonymous

      Who pays for the test  ??

      • Anonymous

        I would suggest that if the test comes back positive, the druggie does.  If it’s negative, perhaps the government.  Just a thought.

    • Anonymous

      Well.. I agree.. the rest of us are being tested anyway .. you know .. to work.. so.. Why not.. I get tested every 6 months now.. Was every month.. But since I dont do drugs.. Heck test me everyday..  The only people that would have a problem with this ARE THOSE WHOM ARE TAKING DRUGS!!!!!

      • Guest

        ….

        • Anonymous

          Most people stop reading the constitution at the second amendment.

          • Guest

            ….

          • RoostookGuy

            It appears that most people here didn’t make it through the first.

          • Anonymous

            Or the Preamble, the 29th word of which is WELFARE.

        • Anonymous

          Again.. It will be done with consent. We arent forcing anyone to take the drug test. If you feel your rights are being violated. Do NOT take the test. I dont see any rights being violated here. Do not take the test and go get a job. Easy peasy

          • Guest

            ….

          • Anonymous

            Yeah it comes from working everyday.. and this law might be a light at the end of the tunnel.. Or an on coming train.. either way its time for something to happen

          • Guest

            ….

          • yes I am getting nauseous because you talk in circles.

        • Anonymous

          People can consent to searches anytime they want, absent probable cause.  And, in this case, the argument being made is that IF people want to receive taxpayer assistance for the necessities, the recipient will agree to waive the requirement of probable cause to undergo a drug test. PERFECTLY LEGAL.  And YES, nicotine and alcohol should be included.  If you can buy your own cigs and alcohol, then you don’t need my hard-earned money for the “necessities.”

          • Anonymous

             I like it. Why the heck shouldn’t wannabe recipients demonstrate good faith by showing that they are drug free? Why the heck not? If they have a problem with it, they can go beat on their parents for subsistence funds.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, let’s all get tested every two weeks for the rest of our lives.  Yeah, that won’t cost anything for the taxpayers.  Just to prove we have nothing to hide.  Maybe if marijuana was legal as alcohol is – and alcohol by far being a more poisonous, ruinous drug – we wouldn’t be having this discussion.  

      • Anonymous

        I don’t need too…I have a job that does not require it…And I agree with you about the marijuana…but I also agree that if you have the money for weed you have the money for food

        • Anonymous

          You have a job – right now – that doesn’t require it. Hope you keep it.

    • I agree!!  I had to be tested to make the money they are giving these people, why shouldn’t they have to be tested to TAKE it!!

  • Anonymous

    “Pursuit of happiness” doesn’t mean “a free ride, higher than a Georgia pine”

    • Anonymous

       The words, “Pursuit of happiness” are not found in the Constitution. You are thinking of the Declaration of Independence, a document that has nothing to do with our rights.

      • Anonymous

        Ok, I stand corrected however,  where in the constitution does it say anything about a free ride?

  • Anonymous

    This is bogus man. You mean I cannot collect the dole from the man and have my budweiser too? I like to smoke a little geef too, it is harmless and helps me relax. The stress of not working and watching tv is hard on me. Sometimes we hit the jackpot and can smoke a little dandruff when things are really dismal. Now I need to take a drug test. Wow, this is bogus. Where are my rights?

    • Wasn’t sure if you were being sarcastic or not :)

      Assuming your weren’t, where is this money coming from that you are buying illegal drugs with???  I don’t want to hear that some should be legal or not, I’m neither agreeing or disagreeing on that account on this post. However, if I am working hard and being taxed as much as I am, you better not be wasting any money that is going to you that you supposedly need to ‘survive’.  Also, people on drugs are less likely to pass a drug test to get employed and start making their own wages again.

      • Anonymous

         when people have housing provided for a very low amount, get food stamps and free medical, look there’s money left for drugs from my tanf check. some have boyfriends supporting them

      • Anonymous

         Well, not all of them are working two jobs and studying for the ministry. Some of them can sleep late after being stoned all night. Sleep as late as they like, because they are on the dole and have no job to get up for. When they do wake up, they can burgle a few houses to get stuff to fence for drug money. Stop by downtown and suck up some brewskis, maybe mug the odd citizen for his shoes or car. If they have a slow day, there’s always their social safety net available. Requiring drug testing would RUIN their happy, carefree lifestyle…

    • The larger percentage of people on welfare are employed full time than are the ones who sit around all day watching TV. If people had their facts straight, they’d be less likely to discriminate. You all act like lowlife slobs are wasting your money away in their homes smoking dope and laughing that they pulled one over on you hard working tax payers. Maybe if you took time to think of the way corporate America treats your money, tax breaks that the rich get, and corporate welfare, you’d realize that this is the LEAST of your concerns. But if the finger points there, you’ll look!

      • Anonymous

         I find it hard to believe that a large % of people on welfare are working full time. Maybe it’s under the table income and hasn’t been reported to the state. unless someone has a very large family working full time will take them off welfare.

        • It’s fine what you choose to believe but there are statistics that prove me correct. Two people can have two kids and work full time and qualify for welfare. Because minimum wage is not a living wage.

        • Guest

          ….

      • Anonymous

        oh nobody forgets that I say remove all tax loop holes and jack their taxes and corperate taxes. all those tax cuts haven’t netted us more jobs they just shipped more jobs over sea’s with the free trade act, what scum bag politician took the pay off. to put that on the table?Further anyone who signed their name to the norqoist oath and put it before their oath to the American people should be shot for treason. Yet that isn’t the topic at hand is it.

      • Then those people would have no problem passing the test.

  • Anonymous

    This violates the Constitution and is a waste of money.

    More government intrusion… now they want to search our insides without cause.

    • Anonymous

       most people applying for a job now a days have to take such test, even if the job is nothing to do w/public safety

      • Anonymous

        two wrongs dont make a right.

  • Anonymous

      Go republicans!  Next they will requirer a yearly BMI evaluation and proof  that the recipients do not smoke or eat junk food.  Hmmm!   Maybe it’s not that bad of an idea.  It would eliminate all the McDonald’s trash and cigarette butts that litter our streets and highways.  Making sure that those living off welfare own their own home (trailers don’t count) would really save big brother lots of money

    • Anonymous

      It is the Dems that want BMI done on people so they can regulate what you eat, IE: kids home lunches inspected, and given a school lunch.

      • Anonymous

        Why stop at just food, Jed? Put a cigarette butt to your lips and see what happens. The act of smoking dope is considered right but the act of smoking a cigarette is considered wrong, unless you’re the President in which case it’s OK. How about the amount of energy we use in our tiny homes compared to the amount of energy Gore’s house uses?

        Oh, we’re so, so bad, they’re just so, so good.

    • Anonymous

      Maybe we could start with LePage. His nose is pretty red and he’s certainly puffy. He’s pretty nuts and lives off the public dole. Maybe drug test and BMI for him wouldn’t be a bad idea!!

      • Guest

        ….

    • Anonymous

       most would have no idea of how to take care of a home, even if they did where would the motivation come from to do the work required to keep up a home??

  • Anonymous

    I’m totally against drug testing as long as I can make the choice whether my taxpayer dollars support those on welfare…

  • Anonymous

    If drug testing is so great as you say how come  Fl. stopped it  ?

    • Anonymous

      A federal court ruled it unconstitutional after  the former Grand Wizard of the Maine Heritage Policy Center Tarren Bragdon got caught providing bogus statistics. 

      • Anonymous

        Thats because out of 300,000 tested only 1% was found an the state had to pay all those people that pass the test back . The courts have all ready said you can test one class of people you either test every one in Maine or no one

        • Anonymous

           most people who work in ME are required to drug test. why not those on the dole?

          • Anonymous

            You are right it was cost effective

          • RoostookGuy

            No, “most people” certainly are NOT.

            Repeating something that isn’t true over and over doesn’t make it true.

            Sheesh.

  • Conley Raye

    If you indeed are in need of welfare than you need not to take drugs. Kind of simple really, clean folks qualify for assistance while the drug infestive culture has to move on or God forbid,  clean up. Welfare is to assist not promote and it is the taxpayers dollar’s at work or not. I see it as a win win situtaion, for all.

    •   What about the drug free disabled guy humiliated by this illegal search and all the others who refuse to be stereotyped by this rediculus association  of drug users and welfare recipeiants!

      What did THEY Win?

         How many will refuse to apply because they take prescribed medicine as a result of the painfull disability that causes their need for assistance and really don’t want to share this with the public? 
       
       
       

      • Anonymous

         the testing would have to be for illegal drugs and the testers will know the legal drugs the person is taking

  • What a waste, we all know there is no fraud in welfare.  It is only for homeless, one legged, blind, single parent, veterans, right?

    • Anonymous

       yep, right

    • Guest

      You forgot Politicans and corporations, who and which take a loin’s share of the plunder.

  • Guest

    It was a complete failure in Florida and will be in Maine too.

    • Anonymous

      Yes you are right they only found 1% anit cost the state a lots  of money

    • Anonymous

       try it in ME, see what happens.

      • Guest

        ….

        • Anonymous

          With that population, even at 1%, Florida would have 190,575 positives.  Hard to believe that would only save $60K if a positive result truly meant no welfare payment.

          • Guest

            ….

          • RoostookGuy

            At 90 bucks a test, you’re paying for 99 tests that pop negative, to every one that pops positive.

            Do the math, ain’t that hard.

          • Anonymous

             Yeah, but FIRST, get the math right.

        • Anonymous

          Since we have less people to test it wont cost that much money.. and you know.. as a tax paying citizen Id say.. it worth it if we only get a few.. 

          • Guest

            ….

          • RoostookGuy

            But it will FEEL like it’s saving money….

          • Guest

            ….

        • Anonymous

          Who benefits? Pharmaceutical companies who manufacture drug test kits. They also manufactured the war on drugs. Weird how many people are paranoid about the government coming to take their guns but don’t care about being subject to unreasonable search and seizure. 

          • Guest

            ….

          • Guest

            Amen

          • Anonymous

            The last thing I am going to worry about is someone’s civil liberties while they are taking my tax money. Obviously welfare recipients aren’t too worried when my civil liberties are getting “violated” when I have to take drug test to work and support them.  

          • Guest

            ….

        • Anonymous

          Let me see-8797 x 90 bucks a test is equal to $791,730. Where did the other app $1.9 million go?

  • I’m confused, if your on welfare how can you buy drugs? Could it be your using your EBT card for cash in exchange for drugs? So wouldn’t that be fraud? So if we drug test welfare, we can thin out the abusers. 

    • Anonymous

       TANF is a cash benefit and they can trade food for cash or drugs.

    • Anonymous

      Confusing huh?.. How about when we buy a cartload of groceries at 2 or 3 hundred bucks and then out snaps the cash to buy the beer cigs cat and dog food… VERY confusing.. But I see it OVER and OVER again.. cant buy bread and food.. no way.. but plenty o cash to get the cigs.. gotta have that BEER and all the other crap ..

      • Guest

        ….

        • Don’t confuse him with anything that would require some research and thinking!

          • Guest

            ….

          • Anonymous

            I really do not need research to know how I feel. I dont want to buy drugs for people. Look out. there seems to be many people who feel the same way.. So keep reading up and get prepared to cry about it after it is law. 

  • Dan Troop

    “Also, recent federal statistics indicate that welfare recipients are no more likely to abuse drugs than the general population.” Once again figures don’t lie but liars can figure.

    The hard plain truth is that a great many of the individuals who live off the welfare system are drug users and drug abusers. The problem is that no one wants to admit it because they would then have to admit that their social programs have failed.

    There are a great many hard working people that have to submit to drug testing on a regular basis just to maintain their employment. Those individuals willing to live off the hard work of others should have to do no less.

    • Anonymous

      “a great many”  Sounds like you have your science down pat.

    • Anonymous

       I guess the liberal social programs have failed! Just look at how things have degenerated since the end of the 60s! NOTHING they have tried has borne the expected fruit. Nothing. Everything a liberal touches turns to excrement. Too bad they didn’t think to grade themselves based on increased illiteracy, illegitimacy, hostility, crime… they could have claimed victory! Liberals are walking examples of The Law of Unintended Consequences. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions of dollars pissed away on social EXPERIMENTS. Hey, Midnight Basketball, anyone? Anyone?

      • Guest

        ….

  • RoostookGuy

    Follow the money, who’s getting paid-off for sending all this testing business, and to what labs ?

    Anybody that thinks this is a good idea should probably be tested.

  • RoostookGuy

    LePage should have to take a drug test.

    The Wyoming rep should have to.

    If regular people like us have to for our jobs be tested, shouldn’t we insist that the politicians have to follow the same rules ?

    I don’t really care if someone in Wyoming that’s out of work smokes a joint.  Big freakin’ deal.  If it bothers you so much, you need to get a life.

    I think it’s hypocritical, though, of lawmakers to pass laws that they don’t have to obey.

    I also think it’s a stupid waste of money, you are just making the government larger for no good reason.

    Also, if you work at a company that has “random tests”, and you accept that, and none of the upper management is ever tested, then you’re pretty much a fool.  But hey, this is what America has become, a nation of fools that let people who make the rules and enforce them not have to follow them.

    • Anonymous

      Well said!

    • Anonymous

      Is Lepage on welfare?… or.. anyone who works for our state?…… Hmmm.. Im not sure what your statement has to do.. With… testing Welfare recipients for drugs…….

      • RoostookGuy

        Well, your argument is that they should be tested because it’s your money they’re given, same deal with our reps, it’s our money pays their salaries.  

        If anyone is going to be required to be tested for drugs, it should be our legislature first, let them experience exactly what they are imposing on the public.

        They can lead by example, for a change.

    • Anonymous

      So you would be OK with a welfare recipient turning down a job that required drug testing?

  • Anonymous

    And who is going to pay for all of this drug testing? So now….. there would be more out on our streets, breaking into homes and killing others to get a fix. Oh, yah…. This is just a wonderful idea!!!!!  I wish those with all these great ideas, would think things all the way through. Geezzz

    • Anonymous

       Obamacare?

    • Anonymous

      Ya the the kids that just got shot in Hermon, is not already doing all the above, no no drugie breaks the law to get a fix, why don’t you get back into reality.

    • Anonymous

      buy a gun , worked for the guy in Herman

  • Lets Drug Test Conservatives!

    They GOTTA be on Something!

    • Anonymous

      Test away, lets see how many register Rep vs Dems come up hot on a drug test.

      • Guest

        Of course Republicans are more Christian, better people, more fair- minded and just all around good guys, something we all know, choke – sputter – cough.  

        Being that there are more people who are register democrats your statement is a simpleminded ruse.  Try looking for the real truth at the bottom of the sea-ment pond, what you’ll find may look like 0x0=00.  Humm doggies can the boy cypher.

    • Anonymous

      Im a conservative..  wheres your cup?..  I work . I get tested.. Not a problem.. I dont feel violated.. I dont take drugs.. Simple .. I also do not care who does take drugs.. thats your choice.. I just dont want to pay for it.. I dont see why this is a hard issue.. Working people shouldnt be forced to pay for peoples drug habits…..  Why is that so hard to accept. 

  • { Romney, in an interview this month in Georgia, supported the idea. “People who are receiving welfare benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they’re not using those benefits to pay for drugs,” Romney said to WXIA-TV in Atlanta }

    WOW!

    Everbody eventually recieves some sort of benefit from the government!

    Lets wire tap em all!

  • Anonymous

    If you have to take a drug test to work at Wal-Mart, in order to pay taxes for them to receive food stamps, section 8 ect……, then you should be required to to take a drug test to get the assistance.  

    I think that if you are able to work, then have them do some work to receive the assistance, wash fire trucks, clean Govt offices, streets, mow grass, have them go in somewhere and learn a skill, and if any of those jobs require testing then test them.

    • April Rainfrette

      It’s hard to waddle behind a lawn mower.

      • Anonymous

         I love it!

  • Anonymous

    Let’s get the middle class all riled up and imply that welfare recipients are rampant drug users, so the rich con continue their own nefarious deeds unnoticed. 
    This drug testing has been tried before and it was a waste of money. Drug use doesn’t discriminate based on income, the rates of drug use in states that required testing turned out to be exactly the same or lower than that of the average population. What was “saved” didn’t even compare to the cost it took to test. Further, what the heck is that Wyoming House Speaker even talking about? A test for alcohol? It doesn’t exist — unless you’re talking about ankle bracelets or constant breathalyzer tests. 

    Honestly, this is pure stupidity. It’s based on emotion and doesn’t actually solve a real problem. These are attempts to demonize and stigmatize the poor, all to garner votes and distract from real issues. Oh, Romney thinks this is a good idea? Real money saving, right? But God forbid you ask him about all the tax loopholes and schemes he uses though — oh my, that’s just you being envious! 

    These people are ridiculous. 

    • Anonymous

        “stigmatize the poor,” they have put themselves on the welfare roles. no 1 forced them to take welfare. most could flip burgers at McDoanlds but most see that as beneath them.

      • Anonymous

        My son was and is homless again, his choice, he is a certified welder , but refuses to look for work, instead he wants to hang out with occupy D.C. whine and complain there is no work, when I can find welding jobs in all 50 states.  He had a good job working for fisher, but that requires responsibility, so he got himself fired in less then 90 days.  Some homless are there for a reason but there are also too many because they want to be there, welfare is no different.

        • RoostookGuy

          Wow, that must really make you wonder where you went so wrong in imparting your values.

          • How rude.  As if any of us listened to our parents all the time.  I can bet your parents were disappointed in you at some point.

    • Anonymous

      Why don;t you post where you get your facts, Im sure drug use in the inner cities, are just as high as the upper income, middle income I would even bet it is higher.

    • Anonymous

      don’t forget all those tax evading of shore bank account’s he has right. Yet that doesn’t change the fact I don’t want to pay for Methadone clinics or some1 elses drug use.

    • Why don’t you drive down by the methadone clinic and ask how many of those drug users are on welfare.  I can tell you that drug use IS RAMPANT!

    • Anonymous

      Yes there is a blood test for alcohol . If you get stopped driving a car you can either have the breath test or a blood test .  How do you thing they do a alcohol test on a dead person ?

  • Corporate CEOs should take drug tests

    • Anonymous

      Those who have the gold “Make the Golden Rule”  have you ever received a pay check from someone on welfare, any CEO’s are a private company, welfare money is tax payer’s money, therefore its public money not private money.  If you want to receive public money, then take the test, if you want to work for UPS, that company has several rules you have to follow to stay employed, oh ya again a Private Company.  

      I would agree on all State, Local or any form of Govt employee to be drug tested. Starting with the Pot smoking president.

      • Guest

        and up from the ground come a bubblin’ “Crude”

  • Anonymous

    Governor LePage hope you are listening——drug test welfare recipients every month—random during the month. Oh and I had to do it for 24 years as a welfare recipient in the USMC as some claim.

    • Love this!!  like just was not a strong enough word!!

  • Anonymous

    BOUT TIME !

  • Guest

    The MVP of the National League just got off on a technical issue-the sample sat around for an extra day and was deemed to0 old to be reliable. How many of these cases will end up in court with some Ultra Liberal organization representing these folks for nothing? Don’t waste your time with this.

    • Anonymous

      I think that was seriously the smartest comment here.. and after thinking about it.. you are absolutely right.. Thanks for the dose of reality 

      • RoostookGuy

        There is a false positive ratio that every test has, so it’s not that smart of a comment after all.

  • Anonymous

    Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500
    applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about
    $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

    That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.

    Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s
    worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all
    rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program
    that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal
    year.

    • Anonymous

       You, as an individual, may have to pay $30 bucks for a ten panel drug screen, but the state, as a bulk purchaser, should be able to get them for under $10 per each.

    • Anonymous

      Who said it had to be monthly, make it bi-annual and no heads up to test, be here in an hour, make it quarterly, just do it at random just like the Military does, all Military have to get drug tested to to protect them to stay home and do nothing while they loose their lives, limbs ect… and they also pay taxes to help them get their checks as well.

  • When do we get to start the drug testing of elected officials and wall street bankers? Assisting people with food is not what’s bankrupting us its the crooked higher ups that hold seats in office and the banksters.

    • Anonymous

       it’s not just assisting with food. It’s Medicaid, housing, TANF, GA thru the local towns, Emergency asst thru the state, cell phones provided for free. It goes on, and on and on. Spruce Run services, case managers from various organizations because the people don’t know how to raise children, etc, etc, etc

    • Anonymous

       Not a bad idea. I don’t know about Wall Street bankers, but the Legislature, surely, would be glad to submit to a random testing scheme, if only to demonstrate solidarity with Maine’s people…? After all, they make the laws that WE have to live by.

      • Anonymous

        Plus pull people over that are driving cars an lite trucks an give them a drug test

  • Funny, I have to submit to a drug test any time and if I refuse I am terminated from my job. Its only fair, if I have to submit in order to work; they should submit to stay home and take taxpayer money. If your not on drugs you have nothig to worry about….test on…

    • Anonymous

      What do you do for work ??

  • Anonymous

    Will it start soon in Maine? In addition to the drug tests, how about a system to show people that are capable, are in the process of looking for work. And, how about some sort of community work once a week for an 8 hour day. The sides of the roads could use a trash cleanup!

    Testing needs to be random, with a 12 hour or less notice! Fail to be there stops your payment!

    • Anonymous

      How about some jobs so they can work and earn enough to support their families!!!

      • Anonymous

        We will have a few..  Someone will have to run these tests and all that.. thats a start!

        • Guest

          ….

      • Anonymous

         “Giving” jobs doesn’t work. They need to be worth hiring. Sure, why not require that able bodied people on welfare who can work, but who are not working, pick up litter or sort recyclables or sweep sidewalks? Something for that weekly check…?

        • Guest

          ….

        • Anonymous

          I believe that’s called workfare and is already a practice in place. Are you saying welfare recipients aren’t worth hiring? That’s a pretty unfounded judgement.

          • Anonymous

             Actually, no. YOU are saying that. I’ll thank you not to try to put words in my mouth. I will, however, defer to your superior knowledge of “unfounded judgments”…

  • Anonymous

    What is the difference from people in public sector jobs, we know how much money State and Federal employee’s are paid, this is also public money being spent and the public has the right to know how much each person receives and if it is abused.

  • Anonymous

    Why not deny benefits to anyone who convicted of any crimes.  That way when they are caught selling their prescriptions they lose all benefits! It’s not asking too much be law biding.

    • Anonymous

      They already do loose some benefits for some criminal charges, I have a niece that lost her housing because she was arrested, pending the out come of her trial, if she was found guilty, no more housing, I say good, however she is still receiving stuff.  Still living for free.

  • Anonymous

     Welfare recipients have been shown time and again to be less likely to abuse drugs than society in general, and even if the notion of drug abusers receiving welfare benefits had any validity, the likely result would be a very small savings that would be more than offset by the monetary and social effects of increased crime.  This is another great example of short-sighted, reactionary thinking by a society who’s continued ability to self-govern is questionable at best.

  • Anonymous

    Who decides who gets to be the test welfare recipients for the drugging? Is there a web site for signing up?  

  • Anonymous

    I go through test at my job, if they have food stamps Maine care, public housing, they shouldn’t worry about drug testing. No money to buy them especially if they don’t work. Don’t know why this is a big deal? These people could not afford these drugs if they get the above. Otherwise they should be out on there own like you and me.

  • Anonymous

    Pass it PLS we drug test to earn our pay checks, they can drug test to get our tax money for free.

  • Anonymous

    Ok why not?
    We are already paying for their drugs, medical and room & board.
    Drug tests must be cheaprer than that.

  • Guest

    ….

  • Anonymous

    I want all politicians drug tested and forced to blow into a breathalyzer. God only knows what they might vote for while under the influence!  Get that bill going pronto; things aren’t looking too good lately!

  • Anonymous

    drug test politicians they take taxpeyer money and do nothing and never look for another job

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    Why did Newt Gingrich group  unemployment and welfare in the same class…its not!  Unemployment is an insurance that protects the employee for a period of time that they find they are unemployed through no fault of their own! Don’t classify some poor guy/gal who lost their job because of the economy in with the 8 % of filth that are using meth and bathsalts and collecting welfare!

    • Anonymous

      Because it makes the numbers seem bigger and allows Newt to sell doom and gloom in order to scare people into voting for him.

    • Anonymous

      My old Grandad always said there are 2 types of beggars one type has a license to beg and that is the religious types, the others are politicians.  

    • Guest

      ….

    • RoostookGuy

      Because everything out of newts mouth is crap and lies ?

  • Anonymous

    They should only be able to buy staples with their checks.  They could also shovel snow, mow grass and wash vehicles for the local municipality or something instead of sitting aroud doing little to nothing.  we could go on and on but it just falls on def ears

    • welfare checks don’t come from the local municipality.

    • Anonymous

      This is how it used to work some1 was hard up went to town did odd jobs and got a food voucher from their town I have np with this.Personaly if I needed help I would prefer it this way at least I’d feel I earned it.No shame in hard work

  • Guest

  • Who is paying for the cost of the drug tests?  If a welfare recipient fails the test, he would then be denied and would do what for income? Steal, sell drugs and other black market moneymakers. Republican policies sound good but never, EVER address the root of the problem, which are usually corporate tax breaks and other supply-side economics voodoo.

    • Anonymous

      Why of course just continue to give they something for nothing, if they tried to get a job at wal-mart they have to pass a drug test, if they are doing drugs they are most likley already stealing, ect… Nice plan, maybe you should pay for it out of just your check, if you and the dems want to continue this no responsibility, why don’t you all step up to the plate, and finance it yourselves.

      • Anonymous

        They want it only if YOU can be forced to pay for it. All of their “compassionate” impulses are designed to be paid for with OPM (Other Peoples’ Money).

  • Anonymous

    I think to qualify for those Bush tax cuts, the ones for “job creators” you should be required to take a drug test. Fair is fair, right? 

  • Guest

    Listen none of this matters, the GOP is simply throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks. They got nothing so they try to divide us with wedge issues like this. Come Nov 7, 2012 they will find their keisters positioned just below their sholders.

    • Anonymous

      I’m not divided lol I want this to happen and I want everyone in office fired and blue collar workers take their place so something actually get’s done.

      • RoostookGuy

        Oh yeah, THAT’S a great idea, that’ll work for sure !

  • It’s actually extremely difficult to get welfare. I should know, I tried and was denied.

    • Anonymous

      lol

    • Anonymous

      probably because you’re a non-minority, english speaking, educated, responsible female that doesn’t keep popping out kids.

  • Anonymous

    How about drug testing legislators, congressmen, senators, governors for drug use also.

    • Anonymous

      I definitely like this idea, especially if that law passes in WY.  Legislatures should lead the way and subject themselves to drug testing.  After all, they are paid through tax dollars, too!

  • Anonymous

    ill tell you this if professional worker have to pee in a cup so should all the welfare recipents as well as all the commerical fisherman if you cant pass no more bennys and no more licenses plain and simple they are just scared to looses everything and might have to clean up and get a job

    •  Private businesses have nothing to do with the government.

    • Anonymous

      Why do companies have drug test  ?

  • Anonymous

    Sounds like a class action lawsuit in the makings to me.

  • Anonymous

    how about governers. police.state employes 

  • Anonymous

    For the most part I truly believe individuals are on drugs or welfare for reasons deeper then a test will resolve. What happen to brothers keeper and compassion? It’s obvious there needs to be more, such as, outreach and mentoring for guidance and support which is free other then donating a couple hours a week to a person of choice that has such issues. It just seems to be the simpler and the human thing to do. Reach out with an ear and a heart, you might be surprised that they may have deep sufferings but have much to offer.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you!

      Years ago churches were attended and strong with the type of human touch that you are seeking now. Perhaps your plea will coax some of us to any church of personal choice towards answering the need you’ve identified.

      It’s been a long time for a lot of people and this might perhaps be a first for others but we can at least try. 

  • Anonymous

    Yes, lets keep these people who can’t keep a job, these poor folks that can’t feed their children. Lets keep them  away from any chance that they may get a little food into the mouths of their children. 

    • Anonymous

      aaaawww, poor people who can’t keep a job, can’t feed their children, but can afford drugs?
      LOL!
      do you know how ridiculous your post sounds?

      here’s a little fact of life: There are consequences to your actions.
       if you break the law, you go to jail, 
      if you make bad decisions, you must live with the consequences.

      What makes it okay to put the failure of others onto the backs of the working?

      • Anonymous

        You got that straight!!!

  • Anonymous

    We should drug test, we should also remove the ability to withdraw cash using their EBT card. But aside from drug testing we should also restrict what types of food can be purchased with their EBT card, i.e. no Filot Minot or Lobster, etc. We should not allow them to goods that reach beyond what would be considered a necessity , i.e. video games, movies, music, smartphones, HDTV’s, you get the idea. They shouldn’t be allowed animals, if they can’t support themselves then how can they support their animals?

    Think it’s harsh? Welfare assistance is meant as a temporary form of assistance allowing people to get themselves out of a rut. If people can’t buy food to feed themselves because they spend all of their money on goods they do not need for their survival, then they clearly do not need state aid, what they do need is a lesson in fiscal responsibility.

    People need to stop relying on the government for everything. If you have family and friends who need help, then YOU should be the one to help them, instead of sitting back and demanding that the government take the hard earned dollars of the working people to do so.

    • You really don’t like the constitution. They should limit the amount of time a person can receive benefits. Also all businesses should offer affordable insurance. Property taxes should be lowered to make housing more affordable. You basically want to make benefit receivers second class citizens.

      • Anonymous

        I love the constitution, I can’t imagine how much better off we would be if the Federal Government didn’t completely ignore it.

        How is limiting welfare benefits unconstitutional? Did you know that it is generally interpreted that the constitution actually prohibits welfare for specific groups of people? And only allows for “general” welfare for all? I don’t want to make them second class citizens, but why should they be able to drive around in nice new cars, have big expensive TVs, and eat lobster and steak when the people paying for their lifestyles can’t even do that?

        Welfare is meant to help people out of a rut, it is not meant as a lifetime income supplement. For people who are disabled, and not able to physically work that is totally different, hence I am not talking about them. But why can’t PEOPLE take care of other people instead of demanding the government do so? You know what I do when I have family or friends who are going through a  rough time? I help them, provide them with as much as I can to help them through their rut. Why don’t other do that instead of holding the belief that that is what the government is for?

        But you’re right, there should be no limits, and they should be able to spend the money on whatever they want.

        • I refer to the constitution only because you want to drug test recipiants of state benefits. That would be a violation of the 4th amendment. You are grouping a very small percentage of rogue welfarians with those who are being honest and trying. I agree that there needs to be limits on time to receive benefits and maybe the state should know where the money is going. I say no cash and use the card for needed purchases. But there also needs to be places for people to live and people need insurance to be affordable. And never did I say there should be no limits.

          • Anonymous

            The difference is that they are not just randomly drug testing people. I can see the concern, but it really depends on how you interpret it. Why is it unconstitutional to drug test volunteer welfare recipients, but not to drug test people who voluntarily apply for jobs?

            They are not drug testing welfare recipients to test for drugs so that they can charge these people with criminal activity. Being on welfare benefits requires that you are not using drugs. Thus randomly testing people for drug use, and eliminating those who use drugs is no different then a job that requires people to not use drugs and if you do use drugs you will be terminated.

  • Anonymous

    Folks, do you have any idea of how much this will cost (versus how much it will save)?  Are you willing to have your taxes go up in order to pay for it?  Just asking.

  • RoostookGuy

    Is that right ?

    I’ve never had a job that required a drug test, ever, and I’ve been employed since I was 14.

    I’ve worked many jobs over the years, I was even a patrol supervisor for a security company at one point, to pay for school to work in the IT industry.

    So no, “most jobs” people are looking for nowadays do not require a drug test, it would be an unnecessary and stupid waste of money.

  • Jonathan Smith

    More random drug testing across the board would be nice. If you come up hot, any welfare benefits should be terminated indefinitely. You should also lose your job if you come up during a random test. I’m sick of working with potheads who think they can sneak around the system.

    •  Keep dreaming buddy. This is the future, we don’t need your draconian ideals anymore.

  • Anonymous

    How about closing the methadone clinics toooo……

    •  How about you do some research before you make ignorant statements. Methadone helps more than it hurts. The only problem I have with methadone clinics is that they don’t do enough to help you get off the methadone.

  • Anonymous

    Those same radical far right loonies who rail on and on about the 1st amendment, 2nd amendment and 10th amendment rights, the faith of our (Christian) founding fathers, on and on ad nauseum, seem not to care a farthing about the 4th amendment. Nor do they really care about saving money, because (as far as I know) there are no statistics anywhere that show any cost benefit to this clearly unconstitutional practice. Methinks the real issue here, as it has always been, is that someone is getting something from the system that you aren’t getting. And you are jealous. SO let’s punish anyone who tries with unconstitutional search and seizure. It is also a way to feel superior. Just one more step down the slippery slope of government control of people’s personal  lives. Funny how that’s OK with most of these so called “libertarians”.

  • Guest

    By the look on Buchanan’s face, he looks as though his knuckles are sore from continually dragging on the ground?

  • Anonymous

    Some people have to take a drug test to become telemarketers because people in their right mind would never apply for such positions. That makes that individual highly suspicious of drug use right off the bat.

  • Bob

    I think we have to look at the cost of implimenting this it will probably cost more to do it than the savings that would be achieved.  Other states have done it and it wasn,t worth it  They still had to pay the welfare plus a whopping bill for the tests

    • Anonymous

      really?

      so you think that a 75.00 drug test on a person recieving public assistance is too much?

      • Anonymous

        Who pays for the test the state or the person taking the test  ?  Now someone has to be in charge of it now you need a staff  so how much will the staff cost ?

  • Anonymous

    I read some of these comments, the liberal (Democrat) party responses are all about rights, perceptions, stereotypes, etc. Go into the homes/apartments of some of the folks who receive assistance. A lot to be seen, and it affects the children (almost always present…). It comes down to this: its not a lack of money that causes poverty, its a lack of values.

  • Anonymous

    Last I knew unemployment benefits were not welfare.  Unemployment benefits is something that each person who has worked has paid into and in turn if they find themselves out of a job they are given a check reflecting the amount they have paid in. Not going to comment on the drug testing of people getting free insurance, housing, food etc.  I guess it will be left to those in power anyway.

  • This idea is already dead in Michigan, Idaho and Florida, all by the various State Court’s realizing that this idea is an emotional reaction to the current economy. That and the fact, not idea or poltical position, that these test’s are a violation of The Constitution. Any number of State Court’s, not the Federal Court’s, have ruled on this issue on this very reason. And in case any one has missed the boat on this one, does anyone see the Maine AG’s Office rushing to do this ? Again, I applaud the AG’s Office for having, and exercising, a huge amount of common sense and sanity. With all the problems that DHHS has right now, can we all imagine for one minute the chaos that this type of program would inflict on us all in terms of cost’s, civil litigation and the rest of it ? No, the AG is, in this case, saving the State a huge amount of money by staying out of an issue that has already been decided. ‘Re-inventing the wheel’ is expensive. Now is not the time for the Maine Legislature to have a giant brain cramp and waste time and money on something that’s already been seen as a dead horse right outa’ the gate.

  • Anonymous

    “In Wyoming, Republican Rep. Frank Peasley, a co-sponsor of the testing bill, said the measure is an effort to rein in a welfare system run amok.”
    Let’s get all 50 states and DC to rein in a “corporate welfare” system run amok.Test for alcohol, tobacco and Limbaughdiazepines and blue blood while you’re at it.  And BPA! And GMO’s that are propogated by agribusiness.  And Lead and methane from energy companies hydrofracking.  And pollutants from the BP gulf oil spill.  And pesticides used in the fish farming industry. And melamine from Chinese food products and baby formula. And mercury from Holtrachem.  And NSPRO from Dolby landfill. And herbicides used by PVCC and Bangor Muni. And de-icing crap running into Bangor’s wastewater system. And the human toxic waste that reside in Augusta. Then use big Pharma’s costly testing kits and equipment while creating smaller government to administer the tests.  Then cover the legal process for appeals and retesting.  Each of these welfare cases above, I’m sure, are those that speculate on oil commodities and derivatives and fleece the taxpayers for their capital gains– thus requiring them to collect economic assistance. Uh huh!

  • Anonymous

    Not only was the scheme in Florida found to be unconstitutional, it cost more money than it saved. Of interest is that the court also found a report by a right wing think tank, Florida Foundation for Government Accountability (FFGA), to be “not competent expert opinion.”

    FFGA is headed by Tarren Bragdon, who used to lead Maine Heritage Policy Center, also known for its shoddy reports.

    http://www.floridaindependent.com/53913/welfare-drug-testing-foundation-for-government-accountability

  • no you don’t git it… you will never get it.. go back to sleep

  • Why not have drug test? From my point of view you are most likely too have one before you get a job and if you are clean guess what you have no worries about that one while trying to find work. Employers will see that and it could be a check on the plus side in getting hired. Me I’d take every thing I could to get a good job and use it to my advantage.

    •  Because it is a blatant violation of civil rights. if you start testing welfare recipients for drugs, then what, start testing them for sugar and trans fat? It sets a bad precedent for things to come.

  • Anonymous

    it is very simple, if you can afford food and you cant afford rent then you shouldnt be able to afford drugs  on the tax payers back  end of story

  • Anonymous

    this is a sticky situation. I understand that being on welfare you should use it wisley, stamps no junk food and soda, tanf, only for assentials, and yes you should be looking for or working, but for all the ones that are on welfare, than stop making this so accessable.  I mean have a drug test to get help, but the meth clinic is down the road, and now marijuana stores are opening up.  Talk about a catch twenty two.  You shouldnt by soda and junk food but the state allows it.  If they want people to use benefits the right way than make it impossible to get the other things. Like tanf stop giving out cash.  make it all vouchers, where things leave a paper trail, and if the person tries to use it for “other” things it can be traced back and that person can be held responsible.    It is possible.  like returning things, you have to have a receipt to return anything.  This way people cant buy something on a voucher and than return it to the store for cash or something else.  If you dont have a receipt the store can say no. 

    The government needs to make things more iron clad so that people dont have the free will to do stupid things.  At least with state benefits.  You can even have a voucher for bills to.  A voucher for gas I mean wick does it why cant the tanf program do the same.  Some people cant handle being responsible so do what it takes to make sure that benifits are being used the way they are meant to be.

  • Anonymous

    i thought you had to do drugs to get benefits

  • L A

    Drug test the rich and tax them accordingly!  If they can afford drugs, they can afford to pay more taxes and help balance the deficit! 

  • What a completely stupid idea. Is anyone else aware of the significant cost associated with this ? Not to mention the ease of methods to “beat” the tests ? This is more Republican war drum beating designed to fuel the already ongoing class war. The funniest thing is the people that fall for this…It’s those welfare people bleeding you dry….doesn’t have anything to do with the corrupt politicians dipping into the cookie jar…nope….not even an issue….

  • Anonymous

    State Legislators are receiving tax payer monies.  Are they being drug-tested?  In Florida they made a big push (rep gov of course) and said that SO MANY welfare people were using drugs.  So what did they find?  2% failed.  Just like the so-called ‘voter fraud’.  How much does this crap cost the state?  It’s a war on poor people, a war on women.  That’s all the Republicans care about.  It’s backfiring on them now.  Moderates and independents will not vote for them this fall.

    • Anonymous

      It cost the state a lot of money to pay back all those people that pass the test

  • Anonymous

    I have read through most of these comments and am appalled at the small-mindedness and the sadness at what has happened to our country.  We now have NO RIGHTS as American citizens to  be protected by our Constitution and all this blatthering about welfare recipients and drugs goes on as if it means something.  In the big picture it means nothing people.  Why aren’t you putting your attention to the NDAA which says that any sitting president can declare any one of us a terrorist and lock us up forever without judge or jury.  How are we any different than the Soviet Union?  We’re NOT.  And yet we put all this energy into stupid drug test debates.

    AND Homeland Security has now been forced to speak the truth.  They are watching us on on-line newspaper comments and social media.  Don’t have anything to worry about if you’re not bad?  Tell that to someone who opposes the NDAA.  How Collins and Snowe have not spoken up in outrage against this is beyond me.  I was at a dinner party with six other knowledgeable, smart, professional people and none of them had even HEARD of the NDAA and what happened on New Years Eve 2011 when our rights as Americans were abolished.

    Get over this childishness and start talking about the important issues – like our liberty being truly gone.

    •  The only one who talked about NDAA and other constitutional rights has been Ron Paul. But the folks here who cry the loudest are ones who support Obama’s plans to control more of our lives. 

  • Anonymous

    I can see drug testing for welfare recipients and/or cutting off benefits if (and only if) they have a conviction for a drug offense. Barring that, there is no valid reason to do it. Period. That should apply to anyone receiving any government benefit of any kind be it welfare, a corporate bailout, or having the fire department come and put out your burning house. There are fourth, fifth, and 14th amendment standards that must be met for the government to intrude into areas where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That includes your bodily fluids.

    On the subject of pre employment drug testing or drug testing to receive a professional license of some type. First, one only has to submit to testing once, and that is only with one’s consent. It is illegal otherwise to continuously test someone in that capacity absent some articulable suspicion.
    (i.e. an accident).

    Also, the difference between a job or licensure and welfare benefits is that not everyone is entitled to the former, however everyone is entitled to the latter by virtue of being a citizen. One could argue that the reason we engage in pre-employment or pre-licensure drug testing is to protect the employer or to protect the public from the prospect that an employee or someone we license might cause damage by using drugs, especially since we, or an employer put that individual in a position of trust. A similar argument could be made for drug testing of welfare recipients in that we are trying to protect the public the effect drug use has on society at large. However, to make that argument would be arguing to test EVERYONE. Absent any particular suspicion, that would again be an unconstitutional intrusion by government into the bodily fluids of the citizenry.

    On the topic of drug testing prior to the receipt of unemployment benefits: Unemployment is an insurance program. Its premiums are paid by you and your employer. If you’ve never held a job, you can’t get it. You can also not collect unemployment if you’ve been fired. In other words, you can’t collect unless you’ve had a job. Presumably, you’ve also been subjected to–and passed a pre employment drug test.

  • think one minute about this.(wich i don’t get gov ass)new thing they want to drug test everyone on welfare to bridge the state spending but paying for all those drug tested will cost money!Then if they choose to stop it all and go to rehab ,they used their mainecare to clog up the er to go to rehab then all menal health places will be jammed on states dime,so I really don’t think it will be a great idea,just sayin….

    • not to mention all the kids they will take and clog up the foster care system i see alot of extra money going then just something eles for them to complain about….

  • Anonymous

    I think police officers carrying deadly weapons should be randomly tested.

    • Jonathan Smith

       With a name like “420” we can easily tell your position on drug legalization. Police do get tested. Everyone who works (or gets my tax money) should be tested in this day and age.

  • Anonymous

    Better drug test LePage first. He is very erratic and also on the state dole.

    •  Good idea – wouldn’t be surprised that he would do that as a promotion. Actually just the threat of possible testing would do the job.  

  • Anonymous

    On the face this sounds good. However this is going to just add billions to the cost of welfare. If they test positive then they are going to end up getting TREATMENT at our expense. Then we will have to meet all there needs while they are in treatment and treatment can last years. You really want to do something END all welfare. you want money work for it. 

  • Anonymous

    In a lot of instances one must take a drug test to
    be employed or stay employed. As a taxpayer I am
    paying someone to receive money and other items
    that are being paid for by me therefore I am employing
    them. No one has to take this test and since this money
    is not a right under the Constitution, passing a drug test
    violates nothing. It is strictly voluntary and if you don’t
    want to get paid by me….don’t take it. Simple. 

  • Anonymous


    Also, recent federal statistics indicate that welfare recipients are no more likely to abuse drugs than the general population.” I don’t think that people are trying to say the welfare recipients are more likely to abuse drugs than the general population….BUT the general population who is abusing drugs are buying those drugs with the money they earn by having a job….If you need help, you should be giving up little extras like Beer, Cigarettes, or what ever your drug of choice is.

  • Anonymous

    Does this apply to those sucking at the trough of corporate welfare as well?

  • Anonymous

    I understand the premise – however, even those pushing this agenda admit they are unable to achieve its intended purpose – to save money.  The costs of administering this plan will exceed the savings generated by it.  Time, energy and money are better spent improving situations which lead to some individuals receiving welfare benefits. 

    how about state assisted child care programs so that it is in people’s financial interests to work jobs at the average going Maine rate rather than stay home and watch the kids.   It does not make sense to pay a stranger to watch your child when you’re only netting a few bucks each week after doing so.

    • Anonymous

      This isn’t about saving money. This is class warfare. This is the rich pitting the middle and working class against the poor. It’s all designed to get us shouting at each other over crumbs while those in power run away with the cake.

      • Anonymous

        I understand Steve.  I also believe there is validity in the concern that public funds could be supporting someone’s drug habit rather than act as the safety net for which it was intended.  My argument is designed to appeal to those moderates who may otherwise support this idea – despite the “leadership” in this state, I believe there are still many individuals with common sense who may put pressure on their elected officials to oppose this waste of funds during a time when the concept of closing schools has been considered by our governor.  Having the government spend more money than it would save is consistent with the espoused belief of many individuals who belong to the same party as some of the radicals who now hold office.

        • Anonymous

          If you are trying to save money, then drug testing for welfare makes no sense. You’re right, it’ll cost more than you’d save. I fully support your ideas in your second paragraph. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

          The only problem with planning ahead, budgeting appropriately, and preventing little things from becoming big expensive issues is that none of these things is sexy, dramatic, or punitive enough for the folks we put in charge. Good government is boring (and socialism)

  • Anonymous

    I believe this might stand the in the way of any said legislation. 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    • Anonymous

      I see no place in the constitution or bill of rights that entitles any citizen to anyone elses money.
      I don’t see anything in the constitution that sets up these “safety nets.”

      about search and seizure:
      can’t the same be said about drug testing for working?but we have to go through it so that we can work.

  • Anonymous

    No matter how many times you say it or how vehemently you protest, it’s no longer ‘your’ money once you hand it over to pay your share in taxes which goes toward services that benefit everyone.

    You sound like someone from the Dark Ages.

    I suddenly feel the need to disinfect my keyboard, now.

    • Jonathan Smith

       People who never pay taxes assume it’s their money for the taking. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society at work. A nation of freeloaders who can’t sober up enough to go to the Career Center.

  • Anonymous

    They should not only drug test for welefare recipients they ought to drug test for people receiving SSI as well.  There are many that are getting SSI and are on drugs.  I agree with this 100 percent on the drug testing.  Why should we have to be subjected to these test in the workforce while these people can sit home and collect benefits without getting tested, it’s about time!!

  • Brian. Palmer

    what about cigs!?????? a drug?????

  • Anonymous

    Botom line-“smoking a little weed” is still illegal.  I took a drug test for my job in sales, my son took a drug test in construction/engineering, I work, I get paid.  They want to get paid, take the dang test.  End of it.  If you don’t want to take a drug test,  I would recommend self employment.  Of course that may be why they don’t want to take the test.  I have no sympathy, none, nada, zero, zilch.  I can’t afford to pay anymore to fund their lifestyles.  soooooo GET A JOB!  If they are truly in need, they won’t mind the test.  Besides, they will probably qualify for a rehab if they test positive………

  • Superuser23

    How about Gov’t officials taking one, they get tax money too!

  • Anonymous

    The fact that private employers routinely violate employee privacy with no suspicion and frequently for reasons that do not involve safety, is not a reason to violate the privacy of welfare recipients without suspicion and for no other reason than spite. 

  • Anonymous

    Tested to get a job so the money that I earn can go to someone that can’t be tested or refuses to be tested .  Eather step up and get a job or get tested for welfare.

  • Anonymous

    How about drug testing those filing for protection from abuse orders so we can be sure they are not delusional?

    That’s why I think we should require at least two witnesses to an overt act for someone to file for a protection order. I think a violence charge should count. A police officer could be a second witness.

  • Anonymous

    It’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! How many time does it have to be said?It goes against the 4th amendment! Sometimes it’s like beating your head against the wall! Whether you agree with the concept or not, it doesn’t matter. It is still unconstitutional.

    • The use of public monies for the purpose of welfare by  government is unconstitutional and in direct defiance of the US Constitution.  The New Deal was unconstitutional.

  • Anonymous

    But Linda Burt, director of the ACLU in Wyoming, said this week it’s possible her group would challenge the testing program if it’s adopted in Wyoming.
    “We challenged it in Michigan. We challenged it in Florida. Both of those cases found that singling out this particular group of people for drug testing was unconstitutional with absolutely no cause.”
    the last two paragraphs of news article.  see also WebMd.com for article and analysis of Florida law and its repeal.  but we could test all politicians . . .

  • Anonymous

    Why is it that every time there is an attempt to trample people’s constitutional rights, there is a Republican behind it? Drug testing is a violation of your fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Plain and simple.

You may also like