Maine Democrat submits bill to drug-test welfare recipients

“It’s not because I’m picking on (welfare recipients). I’m not,” she said. “They just need to be drug-tested, just like everybody else is.”

Maine has medical MJ, so I'm not sure where they're going w/this--it would be a simple thing to get a prescription.

Are they thinking they'll get scads of coke and heroin users?

Test them randomly at any give time....they are in the group of, " like anyone/everyone else".

barely caught anyone.

I want the politicians tested if they want to test welfare recipients.

The old say, " Whats good for the goose is good for the gander".

Don't you go insulting pigs around ME, girl. I bite!

you might like my little saying.

upon those who propose such legislation whether they are {R's} or {D's} .

And random drug testing should be imposed upon those who knowingly support them.

It should be targeted and repeated daily.

A friend of mine posted on FB that Allen's Coffee Brandy was behind it all.

They make a fine ginger brandy--very good stuff.

Good things come out of Somerville, MA!

It's the drug of choice in Maine and northern NH and VT.

I spend a bit of time in NH, and a lot of time in northern Maine...!

I only rarely indulge in a brandy, but this is something I will seek out!

And look for the massive display.

"Allen’s is not just the top-selling liquor in Maine, its various sizes occupy four of the top-10 sales rungs. Mainers drink more than a million bottles annually, and statewide sales in 2009 approached $13 million, about $10 per resident."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/us/16brandy.html

I don't go to bars, of the folks I know up there, one's in AA and the rest don't really imbibe much -- so I just never was 'clued in' to this beverage option~! I go by Somerville all the time too, but have no idea where the factory is!

.... is nectar of the gods. You sit and swirl it in the glass, inhale gratefully, enjoy the aroma, anticipate the taste, and every once in awhile actually take a drop or two. Spend half an hour with a good glass of any decent brandy and you can forgive almost anyone anything.

It's been dubbed "the champagne O'Maine"

also known as "puss" by us bartenders -

Wow--I really do learn something here every day!

Numnumnum....

The ever-popular blackberry brandy is known in some circles as "BungleBerry Juice" - I reccomend the Leroux "Polish" version.

Something like expulsion for any positive result will do with no change of appeal. How about them apples?

..."small government".

Bull. Shit.

. . . it has always been about making the social safety net as inaccessible as possible, and about punishing the poor.

which was the case in Florida, naturally...

In Chicago, for example, traffic violators could choose to not have their tickets reported on their records by going to a privately owned traffic school. A Daley cousin was involved with owning the school.

was much more than the savings from cutting benefits of those who tested positive.

ETA link http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html

to make sure the poor are regularly humiliated and
made to feel "less than".

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals declared the practice illegal:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/florida-welfare-drug-testing_n_2766479.html?1361907500

A federal appeals court upheld a lower court's injunction on Tuesday against Florida's effort to make welfare applicants pee in cups to prove they're not on drugs.

In a strongly-worded opinion, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed a lower court's October 2011 finding that Florida failed to demonstrate a special need for drug testing poverty-stricken parents who apply for cash benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

"The evidence in this record does not suggest that the population of TANF recipients engages in illegal drug use or that they misappropriate government funds for drugs at the expense of their own and their children's basic subsistence," the three-judge panel wrote. "The State has presented no evidence that simply because an applicant for TANF benefits is having financial problems, he is also drug addicted or prone to fraudulent and neglectful behavior."

This can be verified from the language in the opinion: Lebron v. Secretary, Florida Department of Children and Families, Case No. 11-15258; http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201115258.pdf

The 11th Circuit ruling is a limited one. The court did not go as far as the author indicated:

"Because we conclude that the State has failed to establish a substantial special need to support its mandatory suspicionless drug testing of TANF recipients, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction enjoining the State from enforcing § 414.0652, Fla. Stat."

Judge Jordan explained in his concurring opinion:

"We are not making any definitive legal pronouncements about the ultimate constitutionality of Fla. Stat. § 414.0652. We are reviewing the grant of a preliminary injunction on an undeveloped record, and therefore are considering only the district court’s determination that Mr. Lebron is likely to succeed on the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim."

Contrary to the exaggerated claim of the Huffington Post author, the court did not issue "a strongly-worded opinion." Mr. Lebron may succeed. But he has not at this point. Judge Jordan also noted:

"In my view the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions is somewhat incoherent, and some of the cases decided under it are difficult to reconcile. See generally Kathleen M. Sullivan, Unconstitutional Conditions, 102 HARV. L. REV. 1413, 1416 (1989) (“As applied . . . the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions is riven with inconsistencies”)."

As has been said before (by me), one thing that we know about lawmakers and others including some judges who prefer to scapegoat poor people, instead of honoring the Constitution, is that they are a persistent bunch. They have not been stopped at this point. No one should mistakenly believe that they have.

The federal courts consider a drug test a search under the Fourth. That means there needs to be a search warrant or probable cause. The federal courts have carved out narrow "special needs" exceptions for public safety (pilots, truck drivers) and children (testing of student athletes and those involved in extracurricular activities).

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals this week upheld a preliminary injunction blocking Florida's welfare drug testing law, ruling that it doesn't meet the "special needs" exception because there is no evidence people seeking welfare are any more likely to use drugs than anyone else.

Your employer can drug test you because the Constitution only protects you from the state, not from your boss. If you don't want to be drug tested at work, that's a labor organizing issue and contract negotiation issue. Talk to your union about it. Or talk to your boss on your own. Good luck with the latter.

I always wondered about that.

Except for LEO and secure positions, it's too expensive to do without cause. Pretty sure that the military just tests random samples as well. I know I pissed hot with no repercussions when I enlisted in the '80's.

if she weren't elected and proposing such draconian measures, a republican would get elected to propose such draconian measures! don't you GET it!

How can anyone let alone a Democrat propose this?

Rep. Paulette Beaudoin, D-Biddeford should take a random drug test also, as she is on the public dole herself.

has suggested that lawmakers be tested, in response to testing publicly assisted people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014411344

Not sure where it should stop. Should not have been started in the first place (drug testing) because it is being done without due cause.

Welfare benefits are called charity by the right and a mercy to those in need. But the intent is to deny both humane instincts. GOP elected officials commonly term the poor and unemployed in terms that vilify them as mindless beasts.

Really, they want them to cease to exist. They are using language to facilitate suffering on those who can't help themselves. Drug addiction is a mental condition, that have been recognized as not being a crime, but an affliction. The 'choice' to use a drug with knowledge addiction will follow is not a rational act.

Once into the process, brain chemistry is altered and the person is no more in control of their craving than person with diabetes who needs insulin. The religious right claims that being 'born again' cures all of it. They trot out examples of those who get into religion and leave drugs. But the problem was mental to begin with, and they have substituted another one.

And they have their failures as well, and need constant reinforcement just as an alcoholic may go to AA meetings or a drug addict end up with a few psychiatric hospital stays to get back in balance. That is what people with the means to have insurance and handle other affairs can do and maintain their lives.

The GOP and the religious right demonize drug addicts who are poor, not those that have money like Rush. So they are playing a very cruel game that they use to inflame their voters against 'the other' whoever that will be decided it is. These are all human problems.

If it was not drugs they are accusing the poor of spending tax dollars on, it would be giving birth to children they cannot support. Then they want to deny them the means of contraception. Because their imaginations regard the poor as a group who should not exist, should not have the same things that are going on in their lives celebrated with diamond rings, elaborate weddings, honeymoons, baby showers and the like.

They deny they are eligible to become poor or that the poor are human beings. To them the poor are like ducks in a shooting gallery for their amusement. Just a few observations from watching these things unfold.

I made the unflattering suggestion for this women proposing this to do it in public, because people who live on public help are treated like a circus side show act. I don't approve of drug testing anyone unless it is parents who have been found to be abusing or neglecting their children or others who have committed violent offenses that they request mitigation in sentencing or waivers, due to drug addiction.

In such cases that is part of compliance to not re-offend. But the greater issue is this is a cowardly game being played on those least able to resist, and like trans-vaginal ultrasounds, meant to dehumanize and humiliate the targeted party. Saying that representatives should be drug tested is giving into the plantation or animal husbandry method of regulation of humans, instead of treating each other as deserving of respect.

Too long and maybe off course but I am fighting off a headache right now.

But I don't think you are off course. So many of these things are so inter-related that it is hard to know how to end or whether to end fighting against the abuse. The studies I have seen actually show that the general population are bigger drug offenders (by todays laws) than are the poor. The poor really can't afford to do drugs, especially on a regular basis. And some times I don't fault if they do occasionally use, as it provides a temporary escape from their burdens.

Then there is the person in Florida who is governor whose only reason to do the drug testing is that he owns (actually he gave his wife the controlling interest) the company that does the testing and the places where the testing is done. So it is back to the almighty $ again. As an aside, I can't believe he was even allowed to run as governor after the Medicare fraud that the company he ran was convicted for and fined for.

There certainly are cases for drug testing, just as you mentioned. But you hear the one's, like Lindsey Lohan, who fail and nothing is ever done to them. $$$? again.

It may have been unflattering about her doing the testing in public, but would make it as humiliating as these poor people, being forced to be tested in order to receive their meager moneys.

If more people could reason and communicate half so well even in good health, the world would be a far better place. I hope you're feeling better by now, too.

There is so much suffering in our short lives here on Earth, why add to it?

Take care.

that anyone needing assistance is just a drug-abusing loser, dehumanizing them so it's easier to pull the plug and let people starve on the street. After all, if they weren't abusing drugs (even if they aren't, which is more likely the case), they would not be in that situation. Not sure what they plan to do with all of those starving kids.

Why do politicians always end up feeling they have the divine right to be sanctimonious and judgmental towards those who have nothing in life?

how about drug testing the bastards who wrecked our economy???

We have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Random forced drug testing is a violation of that right. It is unreasonable to demand proof of what is inside one's body and unreasonable to demand that one make water or give blood to determine that. Immediate health and safety concerns may be exceptions in certain cercumstances, but it troubles me deeply that we have grown to accept this drug testing outrage for so long. There really has been very little resistance to this police state tactic and that is tragic.
It is all about Marijuana, of course. You all know that, don't you? Every thing else can be out of your system in hours. And yet we allow it to continue not only without resistance, but with support and judgementalism about who should be tested. Everyone, right?
I say no one. No one. No one. Feck the bosses and their corporate police state. Feck 'em all.

Than the general population.

- And if you want to see where HuffPo got their statistics for the article, it's at the link I provided.

Sources to help arguments.

I remember when this was discussed in regards to Florida. I had a fairly short debate (short because they all eventually told me to shut up about it before they became very "angry" with my ignorance) with two of my sisters and my girlfriend at the time. Basically, they told me that anyone who is using their welfare money to buy drugs should absolutely lose it. They seemed to have this mental image of welfare families buying an xbox, a new television, paying for vacations with their "Huge" government checks. It's also definitely worth noting that none of the above had ever received federal assistance of any sort, so their ideas of how the system work are opinions based on... well, whatever they think the "terrible, lazy people" on welfare are doing.

Both sisters I argued with are democrats, and registered voters who actually vote. I can see them gleefully voting yes to test welfare recipients for drugs. They would argue that catching even just one or two people that abuse the system would make it worth it. Why? It would satisfy their anger, their disgust with people that they see as less than them, people they believe don't work as hard, don't try as hard, haven't earned the right to... well, even to survive, apparently.

To say that this makes me angry is an understatement. I don't know how otherwise intelligent people are somehow continuing to buy this nonsense that welfare recipients are all lazy, don't work, do lots of drugs... spend tax payer dollars primarily on booze, cigarettes, or leisure items. Numerous studies indicate that welfare recipients are few in number in comparison to the overall population. Numerous studies indicate that the vast, vast majority eventually no longer rely upon the system. Numerous studies indicate as well, that the vast majority of those who receive federal assistance also work and do not rely on the assistance for more than half of their income.

Realistically, I think a lot of those on the other side of this debate are aware of this. Somehow their anger, their fury, their resentment for those who receive any sort of assistance is just... toxic. Has the right framed this issue so well that intelligent people not only believe the lie, but are ready to grab their torches and pitchforks in support of it?

This Paulette Beaudoin is proposing legislation that is moronic, counter-productive and just bizarre. All of these people who are so angry should try to apply for TANF. Let them meet the social workers of this system they rant about. Let them face the humiliation, the sneers, the condescending attitudes and the outright hatred from people who think they are somehow superior. If they are still angry afterwards, I suspect it will be for a different reason.

Yes, let's drug test her - and any idiot that ever proposes this kind of legislation without having even a semi-adequate understanding of how the system works. Without having even a little knowledge of those who rely upon it.

Ugh.

Things like the New Deal only came about because of the sheer desperation and poverty inflicted upon the masses during the darkest years of the Great Depression. If there had been no Great Depression, there likely never would've been the New Deal, and few if any of these assistance programs would even exist today.

It's very easy to judge people, in a culture where judgment seems something to be demanded upon all others. Only when walking a mile in another's shoes do people finally get it that those who need help aren't all bad.

Americans "got it" when a full third of the nation was unemployed in the 1930s. I fear Americans have forgotten those bitter lessons, the bitter harvests, and the anguish that came from realizing that they had lost everything and were just another among the poor. Must people relearn the bitter lessons of the past?

Everybody who's for this and has receives any kind of government aid (farm subsidies, tax write-offs, grants, etc...) had better line up too. I live in Iowa. A large majority of the farmers here get subsidies (it's easy to Google). They'd all better head to their local testing center too. I'd like to see the Walton family tested, as they get tons of favorable tax breaks at our expense. This will be a long list of people to test, but I'm sure we'll be able to get to all of them.

The last time I checked, Biddeford was a fairly liberal stronghold. I don't think this shaming-the-poor attempt will go over well down there.

people. And it's clear some are on drugs and/or have some serious emotional issues.

what's next? Testing Legislators?

It's the thin end of the wedge, the camel's nose under the tent, a slippery slope, and a few other cliches.

Drug testing ain't cheap. I'm shocked that a Democrat is proposing this.

ACLU of Maine will surely have something to say about this.

will be cut off from any funding, kicked in the teeth at the top of a staircase, and then finally shot in the head when they reach the bottom of the stairs.

Do they think they can shame poor people off critical public assistance? Shame on THEM!

Poor people share what little they have far more than any imaginary generous Mr. Moneybags - they're the most giving in the world because they know what poverty feels like. Now their supposed betters want to further crush their spirit by the strong insinuation that they're likely to be drug abusers on top of the sin of poverty? It doesn't surprise me coming from a Repug, but any Democrat involved should be kicked to the curb. The only possible eventual bit of good I can imagine coming from this would be if it finally woke up the poor white GOP sheeple to the true nature of their masters who scorn them so and drive a few over to our side.