Mitt Romney says he’s in favor of laws that require drug testing for anyone who receives government assistance, as put into practice by Rick Scott in Florida and up for adoption in other states. Never mind that they actually cost more money than they save and are clearly unconstitutional.
A bill for drug testing welfare recipients has recently been on the table in Georgia, and at a campaign stop in Atlanta Mitt Romney told the NBC affiliate 11Alive that it’s an “excellent idea.”
“States will deal with drug testing with welfare recipients, but my own view it’s a great idea,” he said. “People who are receiving welfare benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they are not using the money for drugs. I think it’s an excellent idea.”
I’m okay with it under one condition: We require such testing for everyone who receives taxpayer funds, including the top executives for every company that receives a government contract or any kind of tax break or subsidy. And all legislators too. Add that requirement and the interest in drug testing magically disappears.
30 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
Tualha
February 14, 2012 at 12:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And every single 70-something conservative white male who receives social security benefits. Yep, just pee into this here bottle, sir. It’s the law, and you respect the law, right?
dingojack
February 14, 2012 at 12:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And how much government money will you be receiving as President, Mittens?
Pee in this cup.
Dingo
'Tis Himself, OM
February 14, 2012 at 12:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Romney knows the poor became poor because they spent their hard-earned millions on drugs.
tommykey
February 14, 2012 at 12:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Every now and then one of my Facebook friends will post one of these “If you need to take a drug test to get a job, then you should have to take a drug test to get welfare” memes.
I’d be curious as to how much money the companies that make these drug testing kits stand to make if these proposals are implemented and if any of the politicians pushing these laws are getting campaign contributions from the industry. What can I say, I’m cynical.
Dan
February 14, 2012 at 1:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The Daily Show addressed this very issue with Florida lawmakers and Governor Scott recently: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-february-2-2012-david-agus?userClipStartTime=0&userClipEndTime=374.008&startIndex=1
d cwilson
February 14, 2012 at 1:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Test anyone who receives farm subsidies. How is that any less of an handout than welfare?
Randomfactor
February 14, 2012 at 1:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In Florida, just two percent failed the test.
Gov. Voldemort said it would save $77 million. It wound up costing something like $175 million.
Voldemort no longer is invested in a company doing drug testing–but he had been at the time of the initial proposal.
Randomfactor
February 14, 2012 at 1:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’d pass a daily drug test. Wonder if Willard would?
Chiroptera
February 14, 2012 at 1:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
tommykey, #4: “If you need to take a drug test to get a job, then you should have to take a drug test to get welfare” memes.
What an odd meme. The usual response to an injustice is to work to end the injustice, not spread around to everyone else.
reverendrodney
February 14, 2012 at 1:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
These almost daily statements by clawing scratching GOP candidates are becoming downright hilarious.
Romney endorses welfare drug testing.
And Newt just said: “I’ll lower gas prices!”
Santorum’s turn.
matty1
February 14, 2012 at 1:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Oh dear President Romney, you failed the drugs test now before you can have any more money you need to pay out your own pocket to go to a treatment centre. Don’t worry you won’t be in with all those ‘poor’ people we have a special scheme just for you. The price? oh I think $250 million ought to cover it”
eric
February 14, 2012 at 1:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As Tualha alluded to, I think just requiring it for Social Security and Medicare recipients would kill it.
For the double kill, print “Brought to you proudly by the Republican National Party” on the side of each pee bottle. Let’s see how that advertising affects voting patterns come election time.
matty1
February 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@4
But if there is a justification for job based drug testing it has to be in the region of “this machinery is dangerous and tricky to use so we need to be really sure you’re clear headed” not “junkies are bad people who don’t deserve to get paid”
Cliff Hendroval
February 14, 2012 at 1:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yeah, one of my brothers is a long-distance chemical hauler. I don’t mind him being tested to make sure he’s straight and sober while he’s working (and neither does he).
anandine
February 14, 2012 at 1:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Test legislative aides, who actually run the country.
ogremk5
February 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Not that this matters to the GOP, but have they investigated the accuracy of such systems?
Can you imagine the lawsuit when a single mother of 4 or a disabled vet gets their check pulled because they ate a poppy seed bagel for breakfast?
What would even be more interesting is to see the proposed process for getting this information into the welfare database and getting it out again.
In my experience it takes one guy about 3 seconds to deny a check, but it takes 3 months and a court to get the check reinstated.
There would have to be an appeals process, a second confirmation check, etc. etc.
sigh
greg1466
February 14, 2012 at 1:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Add all church officials too. After all, what is a tax exemption if not a tax subsidy by a different name.
In fact, doesn’t everyone in the country receive some kind of benefit from the government? Gonna be a long line…
Alverant
February 14, 2012 at 2:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Don’t forget businesses who take bailout money! And to expand on greg’s comment, getting tax breaks is a tax subsidy by a different name so all those 1%ers who skate by on paying nothing, line up.
plutosdad
February 14, 2012 at 2:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This is one of those holes in the safety net he was talking about. You know, that big hole that treats people who use drugs like human beings.
neonsequitur
February 14, 2012 at 2:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Actually, I’m not crazy about the thought of drug addicts taking their unemployment checks and spending the money on illegal drugs. But maybe we’re going about this the wrong way. Here’s a thought: if someone loses their job due to failing a drug test, maybe they shouldn’t be eligible for unemployment benefits.
Oh, wait…
Akira MacKenzie
February 14, 2012 at 2:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Operator: “911, please state the nature of your emergency…”
Caller: “Oh god help us! Our house is on fire! Send help!”
Operator: “Yes please, we’ll send the fire department immediately… as soon as you come down to the station and pass a drug test.”
Caller: “What?!”
Operator: “Yes, ma’am. To make sure that no taxpayer funds are being spent on the continued livelihood of disgusting, dirty drug users the state now requires a mandatory drug test before ANY government resources are expended on any citizens behalf.”
Caller: “But we’re trapped in here…”
Operator: “Save me the sob-story lady! It’s just a simple drug test! What have you got to hide? is your house on fire because you were brewing up crystal meth in your kitchen, huh!? You dope-fiends make descent, law-abiding citizens like us sick! Either you arrive on the hour for your test, or no help will be dispatched. I’m disconnecting this call.”
Caller: “NO… WAIT….”
*CLICK*
eric
February 14, 2012 at 3:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ogremk5: Can you imagine the lawsuit when a single mother of 4 or a disabled vet gets their check pulled because they ate a poppy seed bagel for breakfast?
IANAL, but wouldn’t those victims have to supply their own lawyer? I believe you only get state-supplied representation in criminal cases, not civil ones. And these guys are already on welfare. And this doesn’t seem like a suit that would award the enormous damages which would attract high-powered attorneys.
So I think the brutal truth is, such lawsuits would be few and far between, occurring only in instances where something like the local ALCU has resources to do pro bono work.
And the media wouldn’t really help, since they don’t actually do evidence-based reporting, they just present “both sides.” And that’s in the very best cases. On Fox, it would probably run like this: “dirty pot-smoking hippie claims muffin caused his positive drug test. May also be falsly claiming to be veteran. More on that story on the Sarah Palin Power Hour.”
ricko
February 14, 2012 at 4:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Everybody means everybody.
Everyone that votes, has a business, is in Congress (where they can get contraceptives).
All of us all the time.
Everybody!
D. C. Sessions
February 14, 2012 at 4:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“I’ll lower drug prices!”
holytape
February 14, 2012 at 4:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Does that include investment bankers?
ahcuah
February 14, 2012 at 5:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Of course, if we are testing for drugs, we better also include alcohol.
tommykey
February 14, 2012 at 7:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The other Facebook meme I’ve seen is “If you can afford cigarettes and alcohol, then you don’t need food stamps.”
exdrone
February 14, 2012 at 7:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Randomfactor @7 writes:
Well then apparently the welfare recipients should be paying for the tests and for the opportunity to prove they deserve to live a basic human existence. Freeloaders! [/sarcasm]
bananacat
February 14, 2012 at 8:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And I’m not crazy about the government telling people what to do with their own money, which it is very much is once it is given to them.
I’m also not crazy about this weird false belief that refusing to give money to drug addicts will somehow make them better.
Chiroptera
February 14, 2012 at 8:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And I’m not crazy about the government telling people what to do with their own money, which it is very much is once it is given to them.
Heh. That was pretty much my response when someone was telling me that the homeless guy I had just given money to was going just buy dope with it.
–
Me, I’m also not crazy about the idea of making non-drug-using poor people take a drug test just because, you know, someone just might be getting something they don’t “deserve.”
Mitt to Poor People: “Pee in this Cup!” « Foster Disbelief
February 14, 2012 at 11:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[...] Dispatches from the Culture Wars: A bill for drug testing welfare recipients has recently been on the table in Georgia, and at a [...]