Boose: Cutting benefits for positive drug-testers not answer in Ohio

Idea has been discussed many times in Columbus.
Scott Seitz2
Dec 30, 2012
Log out
Search

Search form

Close Search

The idea of drug testing welfare or public assistance recipients in order to be eligible for benefits is not a new one.

But the execution of that concept is another story -- just ask Florida lawmakers who approved a bill to drug-test welfare recipients in 2011.

State Rep. Terry Boose, (R-Norwalk Township) said the idea has been discussed many times in Columbus.

A pair of stories about this topic was published in Saturday's Reflector.

 

Comments

jstus2001

Well Mr. Boose...you have done it again...Why make staying "clean" a requirement for government assistance? Here is another idea for you to take to the house floor...Lets give the people on assistance a raise so they can buy more drugs therefore giving the "dealers" a raise and they can stimulate the economy...IDIOT...!!!

kal-el

First time I've ever agreed with Boose. It creates another bureaucracy and costs more than it saves. It's been tried in other States and either gets shut down by the revenue loss or the courts.

It sounds good on paper, but it is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Dr. Information

Just wait. Any moment.....here comes the losers......you can't take them away, they deserve them.

kal-el

"Dr" gotta love you "small govt" folks - you're for "big govt" if it tests someone else's urine or you think it'll bust your "lazy" neighbor; even if it costs you more taxes.

itssad1

I am so glad that everyone that works loves paying for others drugs with the assistance the addicts receive. How much of their assistance do you really believe is being used for the household and not drugs. I have known people who sold their food stamp card for drugs or half the amount they were worth. I myself do not like paying for drugs for others. I don't buy them for myself either i don't do them. KAl-El we are already wasting tax payers money. Those who need help but make a dollar to much can't get it but those who are lazy can.Makes no sense

sanduskysteve

I couldn't agree more - what is really so funny about this is that the same people against drug testing welfare people and are willing to pay for them to have cocaine - are against someone getting birth control pills paid for by the INSURANCE company rather than the taxpayer! Isn't this a little silly, if you think about it? I think it's all about which drug is used the most by politicians - birth control or cocaine? You decide.

swiss family

with all of the illegal options that our Representatives have had in the recent past.. maybe we need to drug test them randomly, and if they are found to be dirty, they are gone... I think it is a good start, not just Representatives, but government employees including Judges, firemen, policemen city workers etc.

Contango

Regardless, any drug testing law would more than likely be declared unconstitutional by the OH Supremes.

Come on Rep. Boose, get on the bandwagon. The American people's desire for small govt. is passe. Recall the lessons from Nov. in the national election.

The game is now "cash and prizes."

Maybe OH can be first in the nation to enact FDR's Second Bill of Rights:

The right to a job
The right to food, clothing and a vacation
The right to sell your product at a fair price
The right to a house
The right to medical care
The right to disability and retirement income
The right to an education

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sec...

Sound good? So why bother working when the govt. will provide it for you?

H*ll, give the druggies a pay raise! It's "for the children."

Kinda gives 'em an incentive to have kids doesn't it?

☭ FORWARD SOVIET! ☭

TOPGUN01

YOU PUT THIS GUY BACK IN !!HOPE YOUR HAPPY?

VerbalKint

Very Happy. As he has explained, other states have failed, it is not cost effective nor does it reduce the amount of drug addicts on the dole. If you can come up with a better solution, please post it, otherwise stop the bias and recognize it for what it is.

Rabbi

I think the public would be better served by a law that regulates how custodial parents spend child support money. Too many custodial parents (statistically speaking- mothers) take their bi-monthly shopping spree for themselves too seriously, and then brag about it- as if they are owed some sort of stipend by the non-custodial parent for some percieved wrong.

I would much rather not support some lazy mothers "drug habit" (shopping for themselves) with my money. It's meant for the kids, not tanning packages and trips to Victoria's Secret.

Dr. Information

Just more nanny state. No responsibility, no accountability. Just take take take.