House advances welfare drug tests

A state House panel advanced legislation Tuesday that would require the annual drug testing of 20 percent of Louisiana’s adult welfare recipients.

The House Health and Welfare Committee voted 11-5 to send the measure by state Rep. Sherman Mack to the full House for further debate.

“This bill is not about hurting people. It’s not about punishing people. It’s about identifying people with problems” so they can get help, said Mack, R-Albany.

Opponents said the state already has a drug screening program that’s working and that the drug testing would violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution dealing with illegal search and seizure.

House Bill 380 would require those applying for cash assistance through the Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program, called FITAP, to sign a consent form agreeing to random testing in order to be eligible for the benefit.

FITAP provides temporary cash assistance to families with children when the financial resources of the family are insufficient to meet subsistence needs. Able-bodied adult recipients must be involved in job training or education.

If found to be an abuser, the individual would have to complete an education and rehabilitation program, if one is available, within 90 days, in order to continue to get benefits, according to HB380. A participant who fails to complete the required program in the allotted time would have his or her benefits suspended for one year from the date of the positive drug screen or until the satisfactory completion of the program.

On a second positive test for illegal drugs, benefits would be halted for a year.

There are 3,035 adults who would be subject to the random testing today, said Sammy Guillory, deputy assistant secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services. Guillory said the average cash benefit for a family is $192 a month.

The issue is not an unfamiliar one to veteran legislators.

Prior efforts by former state Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, have failed. LaBruzzo, who lost re-election in 2011, traveled to the State Capitol Tuesday to support Mack’s effort, saying it was a way to save families.

Mack said the legislation would put everybody on the same page. Many jobs in the private sector require drug testing for employment and positive testing can lead to firing, he said.

“This is not about benefits being taken away from people. It’s about identifying problems,” said Mack. “All you have to do is go to treatment.” The individual would be responsible for getting treatment. No state funds would be used, he said.

State Rep. J. Rogers Pope, R-Denham Springs, said Mack’s legislation provides “an opportunity to promote self-help.”

But an executive of the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops said the legislation “demonizes” those who are temporarily on welfare, many of whom are already struggling with self-esteem.

“This bill implicitly infers that a greater or larger number of FITAP recipients are drug users,” said Rob Tasman, conference associate director.

Carmen Weisner, executive director of the Louisiana Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, said the legislation duplicates a program already in state law that requires interview and screening of all adults applying for FITAP.

She said that program, which does not involve urine testing, has identified 4.2 percent of applicants in need of treatment who then get it.

State Rep. Regina Barrow, D-Baton Rouge, said a federal court has already overturned as unconstitutional a new Florida law similar to what Mack proposed. Barrow said Mack had targeted one group for the drug testing because taxpayers pay for welfare.

Barrow offered an amendment to Mack’s bill that would have imposed random drug testing on government employees, legislators, government contractors, recipients of tax credits and anyone else receiving any kind of government money.

“This amendment gets to the heart, the intent of the bill to make sure that individuals are drug free and not misusing taxpayer dollars,” Barrow said.

The panel voted Barrow’s amendment down, with 6 for it and 10 against.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (61)


1) Comment by Scrooge - 10/05/2012

Incredulous"if you brought a mobile test lab over to the Legislature", they could then toast themselves with the leftover results while shooting themselves in the foot with their guns, providing living proof that evolution and intelligent design are both myths. Actually, the legislature should be required to take intelligence tests, wonder how many could pass the LEAP?

2) Comment by foldgers - 10/05/2012

To WORK for the sate and receive that paycheck from the government, EVERY future employee has to be tested and the cost is paid for by taxpayers. Why is it "wrong" to test people getting a check from the same government for NOT working? And so what if we pay for the drug tests? If they fail and the welfare is not paid out for a year... that will more than cover the cost of the test and many other tests as well. If people feel that they deserve that government money without working for it, they should be willing to do whatever needs to be done to get it, including drug testing. And I truly believe that people who are able to "work" collecting welfare, should work a few hours everyday cleaning up litter on the sides of the roads, mowing the grass.. cleaning up the city basically. 3 hours a day...can you imagine how much cleaner our city would be!

3) Comment by Incredulous - 10/05/2012

I'm pretty sure that if you brought a mobile test lab over to the Legislature, that they wouldn't be able to get a quorum if they had to pass this fine test.

4) Comment by The_Host - 10/05/2012

WhoDat- No we DID NOT get TOPS! I adopted my daughter and her mother whom I married wanted to send her to a school that did not provide all the classes needed for TOPS money. So WE PAID FOR IT ALL and I didn't mind since we aren't leeches. Don't question my truthfulness I have no reason to lie. I PAYED for ME, MY DAUGHTER and YOUR KIDS so you sit down and shut your hollier than thou mouth, I OWE NOTHING to YOU or ANYONE ELSE in society. Oh and WhoDat if we ALL lived on the government teet who exactly is going to pay for it all? I would infact quit my job if everyone else would all at once to shut this insanity down. Because I know who I am as a person and I will find another job after things have changed. Those who were on welfare will still be looking for welfare. I am all for taking this bloated floating dead fish we call entitlement and blowing it up under it's own weight and largess by havng EVERYONE suddenly jump on the bandwagon of welfare and bring it and this government of vote buyers to its knees. Then when we recover our fiscal sanity and quit the freebies everyone that had work ethic and skills before the workers coup can put them right back into action and go back to living and working only now they will KEEP what THEY make! And those that used to take will be forced to start making on their own. This is where we are slowly heading anyway doing what we are doing now the liberal/republican way. I say lets quit wasting time and get on with hitting rock bottom so we can recover.

5) Comment by Dawson - 10/05/2012

The very minute that you remove the chance of failure and accountability is the minute that you guarantee failure and no accountability. If you receive tax payer funds then you should be accountable for those funds. The government's attitude of "no on should fail" from individuals with the outrageous years of unemployment benefits, generational welfare and bailing out of failing companies is the constant pollutant in the economy that has lead to and kept the country in the recession it is in. If you want to see a change in behavior then LET THEM FAIL!!

6) Comment by whodat70816 - 10/05/2012

@The_Host...If welfare is so glamorous and profiting with all the free money, free cell phones..."freebies", then why don't you quit your job and live on welfare? I mean according to you these people sound like they have great lives....living high off the hog.

7) Comment by whodat70816 - 10/05/2012

@The_Host....You and your daughter had every opportunity to obtain and use TOPS. So do not give us your holier than thou speech. I do not believe for one second you did not have your daughter apply for TOPS. If I were to believe what you would like us to believe then I would have no choice but to consider you a fool for coming out of pocket 100% to pay for your child's education when there was no need for you to do that. What find much more believable is either you and your child were lazy and did not fill out the applications or you did fill out the applications but your child was denied because she did not make the grades. Regardless of why you ended up paying for your child's entire education, the fact remains that you did not have to and it was something you or your daughter did that prevented her from obtaining TOPS. Don't act as if you paid for her education simply because you do not believe in government programs. HOGWASH!

8) Comment by The_Host - 10/05/2012

No being on welfare or the government teet I am not sure but this $192 they talk about is the "cash benefit" to welfare receivers. That doesn't mean we only spend $192 a month on a welfare leech. They get all sorts of other freebies not included in that $192 total. Housing, food, cell phones, medicaid and who knows what else. Living on welfare may not make you a king but it sure seems to be turning the rest of the country in paupers in the process! When the parasites outnumber the hosts it is game over. I am The_Host for a reason. Because LITERALLY I am fed off of by leeches and parasites. If I was a dog I could just toss some Flea and Tick shampoo on and get rid of them. But being a human I can do nothing to remove them from my misery and get some relief. The workers of this country are tired or scratching and clawing at all the parasites we are forced to carry. Funny you welfare lovers would probably wash a dog that looked in distress if it was covered in parasites but when it comes to other people you say "her lets attach a few more."

9) Comment by The_Host - 10/05/2012

Coachblades- Yes you are correct NOT A DIME of TOPS money went to my daughters college education it was paid for by ME. Imagine that paying for my daughters education. Oh the humanity. She graduated last year and I am done paying for college. Well with the exception of everyone else's kid I am forced to pay for TOPS ongoing till I die I guess. So there I paid for mine, my daughters and obviously YOUR family as well. Oh and your not welcome because it was taken from me via taxes not out of the kindness of my heart. Carry on moocher.

10) Comment by RegularGuy - 09/05/2012

@gvm: Thumbs up!

11) Comment by RegularGuy - 09/05/2012

OK...I will calm down. I think the thing that bothers me most about this is not the proposal to make welfare recepients submit to drug tests...it's the fact that the people who make these laws do NOT! Members of the Armed Forces are subject to random drug tests...the same people most Americans see as someone to look up to. I say...if you are paid by city, Parish, State or Federal funds...then you should all have to submit to randon drug testing. I also like the idea of testing TOPS recepients...but let's go further and test all who receive Federal Financial Aid. It just burns me up that law makers are making laws that affect those that they deem to be inferior to them. Let's put drug testing THEM up to a vote and see how that goes!

12) Comment by gvm - 09/05/2012

@Tradewinns- your argument about where drug dealers are located is so disingenuous that it almost doesn't deserve a response - almost. I assume you're speaking of the stereotypical drug dealer - one that would be easy to spot because of his dress, look (race) or whatever. What about the drug dealers who happen to live in those "exclusive" areas? Don't think that they don't. All one has to do is to put forth an air of respectability and they can generally get away with anything. Our so-called legislators prove this point day in and day out. If drug testing is extended to everyone who receives government funds, then I heartily support it. However if is just directed toward a certain segment, then I'm opposed.

13) Comment by RegularGuy - 09/05/2012

@tradewinns: Oh the humanity! Where did you have to travel to see where the other half lived? Sherwood Forest? No...you don't hear about drug dealers in Bocage...but Bocage is exactly where the Bernie Madoffs and Stanfords would live. Lord knows THEY aren't stealing any money! Besides...they wouldn't buy meth off the street corners in Bocage anyway...they would go to extravagant parties and buy cocaine. Get off your high horse and travel somewhere across Jefferson Highway one day while buying your party favors at Goodwood Hardware. I bet you're a Christian too!

14) Comment by tradewinns - 09/05/2012

it seems the vast opponents of the testing bill do not think there is a drug problem with our welfare/social services receivers. if that is so, why are all the drug dealers located in the "poor" sections of every town. when was the last time you read about a drug bust in bocage. i do not ever remember even seeing a druggie on the corners in bocage in any of the times i went to see how the other half live. when you read tomorrow's paper, check out the crime and where the majority of problems are located. drug testing has to be random and even go to the welfare receivers home unannounced or the users know how to beat the test.

15) Comment by RegularGuy - 09/05/2012

What's bad is two articles down from this one, there is another article about the House not passing a bill that would require sex education in public schools. Seems ironic to me...considering everyone on this thread telling welfare receipients to get off their butt and stop having babies. Another thought...have any of you welfare haters ever thought that the $192.00 dollars a month they receive keeps them from stealing from your middle class home? Don't worry rich people...you have gated neighborhoods...so they are no threat to you. Better yet...get rid of public transportation and they won't have a way to get to your house to steal anything. What blows my mind is the thought that the majority of people on this thread welfare bashing would claim to their closest friends and a complete stranger that they are good Christians. Barf!

16) Comment by RegularGuy - 09/05/2012

What's bad is two articles down from this one, there is another article about the House not passing a bill that would require sex education in public schools. Seems ironic to me...considering everyone on this thread telling welfare receipients to get off their butt and stop having babies. Another thought...have any of you welfare haters ever thought that the $192.00 dollars a month they receive keeps them from stealing from your middle class home? Don't worry rich people...you have gated neighborhoods...so they are no threat to you. Better yet...get rid of public transportation and they won't have a way to get to your house to steal anything. What blows my mind is the thought that the majority of people on this thread welfare bashing would claim to their closest friends and a complete stranger that they are good Christians. Barf!

17) Comment by gvm - 09/05/2012

@whodat70816: Good post. The folks who continually denigrate all welfare recipients, usually based on faulty reasoning and prejudice, should realize that they could one day be on the receiving end of a government handout. I wonder if they'll be singing the same tune then? I suspect many of these detractors are but one generation removed from abject poverty themselves and probably live paycheck-to-paycheck. People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

18) Comment by whodat70816 - 09/05/2012

@no1zson....AND you get druged tested on your job because you know that you could not and do not want to ever be in the position of having to live off of $192 a month. Are there some abusing the system...certainly...but no more than any other class of people out there abusing and commiting fraud against the government. You'd rather go after a welfare recipient getting $192 a month vs. Halliburton stealing Billions of our tax dollars. I sure wish you people were just as passionate about big business subsides and big business fraud that sucks up all of our tax dollars as you do about someone getting $192 a month to feed their family. But hate...the kind hate you posses...is very very ugly and it blinds you to the real problems and issues. So go ahead and continue your fight against the poor...but don't forget while you're doing that the rich is taking you for all you're worth and maybe there will be day when you're going to be the one needing that $192 and it won't be there because while fought so hard getting rid of it....the people you want to be like were ripping you off.

19) Comment by whodat70816 - 09/05/2012

@no1zson....LOL....first off $192 is not a lot money. You talk as if people are living like kings on welfare. You say it is free unearned money....and that is not the case with the majority of welfare recipients. You act as if most people that receive welfare have never worked a day in their lives and have never paid a dime in taxes. There are many many people that receive welfare because they got laid off or they worked and got hurt on their jobs and can no longer work or they are elderly and unable to take care of themselves or a woman and her kids trying to get away from an abusive husband and father....there are so many reasons why people receive welfare and it is your hateful view that clouds your mind and allows you to make sweeping generalizations. You sound like fool with the stuff you spout off...you are the one that makes receiving $192 a month so glamours. So you don't care if it were $10 a month....LOL...well testing people will probably cost more than an addition $10 a month and so all of your spouting off in supporting this bill will now be costing you at a minimum of $202 a month per welfare recipient....Does that make feel bright?

20) Comment by Get Real - 09/05/2012

@CountryBoysCanSurvive this has nothing to do with race even though some might make about race. As an African American I support this bill because it says if you take state funds you have to be accountable. I also would support adding those get TOPS as well to the bill so that students we know that education is important especially when you are on someone's dime. We need to tie government benefits to education. If your child is acting up at school, fighting, getting suspended and/or failing the government should take 10% of the benefits until the behavior gets better. I guarantee you we would not need charter schools because the parents will make sure that the child is behaving and doing what he/she is suppose to do in school.

21) Comment by gvm - 09/05/2012

I support drug testing of welfare recipients - but only after it's instituted for members of the House and Senate! Given he extremely dubious legislation they've produced recently, I've concluded that they must be on something themselves. Maybe they're on the take....

22) Comment by ABayouBoy - 09/05/2012

And the ponderous bureaucracy continues to grow, with tentacles reaching into the entitlements, legalities, constitutional amendments, laws, rules, regulations, etc. And soon, it will require a Cray super-computer, or IBM's Big Blue just to keep track of it all....What ever happened to common sense?

23) Comment by squiggly - 09/05/2012

Another piece of useless legislation from the backward state of LA. If you cut the mothers off of welfare, what happens to the children? They say it won't cost the state any money, but how can it not cost the state money? The welfare receipient cannot afford drug treatment. I wouldn't be surprised if Medicade does not cover drug treatment. If Medicade does cover drug treatment, then the state is paying for this law. These people need to go talk to some welfare receipients to see first hand what is going on. Otherwise, they need to get a life.

24) Comment by Dawson - 09/05/2012

@ The Host...TOPS is no different on the college level as property tax is on the high school level. I'm with you, they are both welfare. Property tax is unconstitutional to begin with since I can't actually own the land I buy due to liens the local government can place on it should I refuse to pay an annual tax just to have the honor of living on my own land.

25) Comment by no1zson - 09/05/2012

@johntolliver - are you saying that because it might cost money, and that drug users might have kids that we should't test them? First off, it could be paid for with the savings realized when half of the welfare riceipients are dropped because they can't quit smoking weed. Second, If their only income is welfare, and they are on drugs as they would have to be in order to lose this income, but are using it to buy drugs then their kids should probably be taken away because they are absolutely worthless people. All I am asking is that before we give free money that I worked for out to someone, lets make sure they are not spending it on drugs. Doesn't sound that outrageous to me. If it does to you then I have to think that you are either on drugs, or on welfare, or both.

26) Comment by Dawson - 09/05/2012

DMJ...you are not invading privacy, it is not a mandatory test. You can opt out of the test and opt out of the service you are receiving. Its simple, if you don't want to take the test then refuse the service you are applying to receive. Same with many at their jobs, if you don't wish to take a drug test or do what your employer asks then you can quit and go find another job. When you accept government money you accept legislation that this same overbearing government may pass to hold you accountable for the monies you receive.

27) Comment by gofigger - 09/05/2012

I would like having this law, even if they don't test anyone, it may make some of the drug users think twice.

28) Comment by johntolliver99@yahoo.com - 09/05/2012

This is ONE of the stupidest things our state government is trying to do at this present time. There are three reasons that it want work. First I thought republicans hated regulation? So they are now going to throw more regulation on welfare?! I really thought welfare was regulated enough, I guess I am wrong. Second how in the world are we going to one PAY FOR THIS and two implement it inside of our budget that is by the way short again this year? I guess we need to be asking questions to our law makers like "have you gotten rates for the drug testing? what type of drugs will be illegal? Will they get a second test if the first one comes back positive? What if you have someone that is home bound how are you going to administer the test? Are we going to their homes and conducting them? All of this cost money that we don't have and we know the ones getting the welfare don't have money to pay for drug testing. Finally lets say for funs and grins that half of the welfare receipents are on some kind of illegal drugs and we revoke their assistance so that pays for all of the drug testing. I have one little bitty question....Does ANY of these people have kids they take care of? Let's say half of the drug users have some. What are we going to do about the kids? Because we did take away their only source of income. Are we prepared to take them into shelters and counseling and whatever else that is needed? All of you know our state can't handle that type of problem (most states can't). I know we are looking for ways to cut cost but Louisiana this is not the way. It will cost our state more money and heart ach and in the end bring our state down more. Tell your state senators, reps and governor to come up with some better ideas...ideas that work!

29) Comment by no1zson - 09/05/2012

@whodat70816 - It has nothing to do with "hitting the lottery" as you put it, and your comment just goes to verify what I did say concerning the entitlement frame of mind. In your mind it is not a lot of money, and these poor helpless people deserve that free money more than me anyways, so we just just hush up and give it to them. I do not care if welfare is $10 a month, it is money not earner. Every dime given to someone who did not earn it was taken from someone who did. Why would you not drug test anyone as a requirement to giving them money they didn't earn? I had to take a drug test to actualy earn the money. I am of the mind that people should earn what they get in life. If there is a legitimate need for assistance, then I am all for it, but being lazy and stupid is not an excuse, and if you are sitting around all day smoking pot then you do not deserve my assistance.

30) Comment by Bwaites985 - 09/05/2012

They should require drug test for all forms of government aid or assistance. The Federal government will not allow you to receive student loans if you are convicted of a drug related crime, why not make it apply to everything including food stamps, tops, everything.

31) Comment by coachblades - 09/05/2012

So Host, i take it that out of respect to your values your children and all your family members will be turning down any offer from the TOPS program... State school costs have risen an average of 50% in the last couple years and our lovely federal government is gearing up to raise the student loan interest rate. Good luck paying for college

32) Comment by nimby? - 09/05/2012

Scrooge , there is quite a bit of difference between a physically , mentally able person who chose not to get an education or employment and a senior lying in a bed , unable to communicate or control their bodily functions . as always programs designed with the best of intentions are most ripe with fraud , corruption .

33) Comment by whodat70816 - 09/05/2012

According to some on here....Dukeluve....no1zson...welfare receipients have hit the lottery with that $192 a month check.

34) Comment by DMJ - 09/05/2012

It's not about offending people. It's about invasion of privacy, wasting money and passing pointless laws based on personal feelings (traditionally, all things conservatives claim they are against).

35) Comment by The_Host - 09/05/2012

Caochblades- TOPS is indeed welfare. Forget the whole they earned it by passing high school. I passed high school no one paid for my college tuition for doing so! If you take money from one group and give it to another group for whatever the reason it is welfare plain and simple. I am paying for you. That is welfare in a nutshell. I am not talking about SS or programs we are all forced to pay into although they are all ponzi schemes and that is another story all together. We paid for them to earn their HS diploma. That is all we as a society owe them. It is all we as a society have provided those in the past and they used to do a lot better in school then as well. So passing HS now is considered "work" in which you "earn" the ability to take what someone who made they own way through college gets taxed on for their living. So they got to pay not only for their education but everyone else's as well. Sounds perfectly fair, so long as you never actually think about it!

36) Comment by Duckyluve - 09/05/2012

Test them or cut them off. Why is everybody so afraid of offending the poor welfare users?

37) Comment by jobo - 09/05/2012

Louisiana: adopting the failed policies of other southern states.

38) Comment by DMJ - 09/05/2012

"Welfare is a program that is based on failure....welfare rewards failure." Right. Because everyone that needs help is a failure. How depressing it must be to actually think these things about people.

39) Comment by Warp7 - 09/05/2012

Same old politics by Mack and LaBruzzo. Only difference this time was Mack sponsoring the bill. They both know the bill is meaningless and will cost tax payers additional money. They also know that the TANF/FITAP program only has about 4,000 families on FITAP (adult head of household, the rest are children). In addition the program already has measures in place for anyone suspected of drug use. They forget to let everyone know that prior to Welfare Reform the Department had over 75,000 households on what was then called Aid to Families with Children (AFDC) back in 1994. In 1995 Welfare Reform was put in place and the Department over the years reduced the rolls to a low of about 4,000 families. The vast majority is single parent families. Also they fail to mention that there is a time limit for receiving benefits, which is 2 years max. So now you don't have people living off of welfare all their life. Additionally they have to become employeed and become contributing citizens of our society. The only reason Mack and LaBruzzon bring this up each year to flame their constituent base of conservatives. This is a method they use to get free political publicity , they otherwise could not afford on their own. They have a good game, bring it up and the News Media jumps all over it with an artilcle in the local newspapers and coverage by local television stations that then reaches their political base. It is free media coverage to inflame a base of people who have no real idea of what the system does or provides. The days of someone just sitting on their butts and receiving assistance for life ended 12 years ago. Mack and LaBruzzo support is the same folks that elected the likes of David Duke.

40) Comment by DMJ - 09/05/2012

This is indeed a political stunt. It puts the idea into people's heads (or confirms the already present idea) that welfare recipients are all drug users, which no data or study has ever supported. This way, in the future, when "fiscally conservative" lawmakers decide they want to take away the safety net from those that need it the most, it'll seem justified and responsible. After all...drug users shouldn't get tax dollars, right? Ugh.... This is nothing more than a mean-spirited waste of time and money. Besides...it's counterproductive and non-effective (see my earlier post regarding the nature of drug testing). In my opinion, no one- absolutely no one - should be drug tested arbitrarily. It's an obvious invasion of privacy.

41) Comment by coachblades - 09/05/2012

Well Rebel, no matter how low of a bar you may think TOPS is set at the fact is it is still earned. I have NO problem with drug testing TOPS award EARNERS. I just hate when people equate TOPS with welfare... TOPS is a program that is based on success. Welfare is a program that is based on failure. TOPS rewards hard work... Welfare rewards failure. Did you support the Governors voucher program?? it is much closer to wefare than TOPS.

42) Comment by movingon - 09/05/2012

This is a political stunt and a waste of taxpayer money. The cost of testing and monitoring would exceed money paid out. If the potential 20% who could be tested equals 3,035 people, then 15,175 of Louisiana's 4,574,000 people are using this particular program. Thants 0.3% of the population, or 3 out of every 1000 poeple. Where are the hoards of welfare abusers? I apologize ahead of time for trying to insert common sense into political rhetoric.

43) Comment by no1zson - 09/05/2012

It is a commentary on the entitlement society we currently live in where you have to submit to a drug test in order to work, but not to just sit at home and get free money. I have to be drug tested in order to earn money and pay taxes so that people on drugs can sit at home and cash my taxed earnings. For some reason asking that they submit to the same standards as the burden bearer (me) is an infrigement of THEIR rights!! lol

44) Comment by Scrooge - 09/05/2012

All social security and medicare recipients need to be tested as well as they sit on their "lazy rear ends, expecting free money for life". Average ACT scores in Louisiana which includes private school students was 19. Stellar intelligence is not quite a characteristic of Louisiana, but a good case could be made for the opposite.

45) Comment by Duckyluve - 09/05/2012

Get up off your lazy rear end and get a job. Quit sitting at home, having babies and expecting free money for life. Lazy bums are the biggest drain on this country.

46) Comment by tradewinns - 09/05/2012

why are we soft selling any measure which is required for actual workers? these people are getting money without working and we are afraid of hurting their feelings? they are beggars at best. like my dad told us. his children: "as long as you put your feet under my table, you will obey my rules". if welfare people don't want to obey their providers' rules, let them earn their own money.

47) Comment by JL70710 - 09/05/2012

In addition @Rebel, every penny saved on tuition via TOPS frees up cash for drugs and alcohol abuse. (Oh wait, we don't have alcohol abuse going on in Louisiana -- campuses or capitol.) These students need to learn to be self-sufficient. They need to learn to pull their own weight and pay their own way. No free rides.

48) Comment by JL70710 - 09/05/2012

Yes, Tea_Slayer, I know. Yet another example of Louisiana legislators failing to learn from the mistakes of other states. Unfortunately, this flat learning curve is costing taxpayers big money in the name of ideological appeasement and "feel good" but hateful regulations. Brought to you from the "I heard about a guy once who . . ." school of legislating.

49) Comment by Rebel with a cause - 09/05/2012

Reply to coachblades By any definition, TOPS is indeed a welfare program (one that is much more costly than Louisiana’s TANF program). And I highly suspect that the incidence of drug use by TOPS recipients is astronomically higher than it is for those receiving aid through Louisiana’s TANF program. As for TOPS being “earned” – you obviously aren’t aware of the low bar required for this “award”, as you call it – a 2.5 GPA and a minimum ACT score of 20 – those are extremely average scores (especially when you consider the grade inflation used by many private high schools to help their paying students meet these standards). Students with moderate amounts of promise are given a free ride to go to college with little or no accountability. Why shouldn’t students who receive TOPS be willing to submit to a drug test, so I as a taxpayer know that they are actually making the most of the education that I am paying for?

50) Comment by coachblades - 09/05/2012

Rebel With a cause, so i take it your bitter that you didn't qualify for TOPS... First TOPS is earned by good GPA and a good ACT score. Welfare is not EARNED its just given out. The students you describe as missing class and occasionally graduating generally lose TOPS after their first semester. They don't get a "free ride" all through their college days. You don't get cash given to you with TOPS, its paid directly to the university. You can't trade college classes for drugs, you can't use your TOPS to gamble with. Yes TOPS uses tax money, but its actually for a good thing..People that EARN it get the opportunity to lessen the cost of a college education. TOPS is a reward for hard work in highschool and college....Whats welfare a reward for??? TOPS is a great program. Don't equate TOPS with welfare.

51) Comment by DMJ - 09/05/2012

Here are some facts about conventional drug testing.... Hard drugs - cocaine, heroin, meth, prescription drugs- only stay in your system a few days. Marijuana, by all measures less dangerous than the legal drug alcohol, stays in your system up to 30 days. Alcohol, stays in your system less than 24 hours. So....someone could smoke crack and get fall-down drunk, then pass a drug test 3 days later, whereas someone who smoked weed three weeks earlier will fail. Are we sure this is a good use of time, money and resources? Is it worth violating people's privacy? Something to think about...

52) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 09/05/2012

JL70710, the program is FL was not cost effective. http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug- testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

53) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 09/05/2012

The black politicians will never let this pass.

54) Comment by JL70710 - 09/05/2012

Here's a thought: Instead of passing expensive regulations in order to demonstrate there's a problem, why don't legislators first demonstrate that there's a problem and then pass legislation to solve it? Why not put together a committee to first study whether or not there's a problem, and then do a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether or not the money spent testing is going to actually save taxpayer money? Where is the evidence that there's a significant problem with drug use among welfare recipients? In Florida, which implemented random drug testing of welfare recipients, results showed LESS drug use among welfare recipients than the general population. The cost of the drug testing was far greater than any savings realized. Oh wait! This legislation isn't about fixing a "problem"; it's about appeasing the biases of an electorate in need of scapegoats. Who's the big campaign contributor out there who coincidentally owns a drug testing company with a state contract? (Maybe we should look into that company's employees' retirement benefits to make sure they aren't getting too cushy a ride from taxpayer money.)

55) Comment by Spudaroonski - 09/05/2012

Her's a better idea. Go after the real welfare queens. You know every CEO of every company that gets tax breaks and subsidies. I'd like to see Tom Benson line up for his pee test since the taxpayers in this state lavish him with all kinds of incentives. Here's another idea that should be implemented immediately. Mandatory drug test for any doctor performing surgery. I'd sure like to know that my doctor is drug free before he starts cutting me open. How about making our elected representatives pee in a bottle since they are charged with making these oh so important descions that affect all of our lives. And for all the ignoramuses that say if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide so this trampling of your constitutional rights shouldn't bother you I suppose you wouldn't mind having the authorities come check out your wife's rear end and inspect it every so often right? You know since sodomy is against the law and all. Like you're all so fond of saying if you're not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to hide so a little peek at the goods should be just fine with you. Spread'em ladies! Oh, I forgot, the police can already strip search anyone for any offense already. My bad.

56) Comment by nimby? - 09/05/2012

perhaps we should abolish all social programs , more emphasis on education and workfare , no free rides ....

57) Comment by 8point6 - 09/05/2012

"House Bill 380 would require those applying for cash assistance through the Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program, called FITAP, to sign a consent form agreeing to random testing in order to be eligible for the benefit." I agree with that. Too bad Barrow's amendment was voted down. I would have voted for it.

58) Comment by Duckyluve - 09/05/2012

Here is a novel idea,,,,,,,,DONT USE DRUGS and you wont have to worry about it......or better yet GET A JOB and quit HAVING KIDS

59) Comment by Rebel with a cause - 09/05/2012

What would be a better use of tax dollars is to drug test ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS who are recipients of the enormously expensive and wasteful welfare program in Louisiana known as TOPS. If the taxpayers only realized how their hard-earned tax dollars were wasted by drugged-up, pre-adults who rarely attend classes and only occasionally graduate. Why should those of us who work for a living pay for this free ride -- in the name of keeping the “talented” youth in our state, to promote economic development? Well, I have news for you – LARGE PERCENTAGES of these students NEVER finish their degrees, and LARGE PERCENTAGES who do graduate, major in fields that have little to do with promoting economic development (really, how many journalism, general studies, sociology, and history majors do we need?). It is time we bring ACCOUNTABILITY to these welfare recipients. Let their parents pay for their fun. In the meantime, I say DRUG TEST THEM ALL!

60) Comment by JMONEY - 09/05/2012

If people would learn to budget and seriously determine what is needed and what is not, I believe they would be able to be self-sufficient. Isn't that what it's all about? Cable/Direct TV, cell phones, expensive clothes and cars, constant hair and nail appointments; none of these things are needs. It is a shame that some people have not been taught the true meaning of work and that they don't take care of their children. The "family unit " is failing in this nation. Look around. I am all for the drug testing. Clean up your lives people! You can't serve two masters!

61) Comment by stopnthink - 09/05/2012

the article stated the avg cash benefit is $192, but did reference the cost of drug testing recipients. i am wrong assuming the cost of drug testing to be less than $192 per person, barring any retests (which are bound to happen)?. Also if a welfare recipient can afford to get drugs and then handle costs of rehab/education, should they be on welfare in first place?