IBJNews

Indiana lawmakers kill drug screening for welfare

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The fate of a divisive proposal to drug test welfare recipients died in the final minutes of the Indiana legislative session Thursday in a rare failed floor vote.

The bill powered through the Republican-dominated House but faced roadblocks with both parties in the Senate, where leaders criticized the measure as needlessly expensive and discriminatory against the poor.

In the final votes the House passed the measure 81-17, but the Senate defeated the bill 24-24 after senators from both sides of the aisle criticized the bill.

"We peeled the onion last night up here at the microphone," Senate President Pro Tem David Long said. "In the end, this wasn't thought through as well as it could have been."

The bill was the second to last to come before the Senate late Thursday night. Only five of the hundreds of bills tackled this session were voted down in the final round of voting, and the usual low rumble in the Senate chamber quieted until barely a sound was heard when the vote count was tallied.

Although the House and Senate successfully compromised on big-ticket items such as a business tax package and the potential release of $400 million to spruce up Indiana roads, disagreements between the chambers ultimately led to the death of the drug testing proposal.

Bill author Rep. Jud McMillin this week undid Senate changes that would have limited testing to only Temporary Assistance for Needy Families applicants with prior drug convictions. The original bill requires all beneficiaries to be screened for likelihood of addiction and then potentially be tested.

Whether drug testing certain TANF recipients would pass constitutional muster is unclear. A similar Florida measure was ruled unconstitutional last year, and American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana Legal Director Kenneth Falk said the Indiana bill likely would have met a similar end.

Senators also earlier nixed a measure to restrict what can be bought with government food assistance to only items deemed "nutritional" by the state.

Senate Democrats called the measure a "war on the poor," while Republicans spoke against the high price tag to catch an estimated 5 percent or less of TANF recipients abusing drugs. Earlier estimates from the Legislative Services Agency show the policy could save about $520,000 but cost up to $1.83 million to implement over two years.

Sen. Vaneta Becker, R-Evansville, said the price tag could have been closer to $2.5 million.

"It was a much different bill," said Becker, who voted for the earlier Senate-approved version of the proposal, "a much less expensive bill."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Drug testing in other states
    It has generally ended up either in court, wasting tax dollars to defend it, or when it was actually conducted, turned out to cost quite a bit to catch a very small number of violators. I would rather that we fund some kind of screening/testing that focuses on diverting people into treatment (which the state should also be willing to fund, if they are genuinely that concerned). Let's realize that drug addiction is a disease that leads to crime, and the best way to reduce it focuses on harm prevention and disease treatment, not denying services to Hoosiers that need them most.
  • Hmmm
    After witnessing the antics and final results of this last legislative session, I propose that the members of our august legislature undergo random drug screening. Particularly for hallucinogens.
  • Fuzzy Math System
    72% (105) voted in favor, but just 24 killed the bill.
  • it is illegal to use drugs
    how a senator can feel that this discriminates against the poor is beyond comprehension. If this discriminates against anyone, it is against drug users. taxpayers should be outraged at this! it is not unreasonable that those being given a hand out are required to be drug free. But maybe some senators think that is okay. hopefully, their opponents in the next election shed light on this vote.
  • Wrong. Oh so wrong.
    Many of the people that produce the tax dollars it takes to pay the people receiving free benefits must pass a drug screen. What is wrong with the Senate? Thankfully these good hard working folks pass the test, so they can work and provide the spoils of their labor on the non-working, non-drug test taking, but very Democratic voting recipients. I hope the recipients are thankful for the drug screen passing people too.
  • Unfair to the employed
    It ticks me off that I face drug screening to keep my job but someone who can get gov't assistance from my tax dollars doesn't have to face the same to get their money. Totally unfair to taxpayers and I'll remember next election.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Kent's done a good job of putting together some good guests, intelligence and irreverence without the inane chatter of the other two shows. JMV is unlistenable, mostly because he doesn't do his homework and depends on non-sports stuff to keep HIM interested. Query and Shultz is a bit better, but lack of prep in their show certainly is evident. Sterling obviously workes harder than the other shows. We shall see if there is any way for a third signal with very little successful recent history to make it. I always say you have to give a show two years to grow into what it will become...

  2. Lafayette Square, Washington Square should be turned into office parks with office buildings, conversion, no access to the public at all. They should not be shopping malls and should be under tight security and used for professional offices instead of havens for crime. Their only useage is to do this or tear them down and replace them with high rise office parks with secured parking lots so that the crime in the areas is not allowed in. These are prime properties, but must be reused for other uses, professional office conversions with no loitering and no shopping makes sense, otherwise they have become hangouts long ago for gangs, groups of people who have no intent of spending money, and are only there for trouble and possibly crime, shoplifting, etc. I worked summers at SuperX Drugs in Lafayette Square in the 1970s and even then the shrinkage from shoplifting was 10-15 percent. No sense having shopping malls in these areas, they earn no revenue, attract crime, and are a blight on the city. All malls that are not of use should be repurposed or torn down by the city, condemned. One possibility would be to repourpose them as inside college campuses or as community centers, but then again, if the community is high crime, why bother.

  3. Straight No Chaser

  4. Seems the biggest use of TIF is for pet projects that improve Quality Of Life, allegedly, but they ignore other QOL issues that are of a more important and urgent nature. Keep it transparent and try not to get in ready, fire, Aim! mode. You do realize that business the Mayor said might be interested is probably going to want TIF too?

  5. Gary, I'm in complete agreement. The private entity should be required to pay IPL, and, if City parking meters are involved, the parking meter company. I was just pointing out how the poorly-structured parking meter deal affected the car share deal.

ADVERTISEMENT