State panel backs bill for welfare drug testing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bill that would require screening for possible drug use welfare recipients is moving forward in the Indiana Legislature.

A House committee voted 8-4 on Wednesday to advance the bill. The bill would require Indiana residents receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families be screened through a questionnaire and drug tested if they show a likelihood of addiction. Benefits would continue if they test positive as long as they enter treatment.

An amendment removed a mandate for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to show photo identification.

Committee chairwoman Rebecca Kubacki of Syracuse says photo identification is impractical because of the cost and inevitable battle with the federal government.

Bill sponsor Rep. Jud McMillin of Brookville says might try to reinsert the requirement later.


  • Really
    The writers on the IBJ could have saved themselves enormous amounts of time this week by writing a single article: Hoosiers Have No Idea What Happens in the Rest of the Country
  • Saving
    There is never any mention of financial education for individuals. No matter how much money someone earns, unless they know how to save they will end up right back where they started Here is an explanation on how to save out of a poor situation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVat9VBsSCg
  • Waste of Money
    Thank you Jared for pointing out what the national media has been talking about for months! In he states hat have passed this law, they've found very few people who test positive and end up wasting 100's of thousands of dollars in the process.
  • We can only HOPE
    AWESOME this better pass. I don't want to support anyone else's drug habit.
  • Wait
    I'm as liberal as they come, but tend to support this. I've had to be drug tested for every job I've ever gotten...it's more often than not a requirement. Why shouldn't welfare recipients? Aren't they supposed to be looking for work and finding a way to get off welfare as soon as possible? And in states where drug testing isn't "catching" drug users, the mere requirement they take a drug test prevents users from applying for welfare in the first place...that's a fact. So I say have it in place to deter the users (and abusers). I also agree politicians need to abode by the same rules as the people they serve. Drug test them too as a pre-employment requirement...just like most of us.
  • Why stop there?
    Add to this that all corporate welfare recipients take a drug test, too. After all, corporations are people. And all politicians who spout off on "family values" have a family they value, never divorced, never had an affair, etc.
  • GM - you hit the nail on the head!
    If only this could happen. What a great way to shrink our overinflated, over-privileged and worthless group of representatives senators and of course, POTUS and his entourage. Fat Chance!
  • Misdirected
    Are there a lot of drug users on welfare? Sure. Are there a lot of drug users not on welfare? Sure. Is a correlation a causation? Who knows. I would much rather see welfare include a work requirement, but Obama killed that off to buy votes. I think we ought to get something for our money.
  • Waste
    Welfare drug testing has already been shown to be a complete waste of time and money in the states that have already implemented this policy. Instead of learning from other states the Indiana GOP continue to characterize the poor as lazy drug addicts.
  • drug test politicians
    Drug test politicians and make it mandatory they disclose what mental health-related prescription drugs they are taking. The voting public must stop allowing politicians to live under different rules then the rest of us.

    Post a comment to this story

    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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

    2. It's good to hear that the festival is continuing to move forward beyond some of the narrow views that seemed to characterize the festival and that I and others had to deal with during our time there.

    3. Corner Bakery announced in March that it had signed agreements to open its first restaurants in Indianapolis by the end of the year. I have not heard anything since but will do some checking.

    4. "The project still is awaiting approval of a waiver filed with the Federal Aviation Administration that would authorize the use of the land for revenue-producing and non-aeronautical purposes." I wonder if the airport will still try to keep from paying taxes on these land tracts, even though they are designated as "non aeronatical?"

    5. How is this frivolous? All they are asking for is medical screenings to test the effects of their exposure. Sounds like the most reasonable lawsuit I've read about in a while. "may not have commited it" which is probably why they're suing to find out the truth. Otherwise they could just ask Walmart, were you negligent? No? OK, thanks for being honest.