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. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

    2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

    3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

    4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

    5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.