Another Welfare Drug Testing Bill, With A Twist…It May Apply To Lawmakers

Another Welfare Drug Testing Bill, With A Twist…It May Apply To Lawmakers (Addictinginfo.org)

Welfare Drug Testing Bill Withdrawn After Amended To Include Testing Lawmakers (Huffingtonpost.com)

A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers.

So yet another Republican in yet another state tries to pass a "drug-testing of welfare recipients" bill - i.e., citizens not charged with a crime, only the Democrats amended the bill to include LAWMAKERS too - and the original sponsor (Rep. Jud McMillin [R-Brookville]) pulls the bill.

There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill,” said Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville), sponsor of the original welfare drug testing bill.

Why did he withdraw the bill? Apparently, it's not constitutional to drug-test lawmakers.

The Supreme Court ruled drug testing for political candidates unconstitutional in 1997, striking down a Georgia law. McMillin said he withdrew his bill so he could reintroduce it on Monday with a lawmaker drug testing provision that would pass constitutional muster.

"I've only withdrawn it temporarily," he told HuffPost, stressing he carefully crafted his original bill so that it could survive a legal challenge.

Hmm, drug-testing lawmakers = unconstitutional without 'reasonable suspicion'. Too bad the same consideration isn't given to the rest of the citizenry by these pro-Big Brother pro-police-state goons.

I remember reading this somewhere recently. There was nothing unconstitutional about the amendment. The SCOTUS ruled that it is unconstitutional to require candidates to submit to a drug test before being placed on a ballot. It says nothing about current legislators. I suppose one could argue that they will all become candidates in the future.

I would fully support random drug testing for anyone in a government position. I suspect Rep. McMillin has something he doesn't want revealed.

That's the kind of drug testing bill I would support. Though it doesn't go far enough. I want everyone that receives direct payment from any government agency to get drug testing if we are going to do it. Including politicians, welfare recipients, government administration workers, teachers, police, and even employees including executives of businesses who accept contracts with the government.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

This is a perfect example how lawmakers write laws that exclude them but screw their constituents. They can vote themselves raises, pick and choose their healthcare packages, they're excluded from paying into social security and they participate in inside trading. They only have their own best interests in mind. When will the voters realize how corrupt these politicians are?

reply to post by Kaploink


I don't know that I could support such a broad form of invasion of privacy. I view a random drug test of my person the same as a random search of my home or auto. The police should only be able to search those if there is an indication of a crime taking place.

Expanding drug testing to include anyone who get's money from the government (politicians included) would be a massive expansion of the government.

Even where they did pass drug-testing of welfare recipients, like in Florida, the results disproved that welfare recipients are drug addicts.

96% of Florida Welfare Applicants Pass Drug Test, Discredit Tea Party Gov

In fact according to the article, 98% who took the test passed it. It cost more to administer the drug testing than what the state saved by removing the 2% of those who failed. The only ones who win by passing this type of legislation are the drug-testing companies, winning another fat government contract paid for by our tax dollars.

reply to post by WeRpeons

This is a perfect example how lawmakers write laws that exclude them but screw their constituents. They can vote themselves raises, pick and choose their healthcare packages, they're excluded from paying into social security and they participate in inside trading. They only have their own best interests in mind. When will the voters realize how corrupt these politicians are?

Amen to that!

It's why every time they try to pass this type of legislation we have to expose it, and hopefully the voters will keep it in mind the next time they vote - sadly most people are oblivious sheeple who vote the way the SuperPAC money tells them to vote.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Yeah, he's going to re-submit it..

In about thirty days, and after drinking a lot of water.

reply to post by Miraj


LOL. "I'm not afraid to take a drug test.... just give me thirty days here and I'll prove it..."