Okla. Senate OKs scaled-back welfare drug test bill

By: From Wire Reports
By: From Wire Reports

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Oklahoma welfare recipients could be subjected to drug tests and denied benefits under a scaled-back drug testing bill approved in the Oklahoma Senate.

The Senate on Wednesday voted 46-2 for the compromise bill that authorizes the Department of Human Services to conduct drug tests on welfare applicants if they have a reasonable suspicion the person is using drugs. The proposed law applies to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF, which serves an estimated 4,000 Oklahoma adults in an average month.

The bill previously would have required all TANF recipients to take and pay for a drug test before receiving benefits. The revised bill applies only to applicants who come under suspicion after being screened for potential drug use.



House Bill 2388: http://bit.ly/A1cygp

(Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

You must be logged in to post comments.

Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Biffco Location: Sherman on May 6, 2012 at 10:02 AM
    We want your fluids!
    • reply
      by Buffco on May 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM in reply to Biffco
      We're tired of enabling you!
    • reply
      by Anonymous on May 8, 2012 at 10:38 AM in reply to Biffco
      I did'nt know you were connected with Jiffy Lube....
    • reply
      by Anonymous on May 9, 2012 at 04:32 AM in reply to Biffco
      Don't want anybodys fluids. Wouldn't need them except for lawyers. It's not real hard to tell who is/isn't doing drugs and alcohol. It's the lawyers who say "prove it". Get tax dollars out of it and things will improve quickly!
      • reply
        by Biffco on May 9, 2012 at 11:51 AM in reply to
        Private drug testing today is the result of the federal government pushing responsibility for the enforcement of "drug" prohibition from law enforcement to the private sector. If a business has any connection to the fed, the drug testing is mandated or the government won't do business with you. But it's a fools game. Drug testing does nothing to reduce the use of drugs. The only way it could be effective is if you tested all workers every day. This method would certainly reduce drug use (at least in the working population) but would be prohibitively (pardon the pun) expensive and would still serve no real purpose. "Drug" screening is an extension of the greater "War on Drugs" which itself has become an anachronistic idea whos time has past. They want our fluids... our precious fluids...
        • reply
          by Logic on May 9, 2012 at 07:23 PM in reply to Biffco
          "I can no longer sit back and allow...communist infiltration...communist indoctrination...and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all our precious bodily fluids..." - Gen Jack T Ripper
        • reply
          by Anonymous on May 10, 2012 at 05:46 AM in reply to Biffco
          Agreed. Get the feds out of it. Allow employers to can anyone they suspect as druggies without any investigation or repercusions. We then would wage our war on drugs as individuals without interference. Get the tax dollars out of it and things will improve quickly.
        • reply
          by Buffco on May 10, 2012 at 06:45 AM in reply to Biffco
          "Drug testing does nothing to reduce the use of drugs." Actually, it, like gun laws, deters usage in LAW ABIDDING citizens. Again, asking someone receiving a free benefit to use some of that benefit to prove that they QUALIFY to receive said benefit is not the end of the world. Drug test them and if they fail, NO SOUP FOR YOU!
  • by Monty Location: Area 52 on May 4, 2012 at 07:14 AM
    The "elected officials" are the ones behind all this malfeasance!
  • by Anonymous on May 2, 2012 at 11:54 AM
    There is an old proverb that says "if you don't want anyone to know about it, don't do it."
    • reply
      by Biffco on May 8, 2012 at 07:01 AM in reply to
      And there is another one that states: "My private life is none of your business!"
      • reply
        by Anonymous on May 9, 2012 at 04:24 AM in reply to Biffco
        And another one "if you don't work, you don't eat."
        • reply
          by Logic on May 9, 2012 at 09:21 AM in reply to
          How about another one: Arbeit Macht Frei
        • reply
          by Anonymouse on May 9, 2012 at 01:00 PM in reply to
          "Arbeit Macht Frei" I agree! By continuing to enable the "welfare state" we ARE treating them like concentration camp workers. Believing that "we" are somehow helping them to become better members of society is as false a belief as that Auschwitz slogan "Arbeit Macht Frei". Which begs the question what does that make the us?
        • reply
          by Biffco on May 9, 2012 at 03:07 PM in reply to
          But we're not gassing people... yet.
        • reply
          by Anonymouse on May 10, 2012 at 06:49 AM in reply to
          "But we're not gassing people... yet." So we're in the post-coital paradise. The salad days, right before we run out of being able to provide for their livelyhood. Sad how so many "highly evolved" and "liberated" folks seem to think modern day slavery is a good thing. You, WE, do them no good.
  • by Biffco Location: Sherman on May 1, 2012 at 11:53 AM
    I thought being a conservative meant you wanted LESS government intrusion in you lives and a smaller government overall. How do you reconcile that with something like this that increases both the size and interference with the private lives of government?
    • reply
      by Anonymous on May 2, 2012 at 06:36 AM in reply to Biffco
      Compromise deters any real conservative effort. The gov't should not tax responsible earners to pass those monies to those who are irresponsible. I would opt for tax dollars being forbidden to support social/welfare programs. Any effort to support those who choose to operate outside the descipline required for productive labor, should only be supplies by family, friends, and/or privately funded programs where people choose to donate their funds for that purpose. My conservative position is not for less gov't. It is for far less gov't. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. We will never force or buy responsibility, education, compliance...ect. The change must come from within the perps as they realize the gov't will not support them. Including jail. I would be receptive to any assault charges be dropped against any person who physically attacks anyone found to be "under the influence". Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
    • reply
      by Buffco on May 2, 2012 at 06:51 AM in reply to Biffco
      Being a conservative means you want less government in your WALLET. Make those who benefit from my hard work to pay for their own drug testing. Add Section 8 housing recipients as well. It's a small price to pay for their "free" money.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on May 2, 2012 at 09:34 AM in reply to Buffco
        I don't want gov't TAKING from my wallet! I'm more than willing to give. It's the taking and placing the wallet contents in areas I wouldn't, if given a choice! I wouldn't give a penny to someone unwilling to avoid drugs and alcohol. My gifts would be limited if they were unwilling to work even at menial tasks. Some can't do some things. Everybody can do something! If they cannot avoid drugs and alcohol, someone else will foot the bill. Not me, if given a choice. I have had alcoholics in my family. No public assistance was ever requested. It is a horrible experience. But not something taxpayers should be resposible for.
  • by Fozzy Location: Ardmore on Apr 30, 2012 at 05:48 AM
    Social Conservative nonsense.. creating another department full of tax payer funded government goons fixes nothing.. Smaller government conservatives my ear!
    • reply
      by Fonzie on Apr 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM in reply to Fozzy
      Yeah! Dang those government goons and their dadgummed government monies! How DARe they expect us to actually do SOMETHING for them there big gubbermint monies. Dang them to h*ll!
  • by Naysayer Location: Ardmore on Apr 27, 2012 at 05:56 PM
    I, for one, am in total agreement with this bill. Some people say it's a violation to their civil rights that they are going to be drug tested or don't agree with it in some form or fashion. I say test them all and the only one's knocking it are the ones who don't care enough about themselves or their families to better themselves and live on welfare. Before getting welfare and handouts such as Soonercare, TANF, or section 8, get a better job or 2 if need be. Those programs should be seen as Last resort options and not as income or a career. It burns me up at WalMart on food stamp day when there is someone behind me with a buggy full of junk food paid for by people like my husband and I, people who work hard for what they have.
    • reply
      by Fozzy on Apr 30, 2012 at 05:50 AM in reply to Naysayer
      ANYone for this type of program are fools! This isn't about solving or fixing anything! This is about creating another level of government paid employees to cost the taxpayers MORE that the program is worth to begin with.
      • reply
        by Floppy on Apr 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM in reply to Fozzy
        The fools are the 47% still paying Federal income taxes for the "Welfare Nation".
  • by Anonymous on Apr 27, 2012 at 03:58 PM
    Man, I'm gonna have to agree with Logic on something for once. Just having it where you can drugtest if needed is at least a step in the right direction. If you think someone is taking advantage of the system then report them and have them drug tested. Hey, it's better than no drug testing at all. It should help weed out the druggies (pardon the pun!)
    • reply
      by Anonymouse on Apr 30, 2012 at 07:16 AM in reply to
      What's the difference between a drug addict and a thief? A thief will steal your wallet. A drug addict will steal your wallet and help you look for it. Just the THREAT of a test will not weed out an addict.
      • reply
        by Mork on May 1, 2012 at 09:22 AM in reply to Anonymouse
        So drug addicts are nice people and will help people find their wallets? Man, that's really great! It all makes sense to me now!
        • reply
          by King of Ork on May 1, 2012 at 11:25 AM in reply to Mork
          Have someone read you the comment, Mork. You missed the most important part about the addict...or maybe you just chose not to see it...
        • reply
          by Mork on May 3, 2012 at 12:51 PM in reply to Mork
          I had my parole officer read it to me. Yep, I'm the winner this time. Just didn't see it but I get it now! Silly me!
  • by King Location: MLK Drive on Apr 27, 2012 at 08:19 AM
    Just make everyone line up and take a body cavity search and drug test every morning before breakfast. Make the entire country a prison and take away all of the guns so we can't fight back.Welcome to the new world order!
    • reply
      by chelsea on Apr 27, 2012 at 12:34 PM in reply to King
      I'm fine with your first sentence. If you have nothing to hide, then what's the problem?
    • reply
      by Squire on Apr 27, 2012 at 01:22 PM in reply to King
      I pay for my breakfast so no reason for me to be drug tested...my employer however DOES drug test me randomly and as the "employer" of the "welfare state", I demand they be held accountable for their "employment" also. Free money deosn't mean there aren't strings attached.
      • reply
        by Fozzy on Apr 30, 2012 at 05:51 AM in reply to Squire
        So you're a Big Government type?
        • reply
          by Froggy on Apr 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM in reply to Fozzy
          So you're a No Accountability type?
  • by Anonymous on Apr 27, 2012 at 07:31 AM
    The desire to get high is so great that our young people are now drinking hand sanitizer! In most cases you can't do productive labor,i.e. hold a job, if you are high. The likely place to get money and stay high is on welfare! Right wing and left wing can be argued forever. I'm not interested in the civil rights of those who insist on being high for a living. If people were responsible there would be no argument. Too bad we have deteriorated to a point that laws are proposed to get peoples attention! Too bad there seems to be a need to threaten punishment. Too bad there's not enough taxpayer money or corporate will to make drug use an undesireable goal. Too bad we have politicians that fold under pressure. If we could convince the lawmakers to not finance social programs and only commit public funds to programs that benefit all the people, cutting income tax would not be such a controversial subject! Income tax is not a good way to finance anything. Income tax takes. Worthwhile programs will recieve donations and likely have better oversight. Any abuse will result in lost donations. Tax money continues with or without abuse. There's no stopping it!
  • by qualls on Apr 27, 2012 at 07:12 AM
    hello buster, they do drug test the welfare workers, all workers every where have to take drug tests to keep their jobs or get hired, where have you been?? and how would you know they are stoned unless u are the one in there applying???
    • reply
      by non-qualls on Apr 30, 2012 at 07:14 AM in reply to qualls
      "All workers everywhere?"...not even close to being true.
  • Page:
Sherman 4201 Texoma Pkwy (903) 892 -8123 Ardmore 2624 S. Commerce (580) 223-0946
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 149136175 - kxii.com/a?a=149136175
Gray Television, Inc.