It is my fervent hope that the Democrat re-introduces the amendment as a stand-alone bill.

/And may it sweep the nation, so that government hypocrites everywhere will be shamed into reforming the nations failed war on drugs.

//Or tossed into jail for three to five years. It's all good.

So, now you file a proper bill requiring all members of the Indiana General Assembly to be drug tested.

You know, as an Indiana resident I can predict how this will work out.

The handful of black people in the state on welfare will be fine. The overwhelming majority of people on welfare in the state -- white people -- will be found to have even shot up pixie sticks to get high. The market for do-nothing, borderline scam "system flush" products that smoke shops in the state sell question- and consequence-free will go through the goddamn roof.

The whole fiasco will be quickly and quietly swept under the rug, until they find one black dude who had a poppy seed muffin for breakfast or something equally silly and trivial. Then they'll cart that one case around as if they found Jimmy Hoffa's corpse, and on it was a note confessing the true identity of the black dahlia murderer and treasure map to long-lost Nazi gold buried in a corn field out near Tipton. They'll act it was a huge, resounding, incredible Republican and white Real American success against all odds of a drug- and welfare-loving Democratic liberal party, despite having spent more money getting positives from white trash and doing jack shiat about it than they would have lost if they'd just signed the damn checks no-questions-asked in the first place. But it all went into the pockets of private interests who funded and lobbied the state Republicans, so job creators free market capitalism.

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

Great Many Private Sector Company Employees: Require random drug screening.
Public Sector Agencies (City, State, and Federal) Professional Staff: Require random drug screening.
Public Primary Schools Employees: Require random drug screening.
Public Transportation Employees: Require random drug screening.
Federal Law Enforcement: Require random drug screening.
Military: Require random drug screening.
Police: Require random drug screening.
Firefighters: Require random drug screening.
Politicians: Require random drug screening- UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

It is common practice for just about all corporations to require that prospective employee's take and pass a drug screening on condition of employment these days, many of them go on to require passing random drug screening as a condition of maintaining their employment (especially true among privately held companies with government contracts), while welfare recipients are not required to do anything but qualify for their public assistance and not be convicted of felony crimes while on the dole.

By the way, currently there are 36 states considering random drug testing for 'public assistance' recipients as well as pending Federal Legislation which would make it a Federal law mandating all 50 States to drug test public assistance recipients. They're just trying to figure out a way around all that annoying constitutionality stuff.

Duh. This is for demonizing poor people, not saving money or reducing drug use.

TomD9938: Stupid idea.

Of course they're NOT on drugs. They wouldnt be on the welfare otherwiseif they could afford pot.

Fixed

republican latest (unfounded) attacks on the poor; voter ID and drug testing welfare recipients.

what class warfare?

Mandatory drug and chromosome testing for all law makers = no more GOP

hissatsu:
One of the notable things about many modern "conservatives" is the obsession with the thought that someone out there is "getting away with it" and the overwhelming desire to make sure that those people are caught and punished. Especially the punishment part. Regardless of practicality, feasibility, or cost. Even if the cost of making sure the small percentage of "cheaters" are caught is far higher than accepting the fact that, yes, some people will get away it, it doesn't seem to matter. No price is too high to see that those people are punished. It's never struck me as a particularly conservative (or mature, or sane) way of thinking.

It's especially funny given that conservatives are some of the first people to claim that government should be run like a business or that business people would specifically be better at running government.

Businesses do cost/benefit analyses all the time on fraud and theft that often involve deciding that enforcement can't be absolute. That's why so many retail places tell security that once a thief is out the door, try to safely get a license plate, and report the theft to the police, but otherwise do nothing.

If government were run like a business, you'd see a much different immigration policy, voter fraud policy and welfare fraud policy than the conservatives want.

Mrtraveler01:
Now believe me, I know there are people who are abusing the system, but it seems very unfair to paint a whole group of people who are down on there luck as lazy, money-gambiling, drug-taking leeches of society.

That's just a small minority of them.

One of the notable things about many modern "conservatives" is the obsession with the thought that someone out there is "getting away with it" and the overwhelming desire to make sure that those people are caught and punished. Especially the punishment part. Regardless of practicality, feasibility, or cost. Even if the cost of making sure the small percentage of "cheaters" are caught is far higher than accepting the fact that, yes, some people will get away it, it doesn't seem to matter. No price is too high to see that those people are punished. It's never struck me as a particularly conservative (or mature, or sane) way of thinking.

sethstorm: Meatzilla: Politicians: Require random drug screening- UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Has any politician taken advantage of that while in office to openly consume such?

Not to my knowledge. You see, while it is unconstitutional for them to be tested for illicit drugs... it is still CRIMINALLY ILLEGAL to sell, possess, and imbibe such substances.

I actually think legislatures should have to smoke a fat one before each session.

Based on the GOP debates, I'd not only like to see all the presidential contenders drug tested but every GOP voter as well. You simply have to be on crack or meth to vote for any of these idiots.

sgtlejeune: I would support daily drug testing of all legislators. Mandatory. If you fail once or miss an appointment for testing once, you're done.

And it must be covered live on C-SPAN so we can make sure.

cameroncrazy1984: I think it died after Ohio kicked theirs all the way to Mars.

You're talking about the 1958 attempt, the failed Senate Bill 5, or the upcoming effort for Ohio to follow in the footsteps of Indiana?

Yes, it might be a couple of months off, but RTW is one of the few things that just won't die, short of a constitutional amendment at state level.

TomD9938: Stupid idea.

Of course they're on drugs. They wouldnt be on the welfare otherwise.

OTOH, there's nothing wrong with doing drugs that you're paying for yourself.

You're an idiot.

Sock Ruh Tease: FWIW, drugs are probably the only thing you can do for fun in Indiana.

/unless you consider cars going around in circles fun

There's gonna be some sort of sporting event or festival a week from tomorrow.

FWIW, drugs are probably the only thing you can do for fun in Indiana.

/unless you consider cars going around in circles fun

Relatively Obscure: Sigh.

Indeed. Now attach an amendment that defines "holding public office" as a suspicious demeanor. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Aarontology: Well if that's not an admission I don't know what is.

Hey, maybe he was just withdrawing it 'for a friend'.

Aarontology: Well if that's not an admission I don't know what is.

TFA: McMillin said he withdrew his bill so he could reintroduce it on Monday with a lawmaker drug testing provision that would pass constitutional muster.

why just the lawmakers? why not their staff too?