State House Republicans: Let's Drug Test Dem Poors

Two Indiana statehouse Republicans plan on introducing a bill in the upcoming three month 2012 legislative sessions on drug testing welfare recipients (or more specifically, those getting money benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Presumably, those who would test positive would be disqualified from these benefits.

Believe it or not, this has been done before in Florida. Governor Rick Scott, who owned an investment in a chain of urgent care clinics in Florida which he later sold under political pressure, pushed hard for this legislation to pass. Scott has claimed that "Studies show that people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs, than people not on welfare".

Funny, because only 2% of those tested in Florida failed, while another 2% didn't or refused to take the test. The article linked to above kind of goes back and forth on the OTHER argument, that if it actually saved any money by kicking these people off of TANF, but let's save that for the other time.

Let's go with the argument that dem poors do more drugs than us civilized folks.

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Florida's overall rate of illicit drug use is 8%.

Last I checked, 2% is less than 8%.

So poor people aren't more likely to use drugs, and the financial savings on it are questionable at best. So why are we in Indiana considering this?

I think this will kind of turn into one of those pieces of legislation that isn't intended to pass and when Democrats vote against it, you'll see it on direct mail pieces in October 2012 saying "Liberal elitist Ed Delaney voted to GIVE A BLANK CHECK to HEROIN ADDICTS who want to RAPE AND EAT SMALL KITTENS!" Basically, they want to turn those damn poor people into the new Republican boogie man. The older one, gays and lesbians...I'm sorry, "protecting traditional marriage", has to wait to be played until at least 2013.

So with this being a time where the so-called middle class is decreasing, and more and more are relying on TANF and other forms of public assistance, is this really a wise move?

And what's the real point in all this? To kick people while they're down? To save a few thousand bucks, if that? What about the other leeches in government? Lobbyists, contractors (especially the lawyers who send invoices for hundreds of hours of work that aren't even audited and are essentially cut a blank check), the elected officials themselves? There's no shortage of juicy gossip of what goes on after hours in some of the hotels downtown while the legislature is in session.

So while I'm overall against drug testing in theory, let's put it into practice. Anyone, corporate welfare, political welfare, or regular welfare, give us a hair sample and piss in a cup.

Yeah right, who am I kidding. That'll never happen. That's way too logical and fair.

State Legislative Shindigs

I am very far behind in being knowledgable about what's going on at the State House, but hope to catch up later in the week. One bill that was pointed out to me via Indy's Painfully Objective Political Analysis is this bill in the Senate. Sue Errington (D-Delaware County) is proposing that "domestic partnerships" (two people in a relationship living together but aren't married) get visitation rights. It sets out how a partner can provide proof of the relationship, allows a hospital to make reasonable restrictions (visitation hours, patient's health, or the patient or their legal guardian denies them visitation).

Now, the Eric Miller's of the world are going to go up in arms about this, but what they don't realize is that there are an increasing number of couples who are living together but not married. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. USA Today reported in 2005 that cohabitation rates are up:

The number of unmarried couples living together increased tenfold from 1960 to 2000, the U.S. Census says; about 10 million people are living with a partner of the opposite sex. That's about 8% of U.S. coupled households. Data show that most unmarried partners who live together are 25 to 34.

TEN MILLION? Now, that's a fraction of the national population, and probably so for Indiana too, but just because some demographic is part of a minority doesn't mean their basic human rights are thrown out the window.

Me? I don't see what all the fuss is about. If the patient is conscious and mentally able to make his or her own decisions, then he or she should allow whoever they want. But in the case that the patient isn't alert and talking, it's nice to have these guidelines set out so you can visit those you love when they need you the most.