Under his proposal, AB 2389, all welfare recipients would be randomly drug tested. If they test positive, they would be offered help. But if they refuse to enter drug rehab, they would lose their benefits.And Feild himself was born to a drug-addled welfare mother. What legislator wouldn't kill for a setup like that?
Feild won an essay contest sponsored by Assemblyman John Benoit (R-Riverside) called, "There oughta be a Law." Benoit co-sponsored the legislation with Feild.
I Believe the Children Are Our Future
It's the most heartwarming story to come out of Sacramento since the 2001-2002 season for the Kings. R.J. Feild entered an essay contest where submitters wrote their own bills, and his was so compelling that the sponsor is going to try to pass it.
Comments to "I Believe the Children Are Our Future":
Ali | February 22, 2008, 9:54am | #
So the idea is that we want to encourage people to stay on welfare but be drug-free?Brian E | February 22, 2008, 9:56am | #
I Believe That Roving Gangs of Children Are Our Future.Reinmoose as Monty Hall | February 22, 2008, 9:57am | #
So the idea is that we want to encourage people to stay on welfare but be drug-free?That's absolutely correct sir! And you chose door #2, let's see what's behind it.... Awwww, it's a jackass, a rusty old wheelbarrow, and a banjo with broken strings!
SugarFree | February 22, 2008, 9:59am | #
all welfare recipients would be randomly drug testedThey aren't already? WTF?
SLD: File Under: When you suckle at the public teat you don't get to complain about the flavor of the milk.
zig zag man | February 22, 2008, 10:00am | #
"And Feild himself was born to a drug-addled welfare mother. What legislator wouldn't kill for a setup like that?"I wonder if he would be as articulate if his mom was drinking gin everyday while she was pregnant. Because alcohol is totally legal, and fetal alcohol syndrome is a biatch.
Sorry, no sympathy here.
anon. | February 22, 2008, 10:05am | #
This is why positive rights are a threat to liberty. It's not because "all taxation is theft," but rather because it encourages government to condition positive rights on the surrender of negative rights. We normalize intrusions on liberty so that taxpayers feel like they're getting their money's worth.The It Girl | February 22, 2008, 10:07am | #
Proving that legislators are could be replaced by a game show called "There Ought Be A (Stupid) Law".SugarFree | February 22, 2008, 10:22am | #
BadMood,Wouldn't game show that the contestant can never lose go bankrupt pretty quickly?
How about My State Congressman Can Beat Up Your State Congressman? Make it a death match and it's a win/win.
Ali | February 22, 2008, 10:27am | #
How about My State Congressman Can Beat Up Your State Congressman? Make it a death match and it's a win/win.That'd leave us one state congressman and a single congressman is one too many.
technomist | February 22, 2008, 10:27am | #
They get money for drugs on welfare? What next? Money for food too? You guys in the States sure live high on the hog.Fluffy | February 22, 2008, 10:28am | #
Maybe it would help if our legislators knew a little constitutional law before they wasted everyone's time.In US v. Butler, the court held that discriminatory taxation or payments by the state with the purpose of purchasing compliance with a "voluntary" rule, which would be unconstitutional as a law or regulation, is also unconstitutional.
Ali, thanks for point out the flaw in my plan. Back to the drawing board.
pistoffnick | February 22, 2008, 10:33am | #
"There oughta be a Law."The most violent sentence in the English language.
Nick | February 22, 2008, 10:34am | #
"Do You Think You Are Smarter Than An Assemblyman?"That should be our electoral process. Anyone who defeats their assembleyman, congresscritter, etc takes their place. New show every week!
Ali | February 22, 2008, 10:35am | #
SugarFree- Anytime. But don't waste your time on the drawing board. Just live with it.Michael Pack | February 22, 2008, 10:36am | #
Just think,they how they could expand this law.How about testing any farmer that gets a crop payment or a home owner that takes the interest of his taxes?So the guy's bill is both pro-welfare and pro-drug war. Nice.
Nephilium | February 22, 2008, 10:37am | #
pistoffnick:I'm not sure, I think "There oughta be a Law." is beaten by a nose by "Think of the children!"
Nephilium
kinnath | February 22, 2008, 10:38am | #
"There oughta be a Law."I used to follow this comment with the observation that life would be so much easier here in the midwest if the state legislature would just make it illegal for the snow to land on the streets.
brotherben | February 22, 2008, 10:40am | #
Here's a story from the local rag about a community service requirement for tenants of rent subsidized housing in Dothan, Alabama if ya'll are interested.http://www.dothaneagle.com/gulfcoasteast/dea/search.apx.-content-articles-DEA-2008-02-07-0012.html
Tym | February 22, 2008, 10:43am | #
I used to follow this comment with the observation that life would be so much easier here in the midwest if the state legislature would just make it illegal for the snow to land on the streets.I think life would be better everywhere if they just declare the whole world to be a "war free zone".
SugarFree | February 22, 2008, 10:45am | #
Ali,If I don't idly muse in the Internet about getting rid of state congressmen through gameshow violence, then who will?
Besides "drawing board" is just really a polite euphemism for my thinkin' toilet.
Scott | February 22, 2008, 10:45am | #
Nah, forget US v. Butler. We'll call this the "Welfare Exception to the Constitution," since we already have "DWI exceptions" to the Bill of Rights. Random drug screening is not discrimination, since being on welfare is a "privilege" and not a "right." Receiving welfare would also require "implied consent" to be tested for drugs.Also, it's important to make sure that citizens on welfare aren't thrown in jail for possessing or using illegal drugs, like the rest of us are.
Or....I wonder if a welfare recipient tested positive for illegal drugs, would local authorities send in a SWAT raid to bust them anyways after they were promised treatment?
Military Industrial Complex | February 22, 2008, 10:47am | #
"I think life would be better everywhere if they just declare the whole world to be a "war free zone"."(cocks rifle)
Could you repeat that?
I sometimes think we should tie government services directly to loss of freedom. You can be a complete ward of the state, cradle to grave, if you choose. But you live in a box and have only one book to read (Fundamentals of Physics). If you want to eat something tastier than gruel, you have to start working. The less you take from the government, the fewer laws apply to you.
KenK | February 22, 2008, 10:47am | #
I thought only people with jobs needed to be drug free?How's this for an idea:
People with jobs can toke up after work, but those without jobs get nothing.
Nick | February 22, 2008, 10:50am | #
"it's important to make sure that citizens on welfare aren't thrown in jail for possessing or using illegal drugs,"Who do you think sells drugs? They are dealing and then getting paid by the government. Best of both worlds. And people say welfare recipients are lazy and stupid.
Nick | February 22, 2008, 10:52am | #
I like your thinking Warren.One question, why Fundamentals of Physics? And what are the odds they'd be able to read it?
I have a feeling the religious right would recommend a different book for the "least of my brothers."
Ali | February 22, 2008, 10:54am | #
Besides "drawing board" is just really a polite euphemism for my thinkin' toilet.Then not going to the "board" and "living with it" as I suggested earlier, while disgusting, adds meaning to the whole thing.
mediageek | February 22, 2008, 10:55am | #
How about My State Congressman Can Beat Up Your State Congressman? Make it a death match and it's a win/win.Send them to compete in the Great Outdoor Fight.
brotherben | February 22, 2008, 10:55am | #
Warren,Some of my christian brothers and sisters would raise a ruckus that physics is just a theory and shouldn't be forced on "us."
J sub D | February 22, 2008, 10:58am | #
Just think,they how they could expand this law.How about testing any farmer that gets a crop payment or a home owner that takes the interest of his taxes?There is that simplistic, undocumented, disingenuous slippery slope argument again. You libertarians are so friggin' paranoid.
If you can find me one examp
Oops, gotta go. My neighbor is smoking in hia apartment again.
[dials 911]
mediageek | February 22, 2008, 10:58am | #
The less you take from the government, the fewer laws apply to you.OH NOES! THEN YOU'D HAVE BILL GATES RUNNING RAMPANT IN THE STREETS, SHOOTING CHILDREN WITH A PISTOL! AIIIIEEEE!
Reinmoose as a Southern Christian | February 22, 2008, 11:02am | #
I think welfare money should only go to people who go to church. For those who don't, they are poor because they do not know Him. He will provide for you if you allow Him into your life. Oh, and for those people who are still poor... umm... they are not actually poor because they are filled with the Holy Spirit!SugarFree | February 22, 2008, 11:04am | #
mediageek,Maybe not that far, but he could definitely sit on his stoop and drink a 40 with no hassle.
[still bitter about open-container laws]
Warren | February 22, 2008, 11:05am | #
Nick,FoP is just a little inside joke. If we want to take the thought experiment seriously, I'd say every day you have to take a test and you are given the appropriate text books to read where you are weakest.
brotherben,
Poor christians can live off christian charity and the Bible. Just don't pester us tax-payers with your woes.
thoreau | February 22, 2008, 11:12am | #
Would testing positive for drugs result in criminal charges?If your goal is to transition welfare recipients toward self-sufficiency, keep in mind that having a drug conviction has serious employability consequences, and not just because employers might refuse to hire you. With professional licensing requirements in some states requiring "good character", there are instances where people with criminal records have been denied permits or licenses to work as landscapers, barbers, pest exterminators, and a variety of other blue collar jobs.
thoreau | February 22, 2008, 11:14am | #
OH NOES! THEN YOU'D HAVE BILL GATES RUNNING RAMPANT IN THE STREETS, SHOOTING CHILDREN WITH A PISTOL! AIIIIEEEE!Even worse, he might use his money to buy a pistol without whatever safety features a tort lawyer deems appropriate!
And he might guzzle corn syrup while doing it!
brotherben | February 22, 2008, 11:20am | #
Warren,my comment was sarcasm towards the pettiness and insecurity of most christians in this country. I agree with you about christian charity. It's almost an oxy-moron down here.
Scott | February 22, 2008, 11:26am | #
Nick -Sorry, forgot to indicate the sarcasm in my post. I hope this bill doesn't get momentum, but for some reason I think it will. Seems well-intentioned...we'll sort out the precedents and unintended consequences later
;-)
Juanita | February 22, 2008, 11:28am | #
and not just because employers might refuse to hire you. With professional licensing requirements in some states requiring "good characterShould those employers really hire druggies? This is all the more incentive to keep people off drugs. I don't see what the problem is, don't fell sorry for druggies, they are criminals, obey the law. If you want to get high you can just drink alcohol, there is no need to take the pot or other dangerous drugs.
zig zag man | February 22, 2008, 11:32am | #
Is the testing going to be performed on theIn the incarceration nation, drug tests are paid for by the convicts.
Are benefits going to be reduced to pay for this or will additional tax money have to be raised to pay for this?
Most importantly, someone or some company stands to make a lot of money on these drug tests.
T | February 22, 2008, 11:43am | #
If you want to get high you can just drink alcohol, there is no need to take the pot or other dangerous drugs.Y'know, that's what I tell the cops but they keep taking my drugs anyway. Bastards.
Rhywun | February 22, 2008, 12:39pm | #
take the potHee hee - I love humorous article placement.
Believe it or not, there are one or two legitimate scenarios where welfare is a justifiable option for someone, such as getting stuck with a bunch of kids after a nasty divorce. Having to piss in a cup, on top of the already considerable indignity, is just sadistic. A little grass is probably the best part of their day - don't take that away.
Christopher Monnier | February 22, 2008, 1:19pm | #
I hate these "there oughta be a law" contests, as if the act of restricting someone's liberty is something to be done flippantly. There oughta be a law against "there oughta be a law" contests.zig zag man | February 22, 2008, 2:04pm | #
"And Feild himself was born to a drug-addled welfareThere, fixed that for ya'.
R C Dean | February 22, 2008, 2:16pm | #
it's important to make sure that citizens on welfare aren't thrown in jail for possessing or using illegal drugs,I agree, but only because I don't think anyone should be thrown in jail because of their recreational preferences.
Isaac Bartram | February 22, 2008, 4:49pm | #
Jennifer, how can you be so heartless?You can't put a price on saving the children.
T | February 22, 2008, 5:06pm | #
You can't put a price on saving the children.Sure you can! It's whatever you get when you redeem a full set.
Mad Max | February 22, 2008, 5:31pm | #
"So the guy's bill is both pro-welfare and pro-drug war. Nice."Someone who isn't so lazy should look up the bill. Would it actually add people to the welfare rolls? I got the impression it would take some people (uncooperative drug users) *off* the rolls.
Of course, since we're talking California, there would probably be extra spending to "fully fund" the drug rehab that the welfare cases are obliged to undergo.
So maybe it would be a net loss for freedom. But the point needs to be analyzed.
The treatment is going to cost money too. Of course, if enough people refuse treatment and get kicked off the rolls, the government could wind up saving money.
dave | February 23, 2008, 11:24am | #
That'd leave us one state congressman and a single congressman is one too many.Nah. As soon as you're down to one, you try him for murder (using your conveniently-videotaped evidence) and give him the chair.
Win-win.
economist | February 23, 2008, 5:43pm | #
I don't really care what shit they tell welfare people to go through, as long as they always have the option of taking their chances with the world and accepting the consequences.economist | February 23, 2008, 5:48pm | #
Warren,I find your idea about liberty proportionate to personal responsibility appealing, except I don't want to buy the gruel and maintain the box the eternal babies live in.