[UPDATE: Let's get on the phone and help politely educate State Rep. Kasha Kelly of Kansas. She's made it easy by providing the toll-free phone number from her website, kashakelley.com. The number is 877-79-KASHA. That's 877-79-KASHA, or 877-795-2742. Here are some talking points:
- Taking away social support nets from those who fail urine screens only serves to harm the children the children of the poor with drug problems.
- 60% of failed urine screens are for marijuana, which is far less harmful to the users and their children than alcohol or tobacco.
- Taking away benefits is not going to help any drug users get into treatment.
- Implementing a costly urine screening program during these economic times is a bad idea for Kansas.
- Urine screens produce false positives for marijuana at astonishingly high rates and could lead to lawsuits against the state.
Have at it, Stashers, and remember, play nice. One ranting angry hooplehead can undo the positive work of twenty of us dedicated activists. Be cool. -- "R"R]
Kansas House adopts drug testing by cjonline.com
The Kansas House has decided to punish people who are poor and smoke marijuana. Not tobacco or alcohol, no if you’re poor you can poison yourself that way. You can probably finagle a Medicaid doctor to give you a script for Valium, Percocet, Oxycontin, but under NO circumstance can you test positive for the safest drug known in the history of mankind.
The House gave first-round approval today to a bill that requires drug testing of Kansans who participate in four state public assistance programs.
After a lengthy debate on the House floor, representatives endorsed House Bill 2275. If it is approved on a final vote Wednesday, the bill would still need to be adopted by the Senate and signed by the governor to become law.
The measure sponsored by Rep. Kasha Kelley, R-Arkansas City, mandates testing of an estimated 14,000 people involved in programs managed by the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. Testing would apply to recipients of financial support in the temporary aid for families, general assistance, child care support and grandparents as caregivers programs.
Yea, that last part is right, “grandparents as caregivers programs”. Not only did they single out grandparents, but they defeated an amendment that exempted them to get this piece of non-sense passed. So why would the state decide to test welfare recipients for drugs?
Money.
SRS Secretary Don Jordan said 3 percent to 8 percent of program recipients would likely test positive for marijuana, cocaine, crack or other illegal drugs. The program would cost $800,000 annually, but would not be implemented unless the Legislature made a specific appropriation for the testing. A statewide network of urine sample collection and testing centers would have to be established.
The estimate is between 420 and 1,120 recipients, at a cost of $800,000.00 giving a grand total of $714 per recipient caught (on the high end). Even at the lower 420 number the total would be a paltry $1,904. As long as you were sending benefits in excess of that amount to those people, it’s a win for the state.
The decision by the house was appalling and truly treats the poor as second class citizens who hold no rights simply because they are poor. We here at the Stash also know that this bill is directly aimed at marijuana users, and drug testing the grandparents who serve as caregivers is directly aimed at medical marijuana users. Kasha Kelley’s own website says it all.
“May we never take the great freedom we have for granted! Our freedom gives us privileges many will only ever dream of.”
And in Kansas freedom means if you’re poor you have the freedom to pee in a cup, or starve.
-Update- I found these quotes on Kasha’s page..
There are two freedoms: the false where a man is free to do what he likes; and the true where a man is free to do what he ought.” – Charles Kingsley
So for Kasha, government should push it’s citizens to be free to do what the state tells him to do, which doesn’t sound like any form of freedom I know of this side of the Berlin Wall.
I think that District 79 deserves better representation.
Just an observation. Even though Democrats come up with some lousy ideas, how did I know that Kelly would be a Republican even before I looked?
Remember who’s on your side and stand up for those who may stand beside you.
Kansas, you are about to create criminals, who when they get desperate will use urine from every source known to man. Kansas, you can’t even properly test parolee’s.
I’m with you on this, Unicorn.
I worked in a grocery store many years ago and remember there was an assistance program using coupons that wouldn’t allow their use for things other than staples: milk, eggs, produce, bread, etc. The store’s computer system back then was able to catch what was eligible and what wasn’t. If the customer wanted to buy something else it would have to come out of their pocket. I see no reason why this couldn’t be implemented today with a debit-style card that wouldn’t allow for purchasing unhealthy items, be it soft drinks or tobacco. I would even argue that it wouldn’t work for processed foods, only for staple foods and personal hygiene items.
And since Kansas wants to drug test welfare recipients, why don’t they also drug test politicians? Why not implement impairment testing prior to any voting? “Sorry Rep. Smith, it appears that you have consumed alcohol recently and therefore you are not allowed to vote and are being arrested for suspicion of conducting state business while intoxicated.”
This bill doesn’t address ANY of your concerns. Welfare recipients are still able to purchase alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets, junk food, Taco Bell, whatever. But they will now single out marijuana smokers, because every other illicit drug is out of your system within 24hrs. The implication is don’t smoke marijuana, buy crack instead. Are you more concerned about the welfare recipient that buys a few joints, or about your government wasting $800,000 to make you live the way Kasha Kelly thinks you “ought” to?
I can kind of understand where they are coming from on this issue. But I think they should step it up to tobacco,alcohol,junk food and the lottery as well.At least that would be consistent.
I used to work at a convenience store, and it really used to piss me off when I saw people on welfare buying candy, cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets with their cash benefit card.Here I was working full time and couldn’t afford health insurance or food. When my roomate didn’t pay her rent and moved out, I went two or three days without food(literally) between paychecks for months when I had to pay for heat/rent/car payment,etc on my own.(I have no kids and the state laughed at me when I went in to apply for assistance).
The only reason I ALMOST agree with this policy is because if you are poor enough to be on assistance, why should we, the tax payers, pay for your recreation? Again, I am not singling out just marijuana smokers.
The welfare systems is supposed to provide basic needs, and so many people abuse it.
I have nothing against people who are on welfare, I know a married couple and they receive assistance. They both work full time, they just don’t make enough to give their kids health care.They receive no cash benefits, because they are employed.
I am on the fence on this one. I don’t like the thought of drug testing people for a harmless herb, but I do see their point.
Maybe what they need to do is place stricter rules on the system in general, and not single out pot smokers.