WDYT about HB 1083

Dannyand Allison · February 2011

HB 1083 requires drug screening for applicants who receive state aid. Here is an overview of the HB http://www.saveoursociety.org/states?v=Oklahoma (click on hb 1083 under 2011 session)

Summary of the bill

requires drug testing ever 6 months.

refuse to test, aid suspended for 90 days.

fail a test, don't get benefits for a year.

Steven&Jamie · February 2011

x 1,000

anelms · February 2011

Steven&Jamie:
x 1,000

This. With the state of the current budget, I think putting safeguards in place like the above will ensure that the money spent is going to someone who will use it in the correct manner.

tjlovesthepokes · February 2011

I like.

critti710 · February 2011

I have concerns that this may lead to a lot more Oklahoma kids going hungry. I am also not a fan of the fact that the cost of the test is taken out of the benefits. Families can barely get by on the alloted amount of food stamps as it is.

SunnyDaze31 · February 2011

I like basic principle of the law (do drugs = receive no government money).

However, like Critti I'm also concerned about the effects of the law on children. They'll be unfairly punished for a parent's use of drugs- or even a sibling's use since the law mandated that the applicant, spouse, and all dependents living in the household be tested. Plus, if people are desperate enough, what other crimes (besides doing drugs) might they commit to get money or to keep their kids fed?

The law mandates testing for "Schedule I substances," which Google told me included drugs like heroin, LSD, and marijuana. I'm not sure I would classify marijuana in the same category as heroin to determine whether an applicant can receive benefits or not, but that's a debate in itself.

Dannyand Allison · February 2011

SunnyDaze31:

However, like Critti I'm also concerned about the effects of the law on children. They'll be unfairly punished for a parent's use of drugs- or even a sibling's use since the law mandated that the applicant, spouse, and all dependents living in the household be tested. Plus, if people are desperate enough, what other crimes (besides doing drugs) might they commit to get money or to keep their kids fed?

Honestly, in my dealings, those addicted to drugs don't give a rat's ass about their children. Technically, they're already being punished for their parent's drug use. So, if this law forces parents to realize, actions have consequences and the people who live in my house can effect my support, then I'm all for it. Now I realize there are always exceptions to every case.

critti710 · February 2011

Dannyand Allison:
SunnyDaze31:

However, like Critti I'm also concerned about the effects of the law on children. They'll be unfairly punished for a parent's use of drugs- or even a sibling's use since the law mandated that the applicant, spouse, and all dependents living in the household be tested. Plus, if people are desperate enough, what other crimes (besides doing drugs) might they commit to get money or to keep their kids fed?

Honestly, in my dealings, those addicted to drugs don't give a rat's ass about their children. Technically, they're already being punished for their parent's drug use. So, if this law forces parents to realize, actions have consequences and the people who live in my house can effect my support, then I'm all for it. Now I realize there are always exceptions to every case.

How is it going to help the already difficult lives of these children to make them hungry on top of everything else? I wish we would invest some time and energy trying to fund treatment for addicts in this state to actually DO something about our drug problem instead of just worrying about whether we're giving $ to households headed by people with addictions and thinking that sending people to prison for drug offenses is doing anything to curb the problem.

amanjay · February 2011

I think it's politically popular, but VERY short-sighted.

First of all, the costs of the tests are expensive. Let's give even less to those who have almost nothing. Sad

Second, will alcohol be included in the test? Should it be? A child growing up with an alcoholic parent who gets wasted every day will have a much worse experience than one whose dad uses X 2x/month. How will we determine if the drinker is a normal social drinker or an alcoholic if they tested positive today? Did you have two beer with dinner or did you just drive your kids to the clinic while drunk? What about growing up in a home full of tobacco smoke? Is that better or worse than mom taking too much of her xanex to relax after the kids go to sleep? Some drugs (like cocaine) leave your system VERY quickly. So, it's not like we'll actually "catch" those users. They'll just stay sober for a few days before applying for the programs.

Third, let's say I did smoke pot last weekend while my kiddo stayed the weekend with my sister. Now what. Do we:

1. Let said kiddo go hungry by pulling mom's benefits (which then qualifies her for child neglect---see option 2)

or

2. Try to put the child into what we all know is Oklahoma's already crazy overtaxed foster care system (which, again, will cost a lot more money than our state has) and then later deal with the fallout of having a large cohort of adults who have all been through "the system?"

Fourth, I get state money. So does every other state government worker like me. Shouldn't you be drug testing all of us as well? Who will pay for that?

Fifth, what are they considering "state aid?" TANF, food stamps, and WIC are all federally funded (state administered, but federally funded.) If those aid programs require testing, ok. But tell grandma to get ready to pee in a cup in interest of fairness since she's getting Social Security and Medicaid. If she's abusing prescription medications (which is actually quite common among the elderly,) tell her sorry---cat food for her this month.

Sixth, a significant amount of drug tests show false positives (poppy seeds as opiates, Dexatrim as amphetamines, even Advil can show up as marijuana.) For about $110 you can request a more specialized test to clear your name, but it takes about 6 weeks to get back. Do our poor folks have $110 for the test? And how do they eat for the 6 weeks it takes to prove their innocence?

This is one of those political ideas which gets bandied about every year because people like it and, on the surface, it sounds good. BUT states never institute it because when they consider the realities of the programs, they're just unsustainable (and sometimes illegal.)

My biggest pet peeve about the OK legislature is when they focus on bills and issues that make them more politically popular but which they know will later be struck down (and cost the state a bajillion dollars in legal fees.)

*Side note---I actually used to be a therapist who specialized in drug and alcohol treatment, and I teach a lot of future therapists, so I'm obviously not pro-drug. I'd just rather focus on effective treatment rather than "Aha! Gotcha! programs that just end up punishing innocent kids."*

OUKap · February 2011

I don't see what good this really does.

-Test negative - you get less money. Could see an increase in overall benefits to make up for it - more taxes.

-Test positive - nothing for you or your family for your family.What if you are an occasional user? What if you are addicted and have a problem - what help will you get?

The real issue is drug abuse - so focus on prevention and treatment. That seems like a better plan than to waste lots of dollars on testing which may increase poverty and suffering.

Steven&Jamie · February 2011

The problem with drug treatment programs is that people have to WANT treatment in order for it to be effective. We (the state) can provide all the resources and rehab programs imaginable, but unless an addict wants to change they're not going to and those resources will be useless.

amanjay · February 2011

Steven&Jamie:
The problem with drug treatment programs is that people have to WANT treatment in order for it to be effective. We (the state) can provide all the resources and rehab programs imaginable, but unless an addict wants to change they're not going to and those resources will be useless.

Well, that's sort of true---there are motivational interviewing techniques, etc. that are pretty clinically effective, but the big issue here is that substance abuse treatment really needs to last about 6 months-2 years for heavy users. Most places currently have no beds available even if you could afford to go there for 6 months. Most insurance companies don't cover more than 10 days of outpatient treatment if you're lucky enough to have it. And most people end up going back to the same crappy neighborhood after treatment with little education and now a big gap to explain on the resume. The help that people need really ISN'T out there for people who need it, even when they're 100% ready to go to treatment. AA/NA are fabulous, but for a poly-drug using patient with a dual diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or depression, a support group just isn't enough to promote long-term sobriety.

critti710 · February 2011

amanjay:
I think it's politically popular, but VERY short-sighted.
First of all, the costs of the tests are expensive. Let's give even less to those who have almost nothing.
Second, will alcohol be included in the test? Should it be? A child growing up with an alcoholic parent who gets wasted every day will have a much worse experience than one whose dad uses X 2x/month. How will we determine if the drinker is a normal social drinker or an alcoholic if they tested positive today? Did you have two beer with dinner or did you just drive your kids to the clinic while drunk? What about growing up in a home full of tobacco smoke? Is that better or worse than mom taking too much of her xanex to relax after the kids go to sleep? Some drugs (like cocaine) leave your system VERY quickly. So, it's not like we'll actually "catch" those users. They'll just stay sober for a few days before applying for the programs.
Third, let's say I did smoke pot last weekend while my kiddo stayed the weekend with my sister. Now what. Do we:
1. Let said kiddo go hungry by pulling mom's benefits (which then qualifies her for child neglect---see option 2)
or
2. Try to put the child into what we all know is Oklahoma's already crazy overtaxed foster care system (which, again, will cost a lot more money than our state has) and then later deal with the fallout of having a large cohort of adults who have all been through "the system?"
Fourth, I get state money. So does every other state government worker like me. Shouldn't you be drug testing all of us as well? Who will pay for that?
Fifth, what are they considering "state aid?" TANF, food stamps, and WIC are all federally funded (state administered, but federally funded.) If those aid programs require testing, ok. But tell grandma to get ready to pee in a cup in interest of fairness since she's getting Social Security and Medicaid. If she's abusing prescription medications (which is actually quite common among the elderly,) tell her sorry---cat food for her this month.
Sixth, a significant amount of drug tests show false positives (poppy seeds as opiates, Dexatrim as amphetamines, even Advil can show up as marijuana.) For about $110 you can request a more specialized test to clear your name, but it takes about 6 weeks to get back. Do our poor folks have $110 for the test? And how do they eat for the 6 weeks it takes to prove their innocence?

This is one of those political ideas which gets bandied about every year because people like it and, on the surface, it sounds good. BUT states never institute it because when they consider the realities of the programs, they're just unsustainable (and sometimes illegal.)
My biggest pet peeve about the OK legislature is when they focus on bills and issues that make them more politically popular but which they know will later be struck down (and cost the state a bajillion dollars in legal fees.)
*Side note---I actually used to be a therapist who specialized in drug and alcohol treatment, and I teach a lot of future therapists, so I'm obviously not pro-drug. I'd just rather focus on effective treatment rather than "Aha! Gotcha! programs that just end up punishing innocent kids."*

Have I told you lately that I love you? =P

bluekid · February 2011

critti710:
amanjay:
I think it's politically popular, but VERY short-sighted.
First of all, the costs of the tests are expensive. Let's give even less to those who have almost nothing.
Second, will alcohol be included in the test? Should it be? A child growing up with an alcoholic parent who gets wasted every day will have a much worse experience than one whose dad uses X 2x/month. How will we determine if the drinker is a normal social drinker or an alcoholic if they tested positive today? Did you have two beer with dinner or did you just drive your kids to the clinic while drunk? What about growing up in a home full of tobacco smoke? Is that better or worse than mom taking too much of her xanex to relax after the kids go to sleep? Some drugs (like cocaine) leave your system VERY quickly. So, it's not like we'll actually "catch" those users. They'll just stay sober for a few days before applying for the programs.
Third, let's say I did smoke pot last weekend while my kiddo stayed the weekend with my sister. Now what. Do we:
1. Let said kiddo go hungry by pulling mom's benefits (which then qualifies her for child neglect---see option 2)
or
2. Try to put the child into what we all know is Oklahoma's already crazy overtaxed foster care system (which, again, will cost a lot more money than our state has) and then later deal with the fallout of having a large cohort of adults who have all been through "the system?"
Fourth, I get state money. So does every other state government worker like me. Shouldn't you be drug testing all of us as well? Who will pay for that?
Fifth, what are they considering "state aid?" TANF, food stamps, and WIC are all federally funded (state administered, but federally funded.) If those aid programs require testing, ok. But tell grandma to get ready to pee in a cup in interest of fairness since she's getting Social Security and Medicaid. If she's abusing prescription medications (which is actually quite common among the elderly,) tell her sorry---cat food for her this month.
Sixth, a significant amount of drug tests show false positives (poppy seeds as opiates, Dexatrim as amphetamines, even Advil can show up as marijuana.) For about $110 you can request a more specialized test to clear your name, but it takes about 6 weeks to get back. Do our poor folks have $110 for the test? And how do they eat for the 6 weeks it takes to prove their innocence?

This is one of those political ideas which gets bandied about every year because people like it and, on the surface, it sounds good. BUT states never institute it because when they consider the realities of the programs, they're just unsustainable (and sometimes illegal.)
My biggest pet peeve about the OK legislature is when they focus on bills and issues that make them more politically popular but which they know will later be struck down (and cost the state a bajillion dollars in legal fees.)
*Side note---I actually used to be a therapist who specialized in drug and alcohol treatment, and I teach a lot of future therapists, so I'm obviously not pro-drug. I'd just rather focus on effective treatment rather than "Aha! Gotcha! programs that just end up punishing innocent kids."*

Have I told you lately that I love you? =P

Seriously.

amanjay · February 2011

bluekid:
critti710:
amanjay:

I think it's politically popular, but VERY short-sighted.

First of all, the costs of the tests are expensive. Let's give even less to those who have almost nothing.

Second, will alcohol be included in the test? Should it be? A child growing up with an alcoholic parent who gets wasted every day will have a much worse experience than one whose dad uses X 2x/month. How will we determine if the drinker is a normal social drinker or an alcoholic if they tested positive today? Did you have two beer with dinner or did you just drive your kids to the clinic while drunk? What about growing up in a home full of tobacco smoke? Is that better or worse than mom taking too much of her xanex to relax after the kids go to sleep? Some drugs (like cocaine) leave your system VERY quickly. So, it's not like we'll actually "catch" those users. They'll just stay sober for a few days before applying for the programs.

Third, let's say I did smoke pot last weekend while my kiddo stayed the weekend with my sister. Now what. Do we:

1. Let said kiddo go hungry by pulling mom's benefits (which then qualifies her for child neglect---see option 2)

or

2. Try to put the child into what we all know is Oklahoma's already crazy overtaxed foster care system (which, again, will cost a lot more money than our state has) and then later deal with the fallout of having a large cohort of adults who have all been through "the system?"

Fourth, I get state money. So does every other state government worker like me. Shouldn't you be drug testing all of us as well? Who will pay for that?

Fifth, what are they considering "state aid?" TANF, food stamps, and WIC are all federally funded (state administered, but federally funded.) If those aid programs require testing, ok. But tell grandma to get ready to pee in a cup in interest of fairness since she's getting Social Security and Medicaid. If she's abusing prescription medications (which is actually quite common among the elderly,) tell her sorry---cat food for her this month.

Sixth, a significant amount of drug tests show false positives (poppy seeds as opiates, Dexatrim as amphetamines, even Advil can show up as marijuana.) For about $110 you can request a more specialized test to clear your name, but it takes about 6 weeks to get back. Do our poor folks have $110 for the test? And how do they eat for the 6 weeks it takes to prove their innocence?

This is one of those political ideas which gets bandied about every year because people like it and, on the surface, it sounds good. BUT states never institute it because when they consider the realities of the programs, they're just unsustainable (and sometimes illegal.)

My biggest pet peeve about the OK legislature is when they focus on bills and issues that make them more politically popular but which they know will later be struck down (and cost the state a bajillion dollars in legal fees.)

*Side note---I actually used to be a therapist who specialized in drug and alcohol treatment, and I teach a lot of future therapists, so I'm obviously not pro-drug. I'd just rather focus on effective treatment rather than "Aha! Gotcha! programs that just end up punishing innocent kids."*

Have I told you lately that I love you? =P

Seriously.

Awww! I love you guys too!

I love the people who don't agree with me as well, though, for being such friendly debaters and keeping it civil!

kayleeb · February 2011

amanjay:

I think it's politically popular, but VERY short-sighted.

First of all, the costs of the tests are expensive. Let's give even less to those who have almost nothing.

Second, will alcohol be included in the test? Should it be? A child growing up with an alcoholic parent who gets wasted every day will have a much worse experience than one whose dad uses X 2x/month. How will we determine if the drinker is a normal social drinker or an alcoholic if they tested positive today? Did you have two beer with dinner or did you just drive your kids to the clinic while drunk? What about growing up in a home full of tobacco smoke? Is that better or worse than mom taking too much of her xanex to relax after the kids go to sleep? Some drugs (like cocaine) leave your system VERY quickly. So, it's not like we'll actually "catch" those users. They'll just stay sober for a few days before applying for the programs.

Third, let's say I did smoke pot last weekend while my kiddo stayed the weekend with my sister. Now what. Do we:

1. Let said kiddo go hungry by pulling mom's benefits (which then qualifies her for child neglect---see option 2)

or

2. Try to put the child into what we all know is Oklahoma's already crazy overtaxed foster care system (which, again, will cost a lot more money than our state has) and then later deal with the fallout of having a large cohort of adults who have all been through "the system?"

Fourth, I get state money. So does every other state government worker like me. Shouldn't you be drug testing all of us as well? Who will pay for that?

Fifth, what are they considering "state aid?" TANF, food stamps, and WIC are all federally funded (state administered, but federally funded.) If those aid programs require testing, ok. But tell grandma to get ready to pee in a cup in interest of fairness since she's getting Social Security and Medicaid. If she's abusing prescription medications (which is actually quite common among the elderly,) tell her sorry---cat food for her this month.

Sixth, a significant amount of drug tests show false positives (poppy seeds as opiates, Dexatrim as amphetamines, even Advil can show up as marijuana.) For about $110 you can request a more specialized test to clear your name, but it takes about 6 weeks to get back. Do our poor folks have $110 for the test? And how do they eat for the 6 weeks it takes to prove their innocence?

This is one of those political ideas which gets bandied about every year because people like it and, on the surface, it sounds good. BUT states never institute it because when they consider the realities of the programs, they're just unsustainable (and sometimes illegal.)

My biggest pet peeve about the OK legislature is when they focus on bills and issues that make them more politically popular but which they know will later be struck down (and cost the state a bajillion dollars in legal fees.)

*Side note---I actually used to be a therapist who specialized in drug and alcohol treatment, and I teach a lot of future therapists, so I'm obviously not pro-drug. I'd just rather focus on effective treatment rather than "Aha! Gotcha! programs that just end up punishing innocent kids."*

Those are very good points, I agree with you!

WDYT about HB 1083

Re: WDYT about HB 1083

Choose Another Board

Search Boards