MA: Mideast Welfare Drug Screening (Vetoed)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: TJ in Cleve

[California8429]

Absolutely support. It is irrational to give money to these buy that they will then use to dry drugs. That is a despicable waste of welfare money. If they want help to end an addiction we have programs, private organizations have programs, charity and churches have programs. If we're going to give welfare money to people it is to assist them in the hard times while they go back to school, find a job, retrain, or wait out a recession or other bad economic conditions because there are no jobs for their specific area left.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'd like to point out that this bill does not require this of every welfare recipient, only those with prior drug convinctions. I would support removing that detail, but doing so would likely result in a court battle and also might be a but tougher to pass, and I won't be around very long to support this.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Me gusta...

[ZuWo]

I'd like to point out that this bill does not require this of every welfare recipient, only those with prior drug convinctions. I would support removing that detail, but doing so would likely result in a court battle and also might be a but tougher to pass, and I won't be around very long to support this.

I support the bill as it stands. I think requiring people without prior drug convictions to pass a drug screening test would be over the top and would cause massive additional costs because it's likely that our region would have to reimburse the costs of many clean tests.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

How can a child receive benefits through another adult? 

[afleitch]

Section 4 is unworkable. Benefits for children can only be paid to the legal guardian or the current care giver of that child. If the authorities have already determined that the parent is fit to look after their child then they should be paid welfare on behalf of that child; you cannot circumvent that especially as many children only have one legal guardian.

[tmthforu94]

Why not require drug screening for all?

Agree with the Governor and GM - Section 4 would be extremely difficult to enforce.

[TJ in Oregon]

Section 4 is based on the Florida Drug Screening Law that was recently struck down in court (for reasons unrelated to that section). It would allow the children of a parent who fails a drug test to still receive benefits, but those benefits must be claimed through another adult. Perhaps the wording should have been clearer. It should probably be ammended to read that the adult to receive the benefits may be named by the parent/guardian if neither parent or legal guardian is able to receive them. I, however, no longer have that power. If you strike away that section, the bill would become somewhat useless because it would still allow recipients who fail a drug test to take benefit money for their children so they would still in effect be paid by the system. The point of circumventing a parent but still providing the children with benefits is to prevent the parent using drugs from taking benefits.

The reason why the Florida law was struck down is because the court found it an unlawful search to require drug tests on every welfare recipient becuase the government has no reasonable suspicion that any given recipient is using illegal substances. That is not to say an Atlasian court would rule the same way and not to say the Florida ruling may not be overturned in real life either. Of course, if anyone in the assembly would like to attempt such a law, I will be willing to help you defend it in court, but that's your decision.

[big bad fab]

Section 4 must be, at least, amended.

Either a parent isn't fit to take care of his/her children and there must be an assessment and a procedure to, possibly, put the children under the rule of another adult or of an institution.

Or the parent is fit and you can't prevent the child from receiving the welfare.

Maybe we can say that, in this case, the benefits are given with vouchers usable only for food, clothes, scholarship, medicines.
Does it sound too complicated ?

[California8429]

Section 4 must be, at least, amended.

Either a parent isn't fit to take care of his/her children and there must be an assessment and a procedure to, possibly, put the children under the rule of another adult or of an institution.

Or the parent is fit and you can't prevent the child from receiving the welfare.

Maybe we can say that, in this case, the benefits are given with vouchers usable only for food, clothes, scholarship, medicines.
Does it sound too complicated ?

I think a voucher system would complicate it and be even worse. The government would effectively screw the child while trying to help it.

[big bad fab]

Section 4 must be, at least, amended.

Either a parent isn't fit to take care of his/her children and there must be an assessment and a procedure to, possibly, put the children under the rule of another adult or of an institution.

Or the parent is fit and you can't prevent the child from receiving the welfare.

Maybe we can say that, in this case, the benefits are given with vouchers usable only for food, clothes, scholarship, medicines.
Does it sound too complicated ?

I think a voucher system would complicate it and be even worse. The government would effectively screw the child while trying to help it.

Please explain me why it would be worse.
Complicated, I agree

Maybe not if it's for scholarship or medicines explicitly given for children ?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Would it be appropriate to include something about alcohol in this, or no?

[TJ in Oregon]

Would it be appropriate to include something about alcohol in this, or no?

I suppose you could breathalize them when they show up for the screening, but other than that, what would you want to do?

[California8429]

Section 4 must be, at least, amended.

Either a parent isn't fit to take care of his/her children and there must be an assessment and a procedure to, possibly, put the children under the rule of another adult or of an institution.

Or the parent is fit and you can't prevent the child from receiving the welfare.

Maybe we can say that, in this case, the benefits are given with vouchers usable only for food, clothes, scholarship, medicines.
Does it sound too complicated ?

I think a voucher system would complicate it and be even worse. The government would effectively screw the child while trying to help it.

Please explain me why it would be worse.
Complicated, I agree

Maybe not if it's for scholarship or medicines explicitly given for children ?

Because there would be huge government intervention requiring extensive regulation. It could just turn out worse. A colorado senator actually just proposed pretty much this very bill based on that Florida model.

[afleitch]

I still feel that if a parent is declared fit (or hasn't been declared unfit) to have guardianship over a child then they should receive welfare entitled for that child. Parents can have had a drug conviction or even a drug problem in the past but still be fit parents.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Debate having ended, this is now brought to a vote.  This will be a 48-hour vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.

[ZuWo]

Aye

[big bad fab]

ABSTAIN

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Assuming the vote isn't closed, aye.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

ABSTAIN

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The AYEs are 2, and the NAYs are 0, with 2 ABSTAINing.  The AYEs have it, and the bill is passed.  The bill is now passed onto the Governor for his signature or veto.

[afleitch]

VETO

xAfleitch

[ZuWo]

I'd like to attempt a veto override, as specified by the Mideast Constitution. The Constitution does not say that a special thread has to be opened for a veto override vote, so if the Speaker agrees I suggest we hold the vote in this very thread.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3:

"Should the Assembly pass ordinary legislation by a majority vote, then the Governor may sign such legislation into Law, or veto such legislation. A veto may be overturned upon the two-thirds vote of the Assembly."

[afleitch]

A note to Assembly members. The bill was vetoed due to the content of Section 4. I considered the terms an intrusion into the independent work of Child Welfare services who have the responsibility for making sure that vulnerable children are protected. If they consider a parent is fit to be a parent then that parent is fit to appropriate welfare payments made on behalf of the child.

The bill seems more concerned about parents who may fail a drug test than it is about parents who regularly his the bottle. In both cases we entrust Child Welfare to make a sound judgement in the issues of the child,