food stamp law in Ky coming soon

food stamp law in Ky coming soon

Posted in the West Liberty Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
stud muffin

Chesterfield, MO

#1 Aug 31, 2011
FRANKFORT — A piece of legislation, which, if passed, would require drug testing for welfare recipients, was filed this week in Frankfort.
According to the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, Rep. Lonnie Napier, R-Lancaster (36th District) re-filed a bill that would require drug and substance-abuse screening for any adults in Kentucky receiving public assistance.
BR63, prefiled for the 2012 Regular Session, would set up a random testing drug program for any adult suspected of using drugs who receives public assistance, food stamps or state medical assistance.
"I've received calls from across the U.S. from individuals, legislators and the media expressing support for this bill," said Rep. Napier. "Many Americans understand that we need to balance the needs of helping those who legitimately use public assistance to support their families with eliminating the fraud of individuals who sell their food stamps and use their welfare checks to feed a drug habit."
This is the second consecutive session that Napier has filed such a bill. In the 2011 session House Bill 208, which had more than 50 cosponsors, including House Speaker Greg Stumbo and House Republican Floor Leader Jeff Hoover, received a hearing in the House Health and Welfare Committee but never came up for a vote.
BR63 would allow the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to set up a random drug testing program for individuals suspected of using drugs while receiving public assistance.
According to the Kentucky LRC, the legislation states that substance abuse testing would only occur "when a caseworker suspects substance abuse at the initial interview or at any other occasion when the caseworker comes to suspect that the recipient is abusing controlled substances."
Read more: Floyd County Times (KY)- Bill would require drug testing for welfare recipients
dont like

Olive Hill, KY

#2 Aug 31, 2011
stud muffin wrote:
FRANKFORT — A piece of legislation, which, if passed, would require drug testing for welfare recipients, was filed this week in Frankfort.
According to the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, Rep. Lonnie Napier, R-Lancaster (36th District) re-filed a bill that would require drug and substance-abuse screening for any adults in Kentucky receiving public assistance.
BR63, prefiled for the 2012 Regular Session, would set up a random testing drug program for any adult suspected of using drugs who receives public assistance, food stamps or state medical assistance.
"I've received calls from across the U.S. from individuals, legislators and the media expressing support for this bill," said Rep. Napier. "Many Americans understand that we need to balance the needs of helping those who legitimately use public assistance to support their families with eliminating the fraud of individuals who sell their food stamps and use their welfare checks to feed a drug habit."
This is the second consecutive session that Napier has filed such a bill. In the 2011 session House Bill 208, which had more than 50 cosponsors, including House Speaker Greg Stumbo and House Republican Floor Leader Jeff Hoover, received a hearing in the House Health and Welfare Committee but never came up for a vote.
BR63 would allow the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to set up a random drug testing program for individuals suspected of using drugs while receiving public assistance.
According to the Kentucky LRC, the legislation states that substance abuse testing would only occur "when a caseworker suspects substance abuse at the initial interview or at any other occasion when the caseworker comes to suspect that the recipient is abusing controlled substances."
Read more: Floyd County Times (KY)- Bill would require drug testing for welfare recipients
I don't like the wording that says drug test will be for "any adult suspected". You test them all, or you test none. Otherwise "favorites" are played and its a disservice to everybody.
Get them off the stamps f

West Liberty, KY

#3 Sep 1, 2011
get them off the stamps and make them work or go hungry.
dont like

Olive Hill, KY

#4 Sep 1, 2011
Get them off the stamps f wrote:
get them off the stamps and make them work or go hungry.
What a fine idea! I love to see old ladies starving! Not everyone on food assistance is abusing the system. Think before you chime in with your two cents worth.
Dharma

Winchester, KY

#5 Sep 2, 2011
In Florida....only 2% of applicants have failed. The 98% who passed will have to be reimbursed by the state. The average estimated savings will be $45,000 -$60,00 a year in rejected applications. The program is expected to cost $178 million. How is that a good idea?
I bet that number is wron

West Liberty, KY

#6 Sep 3, 2011
98% here will fail and that will be a big savings for tax paying working people.
doubt it

Olive Hill, KY

#7 Sep 3, 2011
I bet that number is wron wrote:
98% here will fail and that will be a big savings for tax paying working people.
I bet 100 bucks thats what the people in Florida said, too!!!!
Rut Roh

Chesterfield, MO

#8 Sep 5, 2011
I bet that number is wron wrote:
98% here will fail and that will be a big savings for tax paying working people.
What an ignorant troll post. Contribute, state your opinion in a casual (non-pathetic excused of humanity) or go play in the street, your no better off than those behind the drug issues with your hypocrisy. Help or stay the he11 out of the way.

---

I personally think this is going to a waste of money too. Tho, unlike ignorant, self centered people, grants (not tax dollars) will be wasted on things that have more worthwhile spending such as further education for the above mentioned. Why? Because testing won't be family based and thus only one person has to remain clean, the one who's signed up. While it won't be judgmental for 'past users' with tests such as hair, it'll still be able to be fooled with most substances that is only in the body for a week or so.

"We need you to come in at the end of the month for a case review"
"Wow, three weeks to prepare and get clean! Thanks for the heads up"

On a side note, I believe the money would be better spent on a program policing the use of such benefits. Finding/starting jobs for those on unemployment and having to use welfare to put food on the table. Educating those to find suitable work. Opening daycares for those who use the excuse "but I have to take care of my kids". Having children is no excuse to stay at home and draw welfare.. Perhaps having community jobs (non-profit) for those 'able'(I use the term lightly) to work to receive such would better suit the purpose of this program. Take your pick really..
Dharma wrote:
In Florida....only 2% of applicants have failed. The 98% who passed will have to be reimbursed by the state. The average estimated savings will be $45,000 -$60,00 a year in rejected applications. The program is expected to cost $178 million. How is that a good idea?
I'm sure this is media mainstream to play down the bill. What they aren't specifying to you is $45,000 -$60,000 a year is per town while the bill costs the state of Florida $178 million. Trickery at it's finest in word play. Don't believe everything you see and hear out of the paper and on the tube.
Get them off the stamps f wrote:
get them off the stamps and make them work or go hungry.
You like the first one I comment on, truly have no respect for anyone other than yourself. Not everyone is on welfare abuse the system. My wife and I personal have had to fall back on this at one point due to a workers' comp injury that didn't quite cover our needs prior to my surgery when I was unable to work. There are those that need it and those that don't of course, but who are you to judge those people. Again, I recommend an education reform to help you as well. Maybe you and the first person mentioned in my post can become buddies!

In our current financial situation/depression as a country and the employment rating, jobs openings are rare. Even McDonald's can only hire so many and I doubt even 0.000000001% of the unemployed would fill those positions country wide.

People have to have a means to fall back on, living on the streets and eating dumpster leftovers is no way for a family to provide for a child when it's neither the fault of the parent or themselves. Perhaps a limitation on how long you can 'draw' benefits would be more beneficial than "I'm a prick, make them work when there isn't any jobs, or let em all go hungry".

Just my opinion and thoughts..
Talk Is cheap

Morehead, KY

#9 Sep 14, 2011
We should also test them for alcohol and tobacco. Thats a sure fire way to save us some money. If theyre drinking and smoking and going to doctor every week, like i MOST of them are; we could say a crap ton. Eliminating cost through medicare, because by them smoking and drinking, they waste time in in doctors offices. The most efficient form of health care is of course preventative. No insurance policy would insure someone fully who had any substance habit, unless you paid a SHIT TON for your plan. We are throwing money at "investments" which will never pay out or come to any kind of fruition. Plus if the GOV is footing the bill, they can enlist any kind of specifications and criteria they wish. Whats gonna happen, Is Eric C conn going to say that they are being denied human rights by not being able to smoke and drink whilst the government foots the bill? I dont think so. Lets test em for alcohol and nicotiene. These people who are on welfare dont deserve the ability to buy substances with their checks, those recreations are reserved for those who EARN their money.
lula

West Liberty, KY

#10 Sep 15, 2011
i think it would be better to come investigate for fraud, lots of these peoople here are working for cash and drawing checks and stamps and not turning it in, have their kids on checks and their spouses and turn in that they are seperated and get medical cards and a truck load of stamps,, really pisses me me off,,
wow 2

West Liberty, KY

#11 Sep 15, 2011
Talk Is cheap wrote:
We should also test them for alcohol and tobacco. Thats a sure fire way to save us some money. If theyre drinking and smoking and going to doctor every week, like i MOST of them are; we could say a crap ton. Eliminating cost through medicare, because by them smoking and drinking, they waste time in in doctors offices. The most efficient form of health care is of course preventative. No insurance policy would insure someone fully who had any substance habit, unless you paid a SHIT TON for your plan. We are throwing money at "investments" which will never pay out or come to any kind of fruition. Plus if the GOV is footing the bill, they can enlist any kind of specifications and criteria they wish. Whats gonna happen, Is Eric C conn going to say that they are being denied human rights by not being able to smoke and drink whilst the government foots the bill? I dont think so. Lets test em for alcohol and nicotiene. These people who are on welfare dont deserve the ability to buy substances with their checks, those recreations are reserved for those who EARN their money.
It isn't so much as the don't deserve to be able to smoke or drink but if they can afford to buy cigs or alcohol then they don't need foodstamps and welfare do they? I think everyone is forgeting about second hand and third hand smoke. These leave particles on the body, in the hair and even in the urine so that would not be feasible. HOwever, I do agree with drug testing but it needs to be a hair test. The hair can be from any part of the body and I mean any part. It also doesn't lie as it tells what is in your system for months and months at a time. the piss test can be passed if you know what you are doing. I know of one place that does them and doesn't even monitor the person. I also know people that have went there with thier little kids and wasn't monitored and had thier kids to piss in a cup.
I think anyone that is recieving any kind of government help should be tested at random. That includes unemployment, college grants, and even heating assistance or even the medical taxi.
Most places require you to take random test, why don't those that recieve government help?
Rut Roh

West Liberty, KY

#12 Sep 18, 2011
Well there is a difference between drug usage and tobacco and alcohol. Drugs are illegal, the other two are not. Unless they outlaw and make one of the other two illegal, it'll never happen. They call it unconstitutional. The same could be said for a family that drives a new car and on such benefits..

Personally, I think they should try and implement some kinda of additional measures on those type of people. For instance, if you smoke/drink, additional benefits other than food stamp allotments should be prohibited. If you can afford those, you could be saving for medial purposes.

Same goes for the children, if they are teenagers (yeah, still illegal if under 18, but it happens), they shouldn't be able to have medical, wic, etc.. Food is a necessity, medical or a monthly check on such kids are not.

Non-Specific quote comes to mind.. "Can't do the Time, don't do the Crime.."
slider

West Liberty, KY

#13 Sep 18, 2011
Rut Roh wrote:
Well there is a difference between drug usage and tobacco and alcohol. Drugs are illegal, the other two are not. Unless they outlaw and make one of the other two illegal, it'll never happen. They call it unconstitutional. The same could be said for a family that drives a new car and on such benefits..
Personally, I think they should try and implement some kinda of additional measures on those type of people. For instance, if you smoke/drink, additional benefits other than food stamp allotments should be prohibited. If you can afford those, you could be saving for medial purposes.
Same goes for the children, if they are teenagers (yeah, still illegal if under 18, but it happens), they shouldn't be able to have medical, wic, etc.. Food is a necessity, medical or a monthly check on such kids are not.
Non-Specific quote comes to mind.. "Can't do the Time, don't do the Crime.."
Very well said.
stud muffin

West Liberty, KY

#14 Sep 18, 2011
Here… let me tick some people off… Did you get drug tested today? Thank you Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri, which are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare. Some people are crying and calling this unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It’s OK to drug test people who work for their money but not those who don’t?… i would like to see this done in all 50 states.
Rut Roh

West Liberty, KY

#15 Sep 19, 2011
stud muffin wrote:
Here… let me tick some people off… Did you get drug tested today? Thank you Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri, which are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare. Some people are crying and calling this unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It’s OK to drug test people who work for their money but not those who don’t?… i would like to see this done in all 50 states.
I'm in agreement! Even tho I think it's kind of a waste in the long run and won't cut down as much as they like, it's at least a step in the right direction.
lyla

West Liberty, KY

#16 Sep 19, 2011
i wish they would catch all the food stamp and check frauders,, i hate paying for people who are claiming to be divorced or seperated and need help and are very much still with their men,, the men who are drawing ssi,, and working in the farms or logging in the woods, they get free checks, free food, free medical, and i have to go to work no matter how shitty i feel cuz i cant afford to go to the dr,, something is not right here,, i think they need to investigate all this ssi going on up coffee creek and surrounding areas
wow 2

Chesterfield, MO

#17 Sep 19, 2011
Rut Roh wrote:
Well there is a difference between drug usage and tobacco and alcohol. Drugs are illegal, the other two are not. Unless they outlaw and make one of the other two illegal, it'll never happen. They call it unconstitutional. The same could be said for a family that drives a new car and on such benefits..
Personally, I think they should try and implement some kinda of additional measures on those type of people. For instance, if you smoke/drink, additional benefits other than food stamp allotments should be prohibited. If you can afford those, you could be saving for medial purposes.
Same goes for the children, if they are teenagers (yeah, still illegal if under 18, but it happens), they shouldn't be able to have medical, wic, etc.. Food is a necessity, medical or a monthly check on such kids are not.
Non-Specific quote comes to mind.. "Can't do the Time, don't do the Crime.."
You can only get WIC if you are pregnant or a nursing mother. If you are breast feeding you can get it for a year for yourself. THe children qualify for five years. It is a good program when it is done correctly. I like the voucher aspect of this program. I think the foodstamp program should do the same thing. Plus they need to cut out buying junk food or pop with stamps. They should have to buy so much in meat, fresh produce or frozen produce etc..They should only be allowed to buy juice that is 100% jiuce like on WIC. This would help a lot as well as the suggestions you make. I also think during the school year they need to cut back some on the benefits as the schools serve two meals a day. I know I am going to get hit hard on that suggestion.
stud muffin

Chesterfield, MO

#18 Sep 20, 2011
I love all the ideas here and we need to make this known to all in Frankfort that we agree to cut benefits to all non conforming parties on welfare and save a bunch of money . And yes children do eat two meals a day and that's a very good idea.
ACrikDaNeck

West Liberty, KY

#19 Sep 20, 2011
wow 2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can only get WIC if you are pregnant or a nursing mother. If you are breast feeding you can get it for a year for yourself. THe children qualify for five years. It is a good program when it is done correctly. I like the voucher aspect of this program. I think the foodstamp program should do the same thing. Plus they need to cut out buying junk food or pop with stamps. They should have to buy so much in meat, fresh produce or frozen produce etc..They should only be allowed to buy juice that is 100% jiuce like on WIC. This would help a lot as well as the suggestions you make. I also think during the school year they need to cut back some on the benefits as the schools serve two meals a day. I know I am going to get hit hard on that suggestion.
I know that WIC is only avail for expecting mothers and I was referencing those that refuse to give up smoking during that period in their lives while on other aspects of welfare. Why should our government profile additional means of help when they aren't helping their child by not smoking or have the funds to provide for the habit but not provide the items on the WIC program.

I don't agree with trying 'make' somebody eat what others deem as healthy tho. That would be like saying the only thing they could buy is water and fruit. We go down that road and all civil liberties might as well be thrown out the window. Tho the idea of budgeting how much of such benefits should be spent on meet products, veggies, and fruit is a sound idea. To deny them the right to choose where the rest goes is not fair.

I do believe that gas stations (where rates are outrageous) providing food products should be prohibited from accepting EBT. This would save the families benefits and prevent those teenagers from using their benefits for 20oz soft drinks and junk food.
wow 2

West Liberty, KY

#20 Sep 20, 2011
ACrikDaNeck wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that WIC is only avail for expecting mothers and I was referencing those that refuse to give up smoking during that period in their lives while on other aspects of welfare. Why should our government profile additional means of help when they aren't helping their child by not smoking or have the funds to provide for the habit but not provide the items on the WIC program.
I don't agree with trying 'make' somebody eat what others deem as healthy tho. That would be like saying the only thing they could buy is water and fruit. We go down that road and all civil liberties might as well be thrown out the window. Tho the idea of budgeting how much of such benefits should be spent on meet products, veggies, and fruit is a sound idea. To deny them the right to choose where the rest goes is not fair.
I do believe that gas stations (where rates are outrageous) providing food products should be prohibited from accepting EBT. This would save the families benefits and prevent those teenagers from using their benefits for 20oz soft drinks and junk food.
I know for a fact that most health departments have smoking cessation prgrams in place for pregnant mothers and WIC families. I have worked such a program in the past. It is free to them. SO you have no agruement from me about that aspect.
But I still think the budgeting and not allowing junk food is a great idea. Look at how many overweight kisa and adults we have in this area. Look at the medical aspects of it. Most of the people that are overweight are the ones recieving some kind of help. Others like myself that are overweight is because we eat to much of the "goos" stuff and don't get off our butts and exercise.
Not only that this adults were not taught proper nurtition at home or in the local school systems when or if they took home ec/family consumer or whatever they call it these days. My mother taught me about proper nurtition. She couldn't believe what the schools would and still serve as nutritious meals. She is from western USA.
Wht other suggestions do you have? I would love to hear them as I am always open to others opinion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

West Liberty Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 7 min Tiger 148,921
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 17 min who cares 13,022
Entitled Kids 27 min Strel 3
The Best at EKCC (Feb '12) Sun Gumdrop 66
McKenna Conley Jun 24 Crazy 1
what does ppl think about Breanna Poe?? (Oct '10) Jun 23 JRG 100
Gary Conn (Nov '09) Jun 20 A FRIEND OF G C 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

West Liberty Mortgages