The Oklahoma senate has made some changes to the originally proposed bill which almost make sense. Hopefully this is another sign that there are a few rational people left in our state legislature to help reign in the radicals.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-senate-oks-scaled-back-drug-test-bill/article/3669739

Probably suspicion could be repeatedly losing a job and coming back for welfare.

Sounds like somebody finally read the preliminary expense estimates and said oh, mercy no, that won't do at all. Good on them for showing some common sense. It made no more sense to presume all TANF folks needed testing solely because they qualified for state funds.

"The revised bill applies only to applicants who come under suspicion after being screened for potential drug use."

What does that even mean? How are they 'screening' people without testing them? Racial profiling? Physical profiling? You've gotta be arrested for a drug offense first?

Looks like a lot of muddy water to me.

I personally had zero issue with ALL welfare recipients being tested before given such benefits. Then screened in the future is there is suspicion of drug use.

Yes that is an odd statement. Screened how? By who?

This will probably end up costing our state more money, just like it did in Florida.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=2

Not sure what's what at the moment. What I find online appears outdated, as it seems to suggest everyone gets tested, on the dime of DHS. Still looking.

I personally had zero issue with ALL welfare recipients being tested before given such benefits. Then screened in the future is there is suspicion of drug use.

I don't either but spending $10,000 on drug testing to catch a small percentage and saving $1000 isn't a good idea and most folks who need the assistance can't afford a drug test.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/rick-scott-drug-testing-unconstitutional_n_1455963.html

"The ruling represents the second constitutional rebuke to Scott over drug testing, who last year signed a law to test welfare recipients. U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven halted the drug testing with an October injunction, finding that a welfare applicant represented by the ACLU who challenged the law would likely win his case on constitutional grounds."

i have an idea, do away with welfare. if you want welfare you perform some community service(watching other peoples kids that are on welfare, helping the elderly,etc) and your pay is the welfare amount you are getting now. working for 40 hours to get crappy welfare not worth it? well then go get another job?

you think i like 40 hours a week and being away from my kids?

This will probably end up costing our state more money, just like it did in Florida.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=2

That will surely suit Republicans just fine, if it means more votes for them in November. Plenty of people in Oklahoma resent welfare. I wonder if the DHS stills gives away used cars to welfare recipients?

i have an idea, do away with welfare. if you want welfare you perform some community service(watching other peoples kids that are on welfare, helping the elderly,etc) and your pay is the welfare amount you are getting now. working for 40 hours to get crappy welfare not worth it? well then go get another job?

you think i like 40 hours a week and being away from my kids?

Good idea except it turns into a vicious cycle of it's own - can't apply/interview for jobs because they're doing the menial tasks required to get their assistance.

Welfare is just like anything else, those who abuse it spoil it for everyone. For every horror story of abuse, there are as many good news stories of people who used it temporarily and are now doing well. You don't hear about those, because many of those people don't want to anyone to know they received assistance.

In my opinion, it would be better to reform it in a way that still allows for some assistance when people go back to work rather than a complete shutting off of benefits when they get a "job." My understanding is that for some with a certain number of dependents, it is sometimes in their best interest to not take minimum wage jobs, because they lose all benefits. If that's the case, then our system is screwed up.

Nobody cares about this more than the drug testing industry: $$$$-KaChing-$$$$

They have to make a living, too.

Good idea except it turns into a vicious cycle of it's own - can't apply/interview for jobs because they're doing the menial tasks required to get their assistance.

Welfare is just like anything else, those who abuse it spoil it for everyone. For every horror story of abuse, there are as many good news stories of people who used it temporarily and are now doing well. You don't hear about those, because many of those people don't want to anyone to know they received assistance.

In my opinion, it would be better to reform it in a way that still allows for some assistance when people go back to work rather than a complete shutting off of benefits when they get a "job." My understanding is that for some with a certain number of dependents, it is sometimes in their best interest to not take minimum wage jobs, because they lose all benefits. If that's the case, then our system is screwed up.

That's all well and good but it makes the assumption that all who on welfare are able to work. You're overlooking people like the disabled and elderly.

From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

Very interesting. Amazing how facts can often be a game changer - which is why I guess so many people avoid them!