Now, if they'd just do this for the state's lawmakers, eh? Why not, instead, go after welfare abusers? Those who lie to obtain benefits? Spend the money to investigate suspicious claims. Emphasis mine. I'm really tired of people trying to marginalize the poor in any way they can.

Michigan Approves Drug Testing For ‘Suspicious’ Welfare Recipients

Michigan has become the latest U.S. state to approve the controversial practice of testing welfare recipients for substance abuse. In a one-year pilot program signed into law Friday by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, welfare recipients suspected of substance abuse will be required to submit to a drug test or lose their benefits eligibility for six months.

The legislation passed the Michigan House of Representatives earlier this month despite pushback from Democrats and criticism from some in the local press who say the concept unfairly stigmatizes the poor as drug addicts.

The suspicion-based program will be rolled out in three yet-to-be named counties. Under the law, welfare applicants will be screened for suspicion of drug abuse using an “empirically validated substance abuse screening tool,” which the legislation does not describe in detail.
(why the secrecy?)
As the AP reported Friday, recipients who test positive for controlled substances will be referred to state treatment programs and must pass a future drug test before having their benefits restored.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 11 states over the last four years have enacted legislation that allows for the drug testing of welfare recipients and applicants. The federal government paved the way for the practice with welfare reform in 1996. States began proposing mandatory drug testing shortly after, but many early proposals failed to pass.

In the late 1990s, Michigan enacted the country’s first law requiring drug tests for welfare recipients. But following a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union -- and the ACLU of Michigan -- a federal judge struck down the law as unconstitutional, mainly because it relied on random testing without suspicion of drug use.

The new legislation was more carefully crafted, allowing for drug testing only upon “reasonable suspicion.” It was sponsored by Michigan Rep. Jeff Farrington, Republican of Utica, who told the AP earlier this month, “People want to make sure that we give a hand up to those in need, but they're tired of giving their tax dollars to people that waste it on drugs.”
(and the taxpayers should also be tired of paying HUGE $$ to lawmakers who are using drugs or abusing alcohol)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/michig ... lsignoutmd

this was already tried in Florida, and it was found that the program cost far more than it saved.

it was also found unconstitutional.

Great! Then why this:

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 11 states over the last four years have enacted legislation that allows for the drug testing of welfare recipients and applicants.

i have talked to some of my conservative friends about this, and their reply is that they don't care how much it costs, that this is about principle. when i point out that this is the same argument the left uses to support welfare they just look at me as if i had taken a crap on their sorbet.

they just look at me as if i had taken a crap on their sorbet.

Tell them it's chocolate and they'll lap it up along with the rest of the crap they're spoonfed.

What constitutes "reasonable suspicion"? Would that be the same as probable cause? Like there should be probable cause to protect against illegal search and seizure. Which brings me to off topic but one of my favorite topics: it has been determined in labor law that the worker cannot sign away his wage and labor rights, eg. worker cannot agree to work overtime for straight wages but must be paid wages he is entitled to; why then are future workers required to sign away their right to be free of illegal search and seizure by agreeing to random drug testing by the company if the person hopes to be hired? Because business is allowed to get away with the one search activity politicians think they can impose the same type of search on welfare recipients. The former sets a precedent for the latter
Both searches are as unconstitutional as making all Americans bow and pray three times a day.