Press "Enter" to skip to content

Kirkeby, Venner Wage Class Warfare with Welfare Drug-Testing Proposal

Last updated on 2012.01.19

South Dakota Republicans continue to wage class warfare. Rep. Mark Kirkeby (R-35/Rapid City) wants to try again at requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests. Rep. Kirkeby proposed such a bill last year; it failed in the House 26-42. Rep. Mark Venner (R-24/Pierre) wants to revisit his 2011 proposal to test TANF recipients for drugs. That bill fell in the House as well by just three votes.

The assumption underlying these discriminatory and likely illegal bills is that poor people are more likely to use illegal drugs. An HHS brief cites research finding rates of drug use among recipients of government assistance to be "somewhat" but not "greatly" higher than rates among the general population. Richard Florida has some graphs correlating drug use and economic class that suggest folks with higher income potential may be slightly more likely to use marijuana and cocaine.

Rep. Kirkeby* tries to persuade us that he's not waging class warfare by picking on poor people; he's just trying to be a responsible steward of the people's money:

Why in God's green pastures would we ever allow $1 of tax-supported assistance to go to an individual that is using illegal drugs? [Rep. Mark Kirkeby, quoted in David Montgomery, "Lawmaker Wants Welfare Recipients Drug Tested," Rapid City Journal, 2012.01.16]

If keeping government money out of druggies' hands is really Rep. Kirkeby's primary concern, then why doesn't he pee in a cup before accepting his payment for serving in the Legislature? Why doesn't he march down to the Governor's office and make similar demands of Dennis Daugaard, Tony Venhuizen, Dusty Johnson, and the other fine folks deriving their entire livelihood from the taxpayers? Why didn't Rep. Kirkeby or Rep. Venner move to amend HB 1230 last year to require all corporate executives taking advantage of the Governor's "Large Project Development Fund"?

The answer is obvious: Rep. Kirkeby, Rep. Venner, and other Republicans believe that if you need government assistance to feed your kids, you're clearly a moral failure and doing something wrong. But if you need government assistance to start or expand your business in South Dakota, you're not a free-market failure; you're our new best friend.

That, my friends, is class warfare.

*Update 2012.01.19 17:28 MST: The above text originally attributed the "God's green pastures" quote to Rep. Mark Venner. Reporter David Montgomery made the same attribution in his original article. Mr. Montgomery notes that he made a mistake; the quote came from Rep. Mark Kirkeby. He and I both have revised our text, and we both regret the error.


  1. Taunia 2012.01.17

    (I posted this earlier at Mt. Blogmore. It's still in comment purgatory.)

    (I'm a lazy reposter.)

    Kirkeby and Venner didn’t come up with this by themselves. It’s Koch Bros-sponsored ALEC handout legislation all the Republicans get when the attend ALEC conferences. The last one was in November 2011. Check to see where the boys were in November. They won’t tell you.

    It’s suddenly popped up everywhere this legislative session: Georgia, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Michigan, Kentucky and on and on. Missouri and Florida already have it and are being challenged in the courts.

    In Florida, it’s cost $700,000 to figure out only 2% tested were using drugs, which is far below the national average.


  2. Steve Sibson 2012.01.17

    "That, my friends, is class warfare.

    Isn't that what the Marxist left wants? Then apply the Hegelian dialectic which always means the government is the solution.

  3. Matt Groce 2012.01.17

    This bill makes sense, it's what Jesus would do don't you think? What other sins might these "needy" people have committed? Never help a sinner! I'm sure that's in the bible somewhere.

  4. Steve Sibson 2012.01.17

    "I’m sure that’s in the bible somewhere."

    That Jesus said give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's so that he can care for the poor so you don't have to?

  5. Stace Nelson 2012.01.17

    So all those years I had to take drug tests as a Marine and NCIS agent, to ensure I was fit to serve, was class warfare?

  6. Bill Fleming 2012.01.17

    Stace, question for you. If you had failed one of those tests, would you still have been paid? i.e. what were the consequences? I ask, because I sincerely don't know.

  7. Bill Fleming 2012.01.17

    Also, Stace, it's understood that being in the military makes you a different class of citizen, isn't it? i.e. you voluntarily surrender numerous constitutional rights at least temporarily, do you not?

  8. Erin 2012.01.17

    Only 2% of welfare recipients tested in Florida test positive. This doesn't save money.

  9. Bill Dithmer 2012.01.17

    Stace all I seem to hear from you is me, mine, my, and I. You never write real solutions for real problems, just more about you. Its time to get over yourself and start finding solutions to problems such as these. That is what you are supposed to be doing in Pierre, not causing more problems then when you went there in the first place. Or don’t you really have any solutions?

    Now lets get down to serious business here. Why cant people understand that the cost of implementing this program isn't the only cost that the state would incur?

    Once you take the money away what are these people going to do? Begin a new and improved life of crime? That would mean more people in jail for the tax payers to support both medically and for the day to day needs of those convicted of crimes.

    How about the cost of taking a child or children away form the offending party and paying someone else to raise them? Then the tax payer would not only be on the hook for education but also medical, food and board, and full time baby sitting. The cost of this bill just went up a whole bunch more didn’t it?

    Now lets tack on one more thing here, medical marijuana. That’s right some of these people are using pot in place of the prescription drugs that cost so much more then the pot they are smoking. Hell if they just used it for depression and pain they would be saving a couple hundred dollars a month. Controlling anger more drugs not needed because of the pot. I might add here that anger is one problem that cant be held in check by anything other then hard drugs except for pot, just ask a shrink.

    The monetary cost of this program is really starting to add up isn't it? If you expect these people to get jobs then you had darn sure better have jobs that give them a living wage. Ten bucks an hour wont do it if you have one kid let alone two or three.

    Don’t give me that “well she shouldn’t have had them if she couldn’t take care of them” because our legislator has been busy challenging the right to an abortion for years now. You cant have it both ways, either you have to pay for the children when they need your help or you have to give cheap easy access to birth control. If that birth control means the chance for that family to get off of welfare and onto the tax rolls then so be it.

    Look, it could have happened to any one of us that are writing here. A wrong turn in life, a bad marriage that couldn’t be saved because of any number of reason, or the death of a spouse after the kids are born but still small. I don’t know many people that choose to live on welfare because its such a great way of life.

    The Blindman

  10. Troy Jones 2012.01.17

    My support for this bill is very reluctant as I grasp and appreciate what Cory is saying. It does effectively target poor people and it can be punitive not only to the drug user but his family.

    On the other hand, government assistance is supposed to be temporary and aid in effective a transition to being self-supporting. Drug abuse is a major impediment to one being self-sustaining.

    Don't know how realistic this is and if there is unintended consequences I don't know about (I think we should always admit when we promote something we might not understand the unintended consequences and this is outside what I usually think about):

    Every recipient of sustenance/transitional support (this is what I think the mindset of most "welfare" should be) must take a drug test. If the result is positive the recipient has two choices:

    1) Agree to forego assistance and the drug test will not be turned over to law enforcement. If the person reapplies in the future, the process starts over.

    2) Agree to become drug free within 90 days and for these 90 days they get assistance. If they pass a test in 90 days, the prior drug test will not be turned over to law enforcement. If they fail, both drug tests will be turned over to law enforcement for possible enforcement. Until the person becomes part of the criminal justice system, they will continue to recieve their sustenance/transitional assistance.

    Justice (capital J) is "giving one his due." This presumes basic human dignity and accountability. On the surface, the current situation is unJust because it requires no accountability. The proposed solution is unJust because it denigrates their basic human dignity (use, abuse, and addiction are fine lines not easily discerned and definitely not from a single drug test at a moment in time).

  11. larry kurtz 2012.01.17

    Would passing this legislation effectively drive some recipients to seek the relative protection of the reservation rather than subject themselves to yet another ignominious affront to civil liberties by a white-dominated politburo?

  12. Elliot Knuths 2012.01.17

    Ok, this is an issue I'm passionate about (P.S. the previous link is broken, for me, at least.)

    I'm ALL for drug legalization across the board, and would vote yes on any legalization referendum that comes before me (no, I don't use drugs myself, I just support man's right to do as he pleases so long as he harms nobody but himself.) However, as long as drugs remain illegal, anyone who uses them (in illegal circumstances) is breaking the social contract, and financing some pretty nasty violence and terrorism, and doing so with government money is tenfold worse than doing it from your own pocket.

    I'm sure many of the people that oppose this law were complaining and pointing fingers at the Reagan administration for the 1986 Iran-Contra affair, when in reality the two are about the same: They both give citizens' money to enemies of the state: hostile nations, drug cartels, terrorist groups, etc. which plan to use that money to harm or manipulate the common American. I'd rather the government spend a dollar or two more on ensuring they know where their money goes than I would have them finance murder on the Mexican border, or fund an Hezbollah attack on Israel.

    It is my opinion that any citizen ultimately maintains freedom of choice in the situation: Choose to receive welfare money and pay the government in information by assuring them you're not taking drugs, or stay discreet, but miss that check. How is this law creating a situation any different from a workplace stating that to qualify for a job, an applicant must confirm that he/she does not have a drug problem? If welfare is meant to be "A finite program built to provide short-term cash assistance and steer people quickly into jobs," or essentially be a short-term employment substitution, why should it be any less lenient than employment itself? Making welfare better than employment is NEVER a good incentive for re-entering the workforce.

    I also don't think everyone understands this legislation- it's not targeted at the poor, it's targeted at drug-users! It just so happens that the majority of hardcore drug addicts have somehow fallen to (or stayed in) poverty. The government is giving them cash implied to be keeping them above the minimum standard of living, and implied to be used for necessities. Drugs should not be considered a necessity, but an illegal luxury, much like prostitution. While there is probably a large majority of people on welfare who don't use drugs, there are certainly more than a few that do, and stopping 2% (an aforementioned stat) of 8.5% (current U.S. unemployment rate) of 300 million (numbers add up to over 500,000) people from spending a few hundred to several thousand dollars on drugs that sponsor much more violent crime doesn't seem like a terrible idea to me.

    Making the average, working-class family pay so some perpetually "unemployed" man can buy his crack and hire himself a prostitute or to is, to me, infinitely more offensive than any "class warfare" in this bill. It's the government saying, "We know you're having a tough time making ends meet, but this guy really wants his cocaine, too, and he's in no state to work." Yeah, because using the working class to prop up a class of do-nothings was exactly what Karl Marx wanted, right?

    To summarize, I feel that this law is targeted at the only demographic that directly RECEIVES money from the government (government workers- teachers, police officers, congressmen, etc. EARN it), it should certainly be ensured that the money's usage is not in direct contradiction to the government's own interests (lower crime, terrorism, etc.) I feel that the majority of welfare cases should be treated as temporarily unemployed persons, who should be held to the same standard as they would be in a workplace. I am strongly in favor of this bill's passage, and hope that we can all see its intentions. Otherwise, we might as well buy each suicide bomber a "Sponsered by the USA" t-shirt.


  13. Owen Reitzel 2012.01.17

    it's really a mute point. The federal government says you can't do it. This is why you need government involvment. So a few people can't come up with a poor piece of legislation.
    You can't pick on one group. Anybody receiving state should be tested.

    Hey Steve. Thune is in town at 4. You going?

  14. larry kurtz 2012.01.17

    Mr. Knuths, it's called blaming the victim: just one more feature of red state collapse.

  15. Chris S. 2012.01.17

    As Erin noted above, Florida tried these discriminatory drug tests. Guess what they found? Welfare recipients use drugs at a lower rate than the general population.

    So what's the reason for targeting the poor again? Oh that's right: They've fallen on hard times and need assistance, so obviously they're morally inferior and must be humiliated and punished. (Also in Florida, the governor's cronies made money off the drug tests.)

  16. Bill Fleming 2012.01.17

    Elliot, should you be banned from using highways, public buildings or other taxpayer funded facilities if you use drugs illegally? Should the fire department not put out your housefire if you smoke pot?

    Should your kids not be allowed in public schools?

    Substance abuse is a health problem — an addiction problem not unlike alcoholism, gambling, and addiction to sugar. People with substance abuse problems still pay plenty of taxes, and have the same rights to public services as anyone else.

    If anything, we should be finding out how to better assist addicts with their health issues rather then punishing them for having them, especially those who are so far into their addiction that they can no longer help themselves.

    Someone mentioned the 80/20 rule here a few threads back. Some years ago we did research on a gaming audience in Iowa and found that 90% of all casino visits were made by 10% of their customers. Clearly many of those people are addicts, and yet no one had any problem taking any of their money.

    This law strikes me as being immoral on its face. And I think if you give it a little more thought, you will agree. We don't help sick people by starving them to death and otherwise making their life situation worse.

  17. Steve Sibson 2012.01.17

    "Begin a new and improved life of crime?"

    Bill, how about a new and improved life without drugs and work, creating wealth so you can take care of the poor? Or do you not believe illegal drug use is a crime?

  18. Steve Sibson 2012.01.17

    Owen, I am can't get off work by 4.

  19. Bill Fleming 2012.01.17

    "Do you not believe illegal drug use is a crime?" What a profundly stupid question. Do you think before you write Sibson, or just start typing and see what happens?

  20. Roger Nehring 2012.01.17

    Why is it that those who supposedly uphold less government intrusion into citizen's lives are usually clamoring the loudest for laws like this that violate the constitutional protection against search without probable cause?

  21. Steve Sibson 2012.01.17

    "What a profundly stupid question."

    Bill, thanks for pointing out the stupidity of saying those caught doing crime have no choice but to change their lifes and do crime.

  22. Jana 2012.01.17

    I haven't read all the way through the bill yet, but certainly they pointed to actual statistics on how this is a problem worthy of creating a law for South Dakota.

    They have, haven't they?

    There's no way a good conservative would use taxpayer money to pass more laws and regulations on it's citizens without good data to back up the need...would they?

  23. Steve Sibson 2012.01.17

    Jana, I think this is based on the left's equality and social justice. Why should the working class pay for the welfare of those on drugs. If you want the same loaf of bread at the end of the day, then you need to work to. Fair is far. Next step could be forced work at the end of a gun. I think we call that communism.

  24. Steve Sibson 2012.01.17

    "Why doesn’t he march down to the Governor’s office and make similar demands of Dennis Daugaard, Tony Venhuizen, Dusty Johnson, and the other fine folks deriving their entire livelihood from the taxpayers?"

    Cory, that is a strawman. Those strawmen actually "work" and can pay for their own food, housing and medical costs.

    [CAH: That does not appear to be the issue for the bill sponsor, or for Elliot above. They find ot intolerable that government dollars support the drug trade and concomitant crimes. Why should any amount of "work" excuse such maldirection of government money? Or can we excuse welfare recipients as well as long as they sign up for workfare?]

  25. Bill Fleming 2012.01.17

    Steve, you wrote, "do you not believe illegal drug use is a crime?"

    That's like saying. "Do you not believe red stops signs are red with the word 'stop' on them." Of course illegal things are illegal. Don't be so stupid.

  26. Steve Sibson 2012.01.17

    Bill, the question was asked because of this logic:

    "Once you take the money away what are these people going to do? Begin a new and improved life of crime? "

    It was a rhetorical question Bill. And a darn good one. You need to attack Dithmer with your personal attack.

  27. Stace Nelson 2012.01.17

    @Bill Fleming If I had failed them, I would have been prosecuted and not paid.

    @Bill Dethmer Sorry, didn't realize my hard earned 1st Amendment Rights had to be cleared through your approval process. You carry on an enjoy yours though..

  28. larry kurtz 2012.01.17

    Rep. Nelson: Would passing this legislation effectively drive some recipients to seek the relative protection of the reservation rather than subject themselves to yet another ignominious affront to civil liberties by a white-dominated politburo?

  29. Mike 2012.01.17

    Jesus Rep. Nelson, quit your F&*$#%g whining. Play hard, be ready to take your lumps, or get the hell off the field. For such a big guy you are the biggest "victim/pansy" blog commenter in South Dakota.

  30. Bill Fleming 2012.01.17

    I think Dithmer knows full well that doing something illegal is a crime, Steve. Perhaps that is because he thinks about his words before he writes them down, as should you.

    Your question, rhetorical or not, is stupid and pointless.

  31. Stace Nelson 2012.01.17

    @Mike No need to take the Lord's name in vain. You can be a real live anonymous internet tough guy without doing so. No whining here, just pithy & sarcastic comments. If you have a hard time gathering the gist of them, drop me your address and I will have my grandson draft you some drawings you might be able to follow. :-D

  32. larry kurtz 2012.01.17

    Is post-traumatic stress disorder a disqualifying mental illness, Rep. Nelson?

  33. Taunia 2012.01.17

    :) Mike

  34. Mike 2012.01.17

    As long as they aren't nudes of you Rep. Nelson, I am open to your grandson's artistic interpretations of your BS. Can you convert them to a PDF?
    Oh, and I didn't take the lord's name in vain; I would never dream of saying "Flying Spaghetti Monster!" in public. How could one be so blasphamous.... ;)

  35. Bill Dithmer 2012.01.17

    I was gone for a while but I'm back now. First Sibby. Yes I know that illegal drug use is a crime.Did you miss the point of my post entirely? I'm trying to find answers here that will work. This plan wont fix the problem it will only make it worse. If you take money away from someone that cant find a job you start a cycle that wont be easy to break. I was merely pointing out what will happen if this plan is implemented nothing more.

    Once you start to step on an amendment to the constitution it will get a little bit easier each and every time after that. Pretty soon the only law abiding citizens left will be those that cant be touched because of their wealth. That my friend is the very reason for that documents framing in the first place. Not to protect only a select people but all people. The right to face your accuser, the protection against illegal search and seizure, the right to a fare trial, you know innocent until proven guilty little things that some seem to think are insignificant.

    I don’t understand what you are trying to accomplish here. Is it the money that you might be loosing through taxes. If that’s the case I think I have given you reasons why that wont happen. In fact I can guarantee that if this bill passes it will means more money will have to come from somewhere. My question is where will that money come from?

    If it’s the illegal drug use isn't that already a crime and don’t we have laws on the books for crimes like that? For being a party that hates more government intervention in private lives they sure like to make new laws that do that very thing. Thirty five years ago there once was a crazy woman in the white house that consulted with psychics and came up with the now famous phrase “just say no”. It didn’t work then and it isn't working now. To say otherwise only shows that your head is in the sand and there isn't any hope for ya.

    Fellows what I'm looking for are real solutions to the problems that we are discussing here. So far all I'm hearing is talk about illegal drug use.

    And for gods sake somebody give Stace his bottle and change his diaper because he's getting cranky. If just waving the flag was the answer maybe he would be the man to go to but he just sounds like a two year old that wants attention and man that’s no way for a legislator to act.

    I am The Blindman

  36. Douglas Wiken 2012.01.17

    This is all a bit reminiscent of a former GOP President who campaigned against the mythical welfare mother in a Cadillac. Now they are dragging that old crap out again only this time it is a mother trading food stamps for drugs and gas for her Cadillac.

    On the other hand, if they are accepting aid, they better also be provided birth control pills and they better use them. I do not understand why we make it easier for the unemployed or those unwilling to work to afford to have children than it is for responsible working men and women.

  37. Bill Fleming 2012.01.17

    Douglas, it is because many in the GOP, in their haste to recruit and pander to a diversity of Dem refugees (Southern racist Dixiecrats, disaffected Dem Neo-Cons, Bible Belt Evangelicals, etc. Yes, they were all once Dems... and good riddance) they have compromised their values and ability to reason to a point where they don't really stand for anything anymore. (Witness Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and ridiculous bills like this that demand larger government just to enforce the ridiculousness.

    They continually make up both sides of a strawman argument, casting both themselves and their opponents as something they are not, and then rage till hell won't have it.

    It's insane.

  38. Bill Fleming 2012.01.17

    Dithmer, I always enjoy watching you run it down, man. Thanks for the good times.

  39. Steve Sibson 2012.01.17

    "If you take money away from someone that cant find a job"

    Can't find a job, or rather do drugs than work? Since when is it a constitutional right to covet another citizen's property so you can do drugs?

    Fleming, glorifying the stooge who can't see a crime as a crime. You are a very sad person.

  40. Steve Sibson 2012.01.17

    "ridiculous bills like this that demand larger government just to enforce the ridiculousness"

    So Bill, you have finally figured out that the organized right is doing the same thing those of you on the left are doing. So the fight is for the power of the all-controlling government so you can push those you disagree with around with the force of government. This is very sad to watch.

  41. Bill Dithmer 2012.01.17

    Wow Sibby lighten up, or light up I don’t care which just come back to earth. Here's something that might help. Its what we all do when we blog “Toss The Feathers”

  42. Steve Sibson 2012.01.17

    Bill have you caught Fleming's Monist disease?

  43. Stan Gibilisco 2012.01.17

    Apparently, the basic idea behind this bill lies in the fact that if you give money to an addict, then the addict will use that money to feed the addiction. So far, so good. I know, from bitter personal experience, that that's what will happen. I also know that the most destructive drug of all, alcohol, is perfectly legal. Does the bill propose to test all assistance applicants for alcohol use?

    Unfortunately, if the bill really is that simple (require assistance applicants to pass a drug test before giving them any money), it's too simple. It assumes that a mere positive drug test result implies a drug addiction -- not necessarily so. It also assumes that drug tests are always accurate -- again, not so. (I had a false positive once for "antidepressants" during my alcoholism days, and only found out about it when the doctor came to me and said she'd made a mistake, that the results were in fact negative.)

    What will we do with an applicant for assistance if s/he tests positive and it also turns out that s/he's an addict? Send that person out on the street with nothing? Oh, terrific. Then s/he can find another way to feed the addiction, perhaps by stealing, maybe robbing somebody.

    On the other hand, I do not want my tax dollars going to feed addicts' habits, which will only make them worse. If I were cynical, I suppose I could say, "Well, okay, then they'll die sooner and rid society of the burden they impose ..." Fortunately, I have not yet descended to that level.

    How about requiring that applicants for assistance, should they test positive for drugs, get an addiction assessment and then, if necessary, addiction treatment, with their assistance money going to pay for that treatment? Then, during their aftercare, they could receive assistance to help them get back on their own and become productive, useful "social units."

    Sorry, I just can't keep the snarkosis at bay. Sine, cosine, tangent of the times.

    In conclusion, I should say that all mandatory drug testing makes me nervous. It sets a bad precedent. We might not think that it could ever come to the following nightmare scenario, but if it does, please remember me ...

    Last Friday, the President signed into law a bill that requires all citizens to pass a drug test before they can receive a renewal of their biometric national ID card. The bill takes effect on the first of next month ...

  44. Bill Fleming 2012.01.18

    "So Bill, you have finally figured out that the organized right is doing the same thing those of you on the left are doing."

    This is the part where Sibbys own goofiness and circular reasoning finally sneaks up and bites him in the butt.

    Pretty funny. I bet Sibby is the kind of guy who blames his farts on the dog.

  45. Steve Sibson 2012.01.18

    Bill, you are giving critical thinking a bad name. Reality and truth are laid out right in front of you, and you continue on with your state of denial.

  46. Steve Sibson 2012.01.18

    No where in the constitution does it state that corporations are persons. That was made up by a group of seven Supreme Court judges. If we want to fix the problem, then how about a constitutional amendment that says the Supreme Court cannot make law, that is to be done only by the representatives of the people. Then undue the amendments that were passed which set up the current tyranny (Federal Reserve, elected Senators, and the Income Tax). Why get to work on stuff that will never come to be. The Club of Rome is setting up the Beast of Revelation. Instead go to work telling people to stay away from it.

    [Sorry Cory, Fleming went off topic, I am only responding.]

  47. Bill Fleming 2012.01.18

    No, you went off on a wild goose chase as usual, Sibby.
    Do you support the Sanders amendment or not? It has a lot more chance of passing than anything you have suggested so far. A LOT more.

  48. Bill Fleming 2012.01.18

    Your link doesn't work, Larry. At least not for me.

  49. larry kurtz 2012.01.18

    Will a call come from the legislature next to ban "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse" inSouth Dakota?

    Bet me.

  50. Steve Sibson 2012.01.18

    "It has a lot more chance of passing than anything you have suggested so far."

    No way, the monopoly capitalists behind the corporations have way too much control. Best to instead be prepared for the Beast. It would be nice if we could make South Dakota a sort of an Oasis.

    So Bill, I do agree on what the problem is. I don't agree on an agenda to take on the world's wealthy capitalists. We have the socialists on the left and the dominionists on the right wanting the same thing but fighting like cats and dogs. Instead we need to work together and avoid them (the monopoly capitalists) as much as possible.

  51. Bill Fleming 2012.01.18

    Sibby, I don't think you are ever going to be looking for workable solutions. I think your game is to continually come up with insurmountable, fantasy adversaries in order to justify your despair, paranoia and persecution complex. Your only thing is having something to piss and moan and whine about, and the more irrational the better. You need to get help, man. Seriously.

  52. Steve Sibson 2012.01.18


    Instead of working with me and taking a serious look at by reserach and analysis, you attack me personally. What a way to destract yourself from reality Bill. As I said yesterday, you are the one that is paranoid and think the right is some sort of conspiracy to destroy your savior...the government.

  53. Bill Fleming 2012.01.18

    It's not an attack, Sibby, it's a suggestion that you get professional help. I'm not kidding. You are delusional.

  54. Steve Sibson 2012.01.18

    "It’s not an attack"

    "You are delusional."

    And I need help?

  55. Bill Fleming 2012.01.18

    Yes. Send a link to your website to an analyst and have them give you some professional feedback.

  56. Steve Sibson 2012.01.18

    Bill, delusion is thinking you can have a government control those who are controlling it.

  57. Bill Fleming 2012.01.18

    If you want a litmus test of a true American, Steve, start with the list the Founders provided above.

  58. Bill Fleming 2012.01.18

    You spend far too much time trying to confound yourself and others around you about what are really very straightforward, simple principles. I have heard you torture and distort every single one of these basic tenants which are the foundation of our Democracy. When are you going to wake up and pay attention, Steve? Nothing is going to happen for you until you get with the program.

  59. Steve Sibson 2012.01.18

    "Our government is the people, Steve."


    "foundation of our Democracy"

    It was suppose to be a Republic, but by converting to a democracy it makes it "look like" the people are in charge.

    "look like" equals delusion

    Who said that if I control the money, I control the government and how do they control the money Bill?

  60. Bob Newland 2012.01.18

    Ever notice how Stace Nelson pops in and out, dropping irrelevancies, and never responds to a direct question?

  61. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.01.19

    Stan, you raise good points about the fallibility of drug tests. These drug tests would subject a lot of decent, law-abiding people to an invasion of privacy and potential undeserved punishment. Given the numbers above from Erin and Chris, we don't even catch that many users. Troy rightly acknowledges that this proposal (and the similar ALEC-inspired bills across the nation) have a strong "punish the poor" intent. That ill intent has less to do with formulating effective public policy and more to do with, as Doug and BF note, attracting certain segments of the electorate to the polls.

  62. larry kurtz 2012.01.28

    Indiana legislature withdraws welfare drug testing after amendment to test lawgivers.

Comments are closed.