Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should people on public assistance be required to get drug tested?

By Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens

In theory I find it an attractive idea, but when somebody tests positive, then what?

We get to pay for him or her to go into treatment? Perhaps while on assistance probation, meaning they continue to collect assistance while going through treatment.

If they lose assistance, do they just become homeless with all of the social complications that arise from that?

If such people aren't already stealing for drugs, perhaps they have to turn to theft not just for drugs, but for food?

It seems like there is a potential maze of negative unintended consequences from such a policy.

Feb 28, 2011, 9:59am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Bea, are you saying there are a lot senior citizen taking illegal medications?

Because if they're taking something with a prescription, then obviously they would have nothing to worry about.

Feb 28, 2011, 10:00am Permalink
James Renfrew

I propose, instead, that we test everybody all the time. Otherwise, no testing at all.

What's the point of testing applicants, to push people away from public assistance, or to engage people in treatment?

The ones who propose that applicants be tested seem to think that poverty and drug use are closely linked. I would guess that there is a pretty good link between drug use and many other sectors of society.

I would also contend that alcohol probably has the same or greater impact on society. The only difference is that alcohol is legal, while drugs are not.

Feb 28, 2011, 10:02am Permalink
Bob Harker

This should be a no brainer.

These days you have to take a drug test for almost every employer in order to be hired and have the privilege of donating to the mandated charity known as public assistance. Why shouldn't recipients?

As far as action as a result of a positive test, simply kick them off the dole and allow them to reapply in 6 months. Rehab? With no income, no drugs. Liberals may point out that some would resort to criminal behavior in order to support their habit. My response is that A.) they already ARE committing the crime of fraud, and most likely other crimes as well. B.) and just as importantly, I would say that to continue their assistance so they don't expand their criminal behavior is simply paying someone to obey the law. Nonsense.

As a side note, I had a drug screening last Friday. Did you know they actually watch you now?! Of course I had to point out to the young lady watching me that the room was extremely cold.....

Feb 28, 2011, 10:26am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

"Liberals may point out that some would resort to criminal behavior in order to support their habit."

That's what I said and I'm certainly no liberal.

It's not a liberal assumption. It's a common sense assumption.

The conservative aspect of it is we have a history of passing lamb-brained legislation just to fix the knee-jerk problem of the moment without considering the unintended consequences. No true conservative would support such ill-considered innovations (for more on how I'm using "innovation" in this case, read the grandfather of 20th Century American Conservatism, Russell Kirk).

Also, to say a person on drugs is committing a fraud when collecting public assistance is both factually incorrect (there is no such crime on the books) and misses the bigger picture.

If it were a crime, in a larger sense there is no victim (sure, all us taxpayers are victims, but we're not really victimized). However, if a person who has been stripped of assistance, if they do turn to crime (and not all will, some will just become homeless, which will be a BOON for downtown business, don't you think?), they will turn to more direct victim crime such as larceny, burglary and robbery. Some of those crimes will constitute violent felonies.

So ask yourself, do you want to promote more violent felonies?

And I'm not at all defending people using illegal drugs getting public assistance. I'm just saying, before you make a change, butter consider the consequences.

Feb 28, 2011, 11:16am Permalink
Bea McManis

John,
I realize that. I worked for a company that had drug screening for years.
Even the most advanced technology can't stop the false positives that occur. Bob's take on this was to 'kick out' anyone who tests positive. So we tell people in genuine need that they can't qualify for assistance due to a false postive?
The prospect of drug screening will stop many seniors from receiving the assistance they need. Their pride has already been stripped just by admitting they need the help.
Howard gives the scenario of illegal drug users turning to criminal activity.
In the case of seniors who already make hard decisions regarding medication, heat, food, or shelter the final scenario won't be criminal activity, but one far more fatal and far more permanent.

Feb 28, 2011, 11:36am Permalink
John Roach

Bea,
I think any of the elderly you mention who have a false positive could easily show the reason for it (called a prescription). That's a no brainer.

It would be interesting to know how many illegal drug users are not already involved in other criminal activity.

Feb 28, 2011, 11:52am Permalink
Bob Harker

Howard, send me some cash so I don't break the law today, OK?

And be, nobody said everybody on assistance commits crimes. I'm willing to bet, though, that the MAJORITY of the drug using recipients do.

Can anybody give me a logical reason why this inexpensive and accurate testing should NOT be implemented?

Feb 28, 2011, 12:07pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Bob, play out for us what you think the outcome of this scenario is:

John Doe has been getting food stamps. He tests positive for illegal drugs.

What happens next?

Feb 28, 2011, 1:17pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Sure, Bob. Gabor already gave you one with the very first comment in this thread. It would be a huge waste of time and money, it won't change anything. Not to put words in your mouth, but I'm guessing you see the problem as too many people sucking the teat of public assistance when they could be providing for themselves at least and contributing to the tax base at best.
If so, I agree with you.
There are many people taking assistance who don't need to, there's a lot who do. As limited as I think Government ought to be, I don't have a problem helping out someone with a REAL disability, or elderly folks who have expensive medical expenses or even someone going through a bad time and needs a breather to get on their feet again. I see the problem as the ones who have decided this is the best way to live, medical care provided, gov't pays the rent, no worries there, heat won't get shut off, if the fridge craps out, you get a voucher for another one. Pregnant? get baby furniture, free diapers and W I C coupons. And on and on. If you tell these types there'll be drug test, they'll just deal with it. They've become inured to the system. If I thought drug testing would reduce the cost to taxpayers, believe me I'd be all for it. It won't. Do you think that a guy using crack or meth or whatever will think, "let's see, I can stay on welfare and not use or get a job and do drugs? " No, they'll just become a burden in a different way, like Howard pointed out. And as James pointed out, alcohol is probably more of a problem anyway, what are you going to do about that? You may get a few pot smokers to get off the couch, and stop eating doritos and watching Gilligan's Island reruns and shape up, but I think that's an insignificant few.
I'd like to see more being done to change the "welfare is good for me" mindset into "being self-reliant is good". Hopefully then those who truly are able to get off the dole can and will. How to do that, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure more rules won't do it.

Feb 28, 2011, 1:29pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Aside from the gut-feeling that drug testing in practice violates the fourth, fifth and ninth amendments- are we concerned for the health of drug users or a method of denying some applicants access to social services?

Most recipients have families. If one or both parents' eligibility is impugned by the outcome of a drug test, what becomes of the children? ...And if a drug user doesn't get money from DSS, what other source do they engage? ...Selling drugs to the neighbors' children?

There is not just one test. A potential test has anywhere from 1 - 13, upwards of 250 panels, identifying as many different drugs. A typical 8-panel test searches cocaine, marijuana, opiates, amphetamines, Meth, PCP, benzodiazepines and barbiturates. The more common five-panel test ignores Meth, benzodiazepines and barbiturates. An eight-panel test costs about $5.00, sample cup and personnel not included. Accuracy is lab-standard for most kits.

Is the test effective? Consider that alcohol is undetectable after 6 - 24 hours; amphetamines, 1 - 5 days; Meth, 3 - 5 days; Ecstasy, 24 hours; pot, up to 30 days for heavy users; cocaine, 2 - 5 days; heroin, 3 - 5 days.

One need only lay off drugs for a few days to bluff the test. Who makes out? The companies selling drug test kits!

In general screening for employment 25% of the population are identified users. At least 42% of Americans smoke pot.

Feb 28, 2011, 1:35pm Permalink
George Richardson

"only illegal drugs."
The only difference between legal and illegal drugs is the il someone else decided for you. What gave them that right? I sure as hell didn't. God didn't either, they are usurpers.

Feb 28, 2011, 2:01pm Permalink
Melissa Barone

This is something I think they should have done a long time ago. I think recipients should be tested every 6 months (give or take) or when the state thinks they have a basis to test them. I'm going to be real honest here. I have an infant daughter and I'm a stay at home wife and mom for time being until she is bigger. I receive WIC and that's it. I think even that should be included. I do not use drugs and I'd be all for proving I don't either. I do not have any other assistance. My husband and I probably could, but we refuse. As long as our daughter has her formula and a roof over her head that is our main concern. Besides she has plenty of loving family members and friends of ours who spoil her rotten when we can't!

Also if these recipients test positive they should be taken off the assistance immediately and figure out for themselves how to take care of themselves without the system. If you have enough money for drugs you have enough money to take care of yourself without assistance. It's called getting a job! I know the job market is bad, but I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. People just don't want to work at burger king or Mcdonalds and sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to support your family whether you like the job or not. I also think those who receive a good amount of assistance should have to volunteer 20-40 hours a week depending on the amount of assistance they receive to pay back the state in a sense. I think it's only fair. Help the seniors out or women and children in need. We all should do our part to help each other if we expect others to help us.

In all honesty I wouldn't doubt that 95% of the "no" votes are from people on welfare who do drugs. The other 5% are people who just don't care. If you want assistance you should have to do what the majority of hard working americans have to do with the majority of jobs out there and that is take a drug test! A lot of jobs test randomly too and so should the state!

Also if you are taking prescription drugs obviously if that shows up in the drug test they can not hold that against you. Whatever your doctor chooses to prescribe you there is nothing any job or public assistance can do about it. However if you are taking things like hydros and they have your husband's name or friends name on them or you bought them off the street then cleary you will not pass your drug test nor will they override it because you took your husband's prescription. It has to be your own.

We should not have to pay for rehab either. These people got themselves into the mess of drugs so let them figure out how to get themselves out. Oh and if these people have children and are testing postive for illegal drugs I think CPS should get involved as well. They should especially get involved if it's hard drugs and the parents may be addicted to them and are more concerned about doing drugs then taking care of their kids. We have to think of children too and to me children are usually the main reason people get assistance.

I'm not against welfare and I certainly don't think everyone on it cheats the system. I just think we need to start cracking down so taxes aren't so high and so there is more assistance for those who actually need it (seniors, single moms, disable people etc.) We need to rethink this whole assistance thing! Too many people get it who don't deserve it!

Feb 28, 2011, 2:32pm Permalink
John Roach

Dave,
The issue is not helping anyone who really needs it. The issue is that some people might be asking for help, then using that help to obtain illegal drugs. And it is not a violation of anyone's rights as suggested, since aksing for assistance is voluntary. If you object to the test, you don't take the money.

We already demand some people take drug testing for certain jobs and to keep them. Even the military has random drug testing.

If you ask me for more of my to give to other people, I don't see why I can not at least ask you to take a test.

Feb 28, 2011, 3:14pm Permalink
Bob Harker

Dave, I agree with ALMOST everything you said. We agree the system is being abused and we cannot continue down this entitlement path that is bankrupting our state (and nation).

I submit to you that change has to begin somewhere. Is this the cure all? Of course not. It is, however, a starting point. Others seem to think the status quo is OK. I reject that notion.

Will random drug testing of recipients immediately instill a sense of personal responsibility and a work ethic? Of course not! There is no panacea for generationally ingrained attitudes.

What I AM saying is that change is possible ONLY if we initiate it. There is not a single idea out there that can't be picked apart by the naysayers. "It won't work because..." "It's not fair because..." "Well what if..."

Nobody but an idiot would say the welfare system is without flaws and waste. The question lies in what are we willing to do to begin to fix it.

Personally, I am not going to to pick apart any reasonable plan that MAY have a positive impact on the abuse of tax dollars. It frustrates me that the entitlement programs I am forced to support have negatively impacted my contributions I truly believe in and support.

Feb 28, 2011, 3:31pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Fair enough, Bob. Any idea can be picked apart. I'd just rather see time, money and energy spent on helping people lacking it gain the self confidence to enable them to want to support themselves. As opposed to forcing them to act a certain way because they need the state to support them.

Feb 28, 2011, 4:23pm Permalink
Bob Price

All I know,I wish they would do something to get these leeches off the system.Tired of going into Wilson Farms and seeing these idiots that can barely dress themselves whip out the good ol' EBT card to pay for some 2 liters of Mountain Dew,or other non-essential crap-then my favorite ones are the ones that just bought some pop or candy,are pregnant,then walk out of store pushing stroller putting cigarette in their mouth......I need to get that bumper sticker-"Work harder-people on welfare depend on you" .......I'm all for helping someone out when they are in need or can't find a job to get them through a rough patch,but this nonsense of everything free(medical,food,dental)to people that work the system has got to be stopped.I can't afford much more increase in ANY taxes to support all these bums that abuse the system.

Feb 28, 2011, 4:46pm Permalink
Tim Howe

First things first, for my friend Liberal Bea, let me again make it known how much I believe we DO NOT treat our seniors with the respect they deserve whether its holding a door for one, or making sure that financially thier "golden years" are not the worst ones of thier life. So in my opinion below, seniors are going to be an exception to what i say. For one reason, i dont know alot of 80 year old crackheads, potheads, or coke feans :)

Not only do I believe that low life "welly's" should be drug tested on a very REGULAR basis, but they should also have to be put through a "probation" type program just like a common criminal for the ENTIRE time they receive welfare. Yes, I said criminal, if you receive a dime of tax payer money that you did nothing to EARN than i consider you no different than a criminal. You should be made to report to "probation" weekly, monthly, ect and answer ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that they seem fit to ask.

Yeah, i know like it was mentioned above Howie, Dave, and John are probally going to come back with the "this will cost even more money" argument. I really dont think it would, I believe it would work as a deterent. Only the really bold, brassy ones that have the cahones to make a life out of being a "welly" now would go through all the trouble, i think it would really deter your average "welly".

The private sector is very much able to take care of the very FEW people that are TRULY needy in our country, unlike the gov't our churches, red crosses, united ways, ect will help you without making you DEPENDENT on getting something on a regular basis, therefore sending the message that if need a little help you can get it, but its time to be a productive member of society, or deal with the consequences of your laziness.

Drug testing is just the tip of the iceberg.....

Feb 28, 2011, 4:45pm Permalink
Bob Price

As for Mr.Barons thinking that drug testing may interfere w/ some amendment rights-why is it any different than being drug tested to get a job? So maybe we can lawyer up and tell all these companies that drug testing violates our rights? Hmm,maybe the lawmakers should just pass a law requiring it then.....they just love to try and take more rights away anyway.

Feb 28, 2011, 4:55pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

As much as it pains me to see the auses of my tax dollars, I have to agree with Howard. When they test positive, what do we do? Unless we are willing to throw them into the streets, or jails, either of which still make them a taxpayer burden then we have saved nothing. The logisitcs of the testing process would not be cheap either.

Feb 28, 2011, 6:12pm Permalink
Bob Harker

Although not welfare related, I found this to be an interesting aside when it comes to tax dollars being wasted/abused:

Fact: The number of state workers making more than $100,000 grew by 328 percent between 2000 and 2010, from 5,800 to 24,807.

Just sayin'.

Feb 28, 2011, 6:35pm Permalink
Brandon Burger

I oppose drug testing in the private sector and I oppose it in the public, too. Unfortunately, drug tests are too well-established and are a part of life.

With that being said, will the drug tests be required of every person seeking public assistance? Not just people on welfare or SSI, but also business owners who get any type of assistance from a program like the GCEDC? Or maybe farmers who get subsidies? Or Veterans seeking help at the VA? How about any bank executives who got bailout funds? Really the list goes on and on.

If you don't want to make them all take drug tests, then none of them should have to take them.

Feb 28, 2011, 9:35pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Brandon, the 1300+ who want to see one segment of society be screened would vote 'No" if you made your proposal about the more affluent, even though they are getting corporate welfare.

Feb 28, 2011, 9:48pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Bob, I never said it was any different. My aim is NOT to defend people who abuse the welfare system, it is to focus on how much we have to surrender of ourselves to comply with any government/corporate system.

We surrender our identity via Social Security number, our image via driver's license and IDs, our financial records via IRS, our property ownership via insurance records and property tax, our buying habits via credit card records and shopper's club cards, our prosecution record via DMV/court records, our personal chemistry via drug tests and soon our genetic markers via yet to emerge agencies. Where does it end? Most of it amounts to enriching some corporation so the CEO can be compensated with a more grandiose salary and heftier golden parachute.

For the amount of griping about the loss of personal rights, there seems to be but one concern: paying taxes. Is money the only surrendered property of concern?

It seems to me that the issue of what welfare recipients can purchase with their benefits would be easily controlled if they were NOT given cash or debit cards, instead had to acquire select items from a government store. ...Shelter payments made directly to the landlord and transportation accommodation directly to public transit. Don't supply WIC vouchers; give the family a carton of milk and box of cereal.

With supervised spending there would be no need to enforce drug tests.

Mar 1, 2011, 1:48am Permalink
Tom Guentner

Our lovely government created this monster & has no present intentions of quelling it. Just make sure that you don't end up hurting someone's feelings in the process - THAT'S what's more important than ANYTHING else right now. I agree with some of the other intelligent comments on here - If I have to take a test to be hired for a job, a person should have to take a test to receive a free handout, only to insure that the person receiving the benefits PROBABLY won't be using the money to purchase drugs to support a habit.

Mar 1, 2011, 6:49am Permalink
John Roach

CM,
You make a good point on how benefits should be administered, but still the benefits come from us.

You need help, you ask people (Social Service) we hired, with our tax money, to help you. They use our money to assist you. And in return, we want to know you are not using illegal drugs (a crime). We are not turning you over to the police, just saying you do not get our help or money until you test clean.

Bea,
Are you suggesting that stock holders of companies getting corporate welfare be tested? If so, would you agree to test anyone in subsidized government housing (a form of welfare) also?

Mar 1, 2011, 7:06am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Its not just this, anyone convicted of a felony should also be denied. As well as people who arent actively doing something to improve their life. Everyone cries "get a job" but that doesn't have to be the only solution. Maybe a contingency should be then find a school or tradeschool to learn a skill that can get you employed. To which an excuse will be made that some cant get to school or have issues that prevent that... well then thats what disability or ssi is for right? It's still our tax dollar but its been more thoroughly screened.

The fact is there are people out there who have made the welfare system a way of life. I can tell you people in rehab are on public assistance. The notion is that if denied they become homeless or go hungry is not very factual either. Churches and social organizations like the rescue mission and salvation army exsist as well. If denied they do with less. I doubt they would be kicked off completely they would just lose their in hand cash assistance, or maybe their foodstamps. They dont see their rent, or their heat monies going this.

Public assistance isnt the only game either for that, you can get housing costs covered by HUD as well. Theres so much that can be utilized that all of you may not be aware of. I have had 2 fires in my life that have wiped me out to what clothes I had on my back. When that happens you dont get much assistance as a single guy, but each time I had less than a year on PA because unlike others who told me to get a job under the table and have them pay rent and stuff, I believe in working for what I have.

As a side note Melissa as for your assessment on the job availability here locally, before making the judgement that people arent working because there are no jobs.... Try applying at McD's or BK and see how selective they have become, especially in an economy like this, they have much much more of a labor pool to choose from, and can afford to become VERY selective. Its not the sure thing you believe it to be, as are jobs at walmart, tops and kmart as well.

Mar 1, 2011, 7:42am Permalink
Bob Harker

CM, there you go again - making sense.

All of the ideas you have on controlling the way benefits are spent are good. An easy way to start would be to put ALL benefits on the EBT card - removing the need for cash. What can - and cannot - be purchased with that card is somewhat controlled at the point of sale. I say somewhat because there are many, many people who beat the controls in place today. Its easy and I saw it daily while working in a store on North Clinton in Rochester. Your government "store" would be ideal.

Problem is, no politician in office today has the balls to even broach the subject. Too politically incorrect for the powers that be and the media. I believe everyday people would embrace and support such action, as evidenced by this poll, but our voice is unheard.

Maziarz's proposal is simply a start in the right direction. Sadly, I doubt it will receive much support from either side of the aisle - too politically charged.

Mar 1, 2011, 7:44am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Sorry my bad cold is mudding my thought process....

Melissa my point was that to make the point that people arent working because they dont want McD's and BK jobs is false.

My bad....

Mar 1, 2011, 7:46am Permalink
shelly mathers

You people are forgetting about the innocent children that would eventually suffer from their parents not being able to get assistance because they failed a drug test. I think having people take a drug test to get assistance is a good idea but I don't think making innocent children suffer because their parent is a POS is very wrong.

Mar 1, 2011, 10:20am Permalink
doug smith

how about the people who collect food stamps ...daycare assitance .....heap.......and what ever other freebees out there......oh free health care......
when you go over to there houses and see emply beer cans piled as high as the freezer....both sides......and smoke two packs a day.....oh and they buy them from the idians......the one way for them to pay a little into the system......thanks for your help .....indians......
test them for nicotine and alcohol.....
dont think i will work ......i just sucks we work and others suck us dry like vampires

Mar 1, 2011, 4:02pm Permalink
Bill Bogan

first off, wow weird thread, i disagree with CM and Bea but agree with John....

Bea, if someone has a valid prescription a positive result should be expected and accounted for not a means to kick off.

CM public assistance is a priviledge nota right, therefore if you feel the application costs are too high you dont have to fill it out.

my problem is this question is too open ended. applicant tests positive for marijuana or cocaine, now what? give benefits on a probationary level as long as they do outpatient treatment and dont their results go down in level or are negative they can keep them? or do you send them away until their test is negative?

I do like your idea CM about giving items not a debit card to buy the stuff, but i'm sure some will still sell them to get the cigs/beer.

my #1 issue is that public help (for the working group, not SS) is designed to give someone a hand UP. but the wa the system works its more of a hand OUT and hard to get off it, especially for single parents. you work and your benefits drop off faster than the pay can pick it up...

Mar 1, 2011, 9:05pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Bill, I'm not at all surprised that you disagree with me. That is what makes these threads interesting.
Are there people who abuse the system? Yes.
If someone knows that they will need to be drug screened when they apply for assistance, then it is most likely that they will lay off whatever illegal substance until after the test. After that, if random drug screening is introduced, then it is a crap shoot.

False positives are not that easy to dismiss. There is additional testing, documentation, etc. to prove that the person is not taking whatever drug they are testing. All of that will cost additional money. Who pays for it, the poor soul who tested the false positive?

As C.M. stated, and I realize you don't agree with him, which tests should they do? Drug screening isn't a one stop shop. There are various, and costly tests. Which one, Bill?

What amount of satisfaction will you get from having 80 and 90 year old senior citizens being screened for illegal drugs in routine random tests? Remember, even with documentation and prescriptions, they will still be part of this random drug screening.
Of course, taking a thought from another poster, you will have to find where that senior citizen is doing their 20-40 hours of volunteer service to pay back for the food stamps they receive.
If someone is abusing the system, by all means use the channels available to remove them.
However, as someone else stated, anyone receiving benefits is a criminal and stealing from those who pay their taxes.
Ironic, isn't it that the seniors, who paid and paid, are now considered criminals because they have a genuine need.
So, go aheade and disagree with me. Each of us is entitled to their own thoughts.

Mar 1, 2011, 9:21pm Permalink
shelly mathers

Is anyone going to stop a parent from doing drugs if they really want too? No. Do you think that there are no kids out there now that aren't in that situation? At least if the parents have this help the kids have a place to stay from HUD, their house warm from HEAP, daycare assistance while the parent is out doing whatever they are really doing and maybe the parents are spending the little left they have from welfare on the children. If all of that is cut off then where do you leave those kids? Even worse than they already are.
I don't believe any child should be in any situation even remotely close to it but at least there is something for them.
Just saying.
There is way more to it than just drug testing people and cutting them off. Maybe I am just the only one thinking about it like this but I think it is a very good concern.

Mar 1, 2011, 9:25pm Permalink
Bill Bogan

Bea i said that because generally I agree with you and CM.

I guess part of it is I don't get your concern over false positives. if its your worried about medication that they are legally prescribed (opiates for back pain, etc) that should simply be the first part of the test to bring proof, a list from the pharmacy, pill bottle etc to show that you are prescribed the medication.

otherwise what is your concern?

and to be clear (since you are talking about senior citizens) i don't think social security should fall under this, that is a different category because you paid into the program and are now able to receive the stipend you are entitled to.

What drugs are tested for should depend on what are identifiable as prevelant in the area. i'd say marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines opiates would be one place to start.

Erica, you could also argue that giving parents benefits that they are using to finance their drug habit is bad for the kids....

ok lets change the topic a little, drug testing is required to receive certain forms of public assistance, ie food stamps, cash assistance and hud. What should the program involve?

my idea would be a test at the start and on a random basis afterwards. First positive result (unless you have a valid prescription) requires a drug abuse evaluation and if you don't complete follow through with treatment or continue to test positive your benefits are suspended for X amount of time.

Mar 2, 2011, 2:52am Permalink

Authentically Local