77th (2013) Session
Opinions
View all submitted comments for each bill by the most recent, by votes for, or by votes against.
| SB89 | ||
| - | ||
| Against | I'm not sure I'm comfortable with people being put on trial for being on public assistance. I'm sure most are are honorable human beings, doing the best they can. There are people who are on drugs who aren't on any assistance. The plague of drugs covers people in all economic situations. It's not fair to just target people on assistance and may violate a federal law even if this bill passed. | May-08-2013 |
| Against | When it comes to the bill SB89, I stand against implementing it for three strong reasons: Drug testing welfare recipients as a condition of eligibility is a policy that is scientifically, fiscally, and constitutionally unsound. The issues are that it is too costly, it goes against individual’s civil liberties and has been proven to be an insignificant problem in society. Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population, which has been proven. According to the Tampa Bay Times, when this law was in effect in the state of Florida, only 2.6% of the people tested came up positive. The ACLU states that before the Michigan policy was halted, only 3% tested positive for illicit hard drugs. Also, the ACLU states after many studies that seventy percent of illicit drug users are actually employed full-time. This law would also go against the U.S. Constitution that our country was built on. This would violate individual’s Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches. It also wrongfully creates a stigma that most welfare recipients are drug users. In support of this being unconstitutional, in the states that did make this policy into a law, many individuals sued the state and won. In the state of Michigan, the ACLU has informed people that a federal judge blocked this law because it sets a dangerous precedent under the Constitution. In Florida, the ACLU gives a case about a man named Luis Lebron who was a struggling upstanding citizen and felt degraded by this law; he took it took the courts which agreed that this law is not strong enough. Lastly, with our state of Nevada having a 9.8% unemployment rate, one of the highest in the country, we cannot afford unnecessary testing using tax-payers dollars. Drug use amongst welfare recipients is not a significant problem; economic issues that involve unemployment, education, and real estate should be dealt with first. Thank you for your time and consideration. | May-01-2013 |
| Against | I am strongly against Nevada drug testing welfare recipients and I oppose this bill. I want to you to consider three issues: number one it is costly, number 2 it is unconstitutional, and number 3 it doesn't medically prove anything. There seems to be an atmosphere of hysteria as several states try to find someone to punish for our current economic situation and who better than those least able to defend themselves. Do you know what our Constitution and Amendments are? Number 1 this goes against our fourth amendment, and is an intrusion.The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, in a ruling, held Florida had not demonstrated a substantial special need that justified suspending the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. A Nevada law of this nature would never make it past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Number 2 if we take Florida as a model, it didn't save their state any money in fact cost them a net loss of $45,000. The data released today show’s Florida spent $118,140 reimbursing the overwhelming number of Florida TANF applicants. Of the 4, 86 TANF applicants, only 108 individuals tested positive, do your mat and my third issue is President George W. Bush noted once, “the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the fourth amendment is a fundamental constitutional right and that to subject all applicants for TANF to drug testing would cause irreparable harm to those subject to the screening. This demonizes and demoralizes those American’s most in need of help. Also let me restate my previous issue in case you were dozing off, to make matters worse, Florida used federal TANF funds to reimburse those who passed their test. In other words, federal taxpayer money specifically purposed to help people with rent payments, heating costs, children’s clothing, and other essentials was used to pay for drug test that did little but confirm that there is no heightened epidemic of drug use among recipients of public benefits | May-01-2013 |
| For | Public assistance is a wonderful thing and saves the lives of many. I am not against welfare, but what I am against is those receiving public assistance who are abusing illegal substances. It is completely unethical and as a working taxpayer I am funding those using these drugs illegally. Many are not using drugs, but for the ones that are it is only fair that they get drug tested, just like I get drug tested to receive my checks biweekly (keep in mind, I’m WORKING for my money). Not to mention that our military and union members get drug tested several times a year! Public assistance is a privilege, a privilege that should be given AFTER knowing they aren't using the money GIVEN to them for things they shouldn't be-particularly drugs. If people on welfare, food stamps, etc. have enough money to buy illegal drugs for recreational use, they should have enough money to pay their bills. Welfare is 100% about children and is fundamentally about protecting the well-being of families-NOT for the drug users to buy drugs with. It's unfair, destructive, unethical, unconstitutional. The RIGHT thing to do is drug test those receiving public assistance, not only for those to get the help they need, but to let the taxpayers know their money is being used for those properly using what public assistance is all about!!! As a nation and a state, we should not be condoning drug use by funding those who take part in illegal action. | Apr-30-2013 |
| Against | Nevada will not save money they will spend more than they save and it invades our constitutional rights. | Apr-02-2013 |
| Against | This law is an invasion of privacy by the state. | Mar-29-2013 |
| Against | I cannot support a bill that will leave children hungry because their parents may or may not have a drug problem. I also cannot support a bill that would take away assistance from poor families & give it to the corporate drug rehabs that have recently moved into Nevada. We were told during the last session that our teachers had to take pay cuts for the good of the School District & the State. However, 6500 kids got Ipads at 5 middle schools & the campus wi-fi was upgraded extensively at the schools for a 1 year project.More schools will participate next year. Our teachers are still sacrificing.It seems to me that all the cuts shored up money for Apple & Century Link.An update to the "2007 BioInitiative Report", the "2012 BioInitiative Report" was recently released & many independent scientists have concluded that the level at which wireless technologies have been set for public exposures has been set thousands of times too high & children are being harmed.The levels are especially high when there are multiple devices in a given area. The Education Technology Committee has immunity from prosecution for their actions. This bill is corporate welfare & children will be the ones to pay for it. There are already thousands of hungry kids in Nevada. What kind of a society are we? Will Kroll get the testing contracts? | Mar-26-2013 |
| Against | Fiscal notes show this would cost the taxpayers $26,677,802.00, and that doesn't include the costs of legal defense against the inevitable constitutional challenges. Why not drug-test State legislators while we're at it - and if State legislators find that insulting, that's the point. Applying for public assistance is demeaning enough to the citizenry - why make it insulting? | Mar-22-2013 |
| For | The working people who pay for welfare are required to take drug tests for employment and so should those applying for welfare benefit. | Mar-17-2013 |
| For | Mar-14-2013 | |
| For | I strongly favor this bill. Many individuals must routinely drug test to keep their job. Individuals should be required to do the same to keep their benefits. | Mar-12-2013 |
| For | I am definitely against supporting a drug user with welfare money. | Mar-12-2013 |
| For | Mar-11-2013 | |
| For | Mar-11-2013 | |
| For | Mar-11-2013 | |
| Against | Once again you have a solution looking for a problem. Did the statistics in Florida tell you nothining. This will cost large amounts of money to find that the drug problems don't exist here like you think they do and NV doesn't have the money to do that. | Mar-08-2013 |
| For | Mar-05-2013 | |
| For | Seems like a common sense requirement for anyone collecting taxpayer money. Don't public employees get drug tested? | Mar-05-2013 |
| For | Mar-04-2013 | |
| Against | This has not worked in other states, and would be too expensive. People who have addictions have a mental illness, and should not be excluded from basic services. Should people that drink alcohol be excluded? | Feb-23-2013 |
| For | Absolutely. I have to take a drug test for employment, why shouldn't those who are asking for assistance have to take a test. I object to my tax dollars supporting drugs. I also think there should be some provision that says what the aid can be used to purchase. I am amazed all the time at people that are collecting public services that have nicer clothes that I do and they all have smart phones and drive really nice cars. If they can afford to smoke, drink and drive around in Cadillac's then they don't need our tax dollars to support their children. I also think that additional children should not add to their aid packages. There should be a stipulation that if they have more kids while on aid that they are automatically terminated from said services. | Feb-20-2013 |
| For | Of course, this should be a requirement. Why should taxpayers pay for recreational drug users to utilize the public trough of money? While we are at it, make sure that exceptions are kept to a bare minimum and no loopholes in the law. Treatment programs are notoriously ineffective and poorly managed. | Feb-13-2013 |
| Against | Even state employees and teachers should be drug tested if welfare patients have to be tested. | Feb-11-2013 |
| For | I commend Sen. James Settelmeyer for introducing this common sense bill. The intent of this bill should be considered as a positive route for individuals to rid themselves of dependency on controlled substances and public assistance. Hard working, productive members of society are tired of paying the way for deadbeats. | Feb-11-2013 |
| For | When taxpaying employed individuals have to submit to ramdom drug testing, why in the name of good sense don't those who live off the working man/woman have to do the same? If there is no money for rehab in the state budget, tough on the recipient. Just cut off their so called entitlements for a couple of months, and if they are clean after that,put them back on.Re-test and if positive cut them off for a year. The notion of personal responsibility needs to be brought back. | Feb-10-2013 |
| For | How could anyone oppose this? This is the taxpayer money and the taxpayers should not be paying for anyone who it taking drugs. | Feb-10-2013 |
| Against | THE LAW AS WRITTEN LEVES TO MUCH UNANSEWERED. WHO PAYS FOR THE TEST, HOW OFTEN ARE THE TESTS. WHO PAYS FOR THE REHAB. | Feb-10-2013 |
| For | Many work applicants are asked to submit to drug testing. It seems only right that persons requesting free public assistance be asked to do the same. I believe, also that they should be tested every 90 days to remain eligible. The money used to test these applicants, will be easily recouped by not paying out thousands of dollars to drug-using recipients. This is a great bill! | Feb-09-2013 |
| For | With YOUR OWN money you should be able to buy and consume ANY drug you want and put in in YOUR OWN body and YOU are responsible for the results of your behaviour as long as you don't endanger others (impaired driving). Tax-payer money is money that the government has confiscated from working people and savers through taxes and/or inflation. It's not only "illegal drugs" that welfare recipients should not buy and consume, but tobacco and alcohol. This bill is a step in the right direction, but I fear that it is nicotine/tobacco that is the big money burner and health destroyer among the welfare recipients, not narcotics. | Feb-09-2013 |
| For | All receivers of welfare should be drug tested regularly. | Feb-09-2013 |
| For | Dear Senator Kihuen: I read in today’s Review Journal that state Senator James Settelmeyer has proposed a bill to require random drug testing of welfare recipients. I urge you to support his bill, and even to co-sponsor it. Although I see several problems with the bill as proposed, it is a step in the right direction. We need to address the problem of drug abuse, and we have to power to force those abusers on the welfare rolls into rehab. Please support Senator Settelmeyer. | Feb-08-2013 |
| For | It is time we stop paying for people that use drug to get our tax dollars for public assistance. | Feb-08-2013 |
| Against | Statistics show that there is not a widespread problem with welfare recipients and drug abuse. Most people on public assistance are families with children. We can not allow people like our own legistalative representatives to perpetuate the stereotype that because people are poor they are lazy or "on drugs". What a waste of our legislative time and dollars to pursue something so partisian. The enforcement of this type of wasteful and unneeded law would be prohibitive. Who would pay for this? Our state is virtually last in all categories, unbelievable to me that you are focusing on something like this instead of doing the true work our state needs for recovery. | Feb-07-2013 |
| Against | Have you people ever done any research and found out that every state that has done this has found out that almost no social service recipients are using drugs? Just a huge waste of time and resources. SHAME on the legislature for even considering this | Feb-07-2013 |
| For | Good idea | Feb-06-2013 |
| Against | Feb-06-2013 | |
 Session Info | NELIS | Interim Info | Law Library | General Info | Counsel Bureau | Research Library | Assembly | Senate | FAQs View Scheduled Meetings | Publications | Proposals | Career Opportunities | Gift Shop | Site Map | Contact Us © 2013 Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau |
|