Tuesday, January 18, 2011


Much has been made over the last couple of days about a bill prefiled by State House Representative Lonnie Napier of Lancaster, KY. It seems everyone has an opinion but in my estimation the clear majority want this bill to pass and why not?

There is no doubt whatsoever that many receiving food stamps, and other government assistance, clearly use this money for their own gain whether that be drugs or some other thing of value to them. That has never been the intent nor should it ever be the intent of government assistance.

They are not wasting their money they are wasting ours. Money that I could put to good use for my own family and needs. Not to subsidize someone who for whatever reason chooses not to use the help properly.

Some have used the argument that this is just another step into regulating morality. Regulating morality?

How in the heck can anyone make that assumption. I am all for freedom myself. You want to use illegal drugs. That is your choice if you want to risk paying the price legally BUT when you use my money for such I am not regulating your lifestyle with your money, I am regulating the use of my money for its intended purpose.

Try going to get an auto loan on a car and tell them you are going to use the money to buy drugs instead. Think you will get the money?

When you sign up for food stamps you are saying I need help to eat and I will use this money for that purpose.

When you sell them to a neighbor, friend, or stranger for anything other than that you just said you can afford to eat on your dime. Many "sell" these food stamps, or lets be clear here use of their food stamp credit card, for mere pennies on the dollar so they can use the money for something else. Like drugs.

While they may get 50 cents on the dollar to feed their personal habits it still cost us a dollar and that is unacceptable.

That is a dollar that someone in real need could use for the right reasons.

Then there is my favorite argument from some. "If you are going to force everyone on welfare assistance to drug test than everyone who gets a government check should be forced to as well including elected officials and government employees."

NOW you are talking. I have advocated this for many years but the likelihood of it actually working that way is slim to none unless We The People demand such. It is high past time that we do so.

I know of at least 2 judges who would fail miserably if forced to take an unannounced drug test along with a whole host of lawyers. All on the public dime.

I also know that there are several products on the market that will help show a "clean" drug test if given any amount of time to allow it to work. Many people depend on them to stay employed or get a job since most private sector employees now require a drug test to get hired.

Believe it or not they actually work so how can you schedule a random drug test and expect a real result. You simply can't so the pharmaceutical industry wins because of purchases from the private sector and the drug testers win by selling more tests.

The solution is a simple one. After an immediate drug test for elected officials with no advance warning then apply the same to anyone asking for benefits. They have to do a drug test immediately upon signing up for benefits.

Right there at that time for an initial evaluation. Then they have to sign accepting a random unannounced drug test within 3 months of receiving benefits if approved. Up to 2 unannounced drug tests within year. Same goes for elected officials and government employees. Though it should be noted that government employees generally must submit to a random drug test as the private sector does in most cases.

Which brings me to this for those who keep using the kids as the excuse of why we should not. "Oh the kids will suffer and do without." Hogwash.

If the parents don't care enough about their kids that they sell their food stamps at a reduced rate for their own gain then the kids are doing without now because of the parents selfishness. That is on their shoulders not yours or mine.

If the parents cannot pass a drug test and are denied assistance then we now have an indicator as to what homes need their children put in foster care, or taken from their home, for their own safety and well being.

At that point at least the child would be getting fed and not used for drug money or other nonsense that the parent prefers over their own child.

Anyone who truly needs the help would understand this.

Harsh? Not really.

Throughout history we have always heard politicians use the slogan mentality of giving people a hand up but have ultimately turned it into giving people a handout. A handout simply makes one dependent over time and not able to rationally rely even on themselves to provide the basics for any standard of living for themselves or their families.

In short this dependency ultimately makes one a slave to that entity that provides for them and one loses the self esteem that any rational person would equate to understanding the simplest use of personal responsibility.

Have I ever used unemployment? Yep so have many others. Most understand that this is supposed to be a temporary hand up not a handout and are grateful when they finally get a job and no longer have to rely on someone else.

Unfortunately for some it is a way of life because they are too conditioned to believe that living off someone else is a way of life, or have become so dependent that they believe it is their "right" to not take personal responsibility for themselves, or their families including their children.

Anyone can make excuses for their failures and anyone can take action accordingly. The question is how do we gain accountability for using our money to help, not hinder, the progress of those who need it most.

Forcing this action, and including elected officials, is a step in the right direction.


  1. I smell what you're stepping in friend, but who is going to pay for all these drug tests? And what cut-rate, low-bidding company will win the bid and then ship the work overseas to some lab in India? In other words, who's going to get rich by wrapping this huge expense up in a pretty Cadillac-driving-welfare-cheating-mama bow so, once again, the public can feel self righteous when, in reality, they're really getting screwed.

  2. How 'bout drug testing for everyone who has a gun?

  3. Let's try this again. What about drug testing people with guns?

  4. Well anonymous number one the fact is someone will get paid $30 according to Napier. Figure that they lose benfits if they test positive and we save a whole lot more than that.

    WIth that said no one would argue that it will cost money to test the question is, is it cost effective to do so. In my eyes and many others the resounding answer is yes.

    Keep in mind that I advocate ANYONE who is receiving our tax money specifically elected officials should also have to submit to the same requirement. This isn't just about welfare recipients.

    Anonymous number 2 and 3 (yeah I know same person don't be so impatient :-)), I would have a problem with forcing a drug test on gun owners. The government does not buy my guns with your tax dollars therefore have no say in the matter in my opinion.

    With that being said you may have one argument though.

    Perhaps some thought should be given to mandatory drug test when you purchase a gun. With a three day waiting period and a background check that could probably work.

    See what the readers think about that but also remember this:

    Criminals will get guns without being tested and they could care less about it either way. So the harder you make it for legal citizens to obtain guns to a degree you are empowering the criminal even more.

    Thanks for writing folks.


Thank you for reading LNP. Open and honest discussions of local politics and relevant issues is important to voter understanding. Please listen to the "Ed Springston Show". We broadcast Monday through Thursday evenings at 7 PM on local media outlets. Please check for the links.
Yours truly,
Ed Springston


The Metro removal hearing case against Dan Johnson ended about the way it began. With many in disbelief. I could not understand how the &q...