Substance abuse screening; person become ineligible for public assistance if using illegal drugs. (HB365)

Introduced By

Sen. Bill Carrico (R-Grayson) with support from co-patron Del. Danny Marshall (R-Danville)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Substance abuse screening and assessment of public assistance applicants and recipients. Requires local departments of social services to conduct a screening of all applicants or recipients of public assistance. This bill provides that, where a screening indicates reasonable cause to believe an applicant or recipient is using illegal drugs, the applicant or recipient may be required to submit to drug testing. Where a drug test indicates that the applicant or recipient is using illegal drugs, the person shall become ineligible for public assistance. The person may reapply for public assistance once 12 months have elapsed from the date of initial ineligibility. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


01/04/2008Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 083129460
01/04/2008Referred to Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions
01/22/2008Impact statement from DPB (HB365)
01/24/2008Reported from Health, Welfare and Institutions with substitute (20-Y 2-N) (see vote tally)
01/24/2008Referred to Committee on Appropriations
01/25/2008Committee substitute printed 088555460-H1
01/29/2008Assigned App. sub: Health & Human Resources (Hamilton)
01/31/2008Impact statement from DPB (HB365H1)
02/12/2008Left in Appropriations


Alison Hymes writes:

How will anyone without money of their own get substance abuse treatment if they are barred from public assistance and therefore Medicaid because of their substance abuse problem? How will this bill not cause more drug abuse than it stops? Someone who reaches out for help finally is going to be told to come back in 12 months??

L. Lawless writes:

Oh, there are so many quality FREE substance abuse programs, they'll have no problem getting the help they need.

This has been bandied about for some time. It fits nicely with refusing unemployment benefits. What a great package.

spotter writes:

It's pretty clear that this is unconstitutional. Why don't we perform a substance abuse screening and assessment of all General Assembly members?

Timothy Watson writes:

Unfortunately spotter, that's unconstitutional as well: Chandler v. Miller; 520 U.S. 305 (1997):

Jayme Glover writes:

Substance abusers often are unable to stop using thats why its an addiction, and has been classified as a disease by the DSM. So, were going to end up punishing people for something they often can't help, how counter-productive!