Senator Trip Pittman of Alabama’s 32nd District (Baldwin)
If the person tests positive, he will receive a warning that any subsequent positive test will result in a loss of benefits. A second positive test will result in the loss of benefits for one year. A third positive screening will make the person permanently ineligible.
My opinion/post: I don’t understand why it has to be “3-strikes”? Why can’t it be more marginal like the second “strike” implies? As in, you fail the test once- you get a warning. Fail it twice – some loss of benefits. Fail it three times – some more loss. And so on.
Then when/if the person cleans up and they start passing the tests, they can get their subsidy reinstated. Seems like this would be much more incentivizing and appropriate.