States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

[samclem]

According to this AP story, more states are looking to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving food stamps, welfare payments, and even unemployment insurance payments.

Probably a sign of the times. As the demand for these payments outstrips available funds, states will look for a way to pare costs. On the bright side, it may get some folks into treatment a little sooner, and possibly help states identify some unhealthy home situations that would not have been recognized otherwise.

 

[harley]

I doubt this is to pare down costs. More like playing the politics of resentment. Most drugs don't show up in tests after a few days, except of course for pot. And they won't be testing for alcohol abuse or gambling. It won't stand up in court anway.

"Michigan passed a welfare drug testing law in 1999 that required all Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) applicants to provide urine samples to be considered eligible for assistance. But that program was shut down almost immediately by a restraining order. Three and a half years later, the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier district court ruling that the blanket, suspicionless testing of recipients violated the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures and was thus unconstitutional.
"This ruling should send a message to the rest of the nation that drug testing programs like these are neither an appropriate or effective use of a state's limited resources," said the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project head Graham Boyd at the time."

 

[tmm99]

Can those people who fail the drug test get a free rehab? Or they lose the welfare benefits and become homeless because they cannot stop the drugs by their sheer will? What happens to the children if those people have children?

How can this work??

tmm

 

[harley]

Hmmm, I just thought of a new business opportunity. Selling my urine at the unemployment line! All I'd have to do would be keep myself hydrated, I could probably knock out 4 or 5 tests/day. And I could hire some college kids to help, sort of outsourcing it. Assuming I could find any who could pass the tests.

Your questions are valid, and certainly haven't been considered seriously by those proposing the legislation. It will be interesting to watch this process. I still think the courts will slap it down if it gets that far.

 

[tmm99]

All I'd have to do would be keep myself hydrated

Or not drink any water at all all day... It would be more concentrated and portable for shipping etc....

 

[RonBoyd]

And they won't be testing for alcohol abuse or gambling. It won't stand up in court anway.

Or for television use... which has the same potential for mind-numbing abuse. Not to mention the mind-altering aspect.

 

[dex]

I don't think it is legal. If you take government money; it doesn't mean you can be forced to give up your right against self incrimination. (This is not a work place issue.)

 

[samclem]

I don't think it is legal. If you take government money; it doesn't mean you can be forced to give up your right against self incrimination. (This is not a work place issue.)

I'm not sure self-incrimination is the issue. If the state simply denies benefits (but does not prosecute) for those who test positive, there's no self-incrimination issue. Those who get into rehab and stick with it or who otherwise get clean can get the aid.

I'm not defending the program in its entirety, but I do think those applying to receive state/federal money (which is not a right) can be required to meet tests to receive that money.

My biggest concern is for the kids of folks who have a serious drug problem. I don't know if this proposed program helps or hurts in these cases.

 

[Brat]

We really need to make efforts to decrease drug use. Yes, it won't address all dependencies but don't let the imperfection stop attempts to deal with it. I prefer that route to incarceration. I don't get excited by marijuana use in moderation but if you are receiving financial assistance sacrifices are appropriate.

It is my understanding that addicts deep in their illness won't participate. Casual users likely will.

 

[bbbamI]

I prefer not to have tax dollars spent on illegal drugs...but hey, that's just me.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

I prefer not to have tax dollars spent on illegal drugs...but hey, that's just me.

But what about their rights to take drugs.. Shouldn't us taxpayers help do that!

 

[dex]

I'm not sure self-incrimination is the issue. If the state simply denies benefits (but does not prosecute) for those who test positive, there's no self-incrimination issue. Those who get into rehab and stick with it or who otherwise get clean can get the aid.

I think the ACLU might say drug testing, then denying benefits if positive of illegal drug is self incrimination and punishment without a trial.

 

[ziggy29]

I think if these programs also include funding for treatment and rehab as the criterion for continued eligibility instead of cutting them off cold turkey, I think it's a good idea.

I think in terms of scarlet letters and punitive governmental, employment and law enforcement actions toward users, we've already done too much to discourage people from getting clean and sober. I think we need to reverse that trend to the point where getting help and successfully being rehabbed isn't the future-killer it can be today. It's better to hide it and secretly function than seek help and be outed as unemployable as things are today, and that's a shame.

 

[harley]

My biggest concern is for the kids of folks who have a serious drug problem. I don't know if this proposed program helps or hurts in these cases.

This is a serious concern, but I doubt taking away the kids benefits will be helpful. And I seriously doubt the governments' ability to deal with the results of the testing with either compassion or intelligence. JMO.

I prefer not to have tax dollars spent on illegal drugs...but hey, that's just me.

I agree. Legalize it! YouTube - Peter Tosh- Legalize it

 

[RonBoyd]

I agree. Legalize it!

and, I suppose, "ladies of the night"?

 

[Khan]

and, I suppose, "ladies of the night"?

Why not?

 

[bbbamI]

...with only one thing in common...they got the FIRE down below....

 

[Purron]

I agree. Legalize it!

Somehow I suspect we went to the same kinda parties back in the dayO0

 

[harley]

Somehow I suspect we went to the same kinda parties back in the dayO0

We may have been at the same parties. I can't remember.

 

[armor99]

To be honest... I am not sure that I care if someone wants to waste their life, gambling, doing drugs, drinking themselves into oblivion etc. The only problem that I have, is them using my dime (via taxes) to do it.

What I would do (I believe we have the tech at this point) is to issue welfare recipents some sort of electronic card that can only be used in certain stores, to buy only certain products. As in "Sorry Mr. Smith... but your welfare card will not purchase alcohol in our store." Remember, being on welfare is not about being made "comfortable" and having things be convienient for you.

Every week that card can be re-filled at the local welfare office only by the legal holder of it, and yes ID would be required. Good luck trying to buy booze or lottery tickets with that....

 

[FUEGO]

Maybe we should just legalize it and get rid of all these expensive welfare programs (any other libertarians??).

I'm trying to figure out a way to tie this in to some FIRE-related topic, but I'm drawing a blank here. And I'm 100% totally sober right now.

Edit to add:

If I become the recipient of unemployment insurance, I'm going to spend my entire first check on two things: booze and toilet paper. The first is like a middle finger to the man, and the second, well, I want to buy about a thousand rolls of toilet paper and make a sculpture out of it.

 

[harley]

To be honest... I am not sure that I care if someone wants to waste their life, gambling, doing drugs, drinking themselves into oblivion etc. The only problem that I have, is them using my dime (via taxes) to do it.

What I would do (I believe we have the tech at this point) is to issue welfare recipents some sort of electronic card that can only be used in certain stores, to buy only certain products. As in "Sorry Mr. Smith... but your welfare card will not purchase alcohol in our store." Remember, being on welfare is not about being made "comfortable" and having things be convienient for you.

Every week that card can be re-filled at the local welfare office only by the legal holder of it, and yes ID would be required. Good luck trying to buy booze or lottery tickets with that....

Not a bad idea, but it will just result in a barter black market, where the card holder would buy milk and bread in the store and trade it at a discount for cash to buy the bad stuff. Desire trumps tech every time.

As far as not using our tax dollars on people getting high, our government spends my tax dollars on so many other things I disapprove of so much more (war, prohibition, and bailouts come to mind immediately) that this particular problem is just a blip on my radar, as well as a very tiny portion of the overall tax spending. It all comes down to government having to tell people what to do.

 

[armor99]

Not a bad idea, but it will just result in a barter black market, where the card holder would buy milk and bread in the store and trade it at a discount for cash to buy the bad stuff. Desire trumps tech every time.

As far as not using our tax dollars on people getting high, our government spends my tax dollars on so many other things I disapprove of so much more (war, prohibition, and bailouts come to mind immediately) that this particular problem is just a blip on my radar, as well as a very tiny portion of the overall tax spending. It all comes down to government having to tell people what to do.

Sigh.... so true... There is no way to "legislate" responsible behavior. I guess the best you can do is make it as difficult as you can to "milk" the system, and then hope for the best.

I agree with you the very notion of the govt telling me, or anyone else what to do with their lives, rubs me just about every wrong way..

 

[lets-retire]

If the Congress critters and White House can get angry about allowing large bonuses to be paid to employees of a company receiving government assistance, why can't I be angry when I see welfare recipients use money for food and rent buy drugs. Laws are being contemplated to stop the bonuses, why can't laws be passed that will protect the taxpayers role in providing assistance to those individuals who ask the government for a bailout?

Don't give me the crap that it's all about their civil rights. The bonuses paid were specifically allowed by law. There was nothing illegal about them, yet that doesn't seem to have stopped the critters from demanding some onerous tax scheme to seize the property of the populace. Using drugs is illegal. Using my tax money to buy illegal drugs is not and has not ever been legal. Why can't I demand those people who have shown an inability to manage their lives be required to live their lives in a legal manner? What costs more drug testing and rehab or the cycle of dependence with intermittent periods under correction control.

 

[armor99]

If the Congress critters and White House can get angry about allowing large bonuses to be paid to employees of a company receiving government assistance, why can't I be angry when I see welfare recipients use money for food and rent buy drugs. Laws are being contemplated to stop the bonuses, why can't laws be passed that will protect the taxpayers role in providing assistance to those individuals who ask the government for a bailout?

Don't give me the crap that it's all about their civil rights. The bonuses paid were specifically allowed by law. There was nothing illegal about them, yet that doesn't seem to have stopped the critters from demanding some onerous tax scheme to seize the property of the populace. Using drugs is illegal. Using my tax money to buy illegal drugs is not and has not ever been legal. Why can't I demand those people who have shown an inability to manage their lives be required to live their lives in a legal manner? What costs more drug testing and rehab or the cycle of dependence with intermittent periods under correction control.

Very well stated... and I agree. Unfortunately that sort of thinking goes against the current PC gone wild world view, we are currently in the middle of.

If you are poor you are always assumed to be the victim, and if you are wealthy, or somewhat better off, you are viewed as the oppressor. For some, it really does not matter what facts, figures, or logic might show the contrary to be true.

Where you and I would see a drug addict, others will see a "troubled individual downtrodden by society". One grouip belives that we are all responsible for our own actions, both the good and bad. The other group claims the only reason people ever do bad things is because of a "misunderstanding" or were forced into doing it by "society" pressure. Essentially, one reason or another why an individuals actions are not his/her personal fault.

The world is a big and scary place... you can get hurt out here, and your bad decisions can get you killed, or doom you to a life of misery. I like the challenges of life though... sort of what gives it meaning for me.