By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Drug testing for those on Welfare? Your thoughts?

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Virginia Legislature who has created a Web site — notwithmytaxdollars.com — that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.

A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.

In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.

Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.

"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."

Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.

Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.

In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.

The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.

But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

At least six states — Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia — tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.

They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWSQNKlnu1j_2qJbg2HdBi_HUEaQD975O5Q80



Around the Network

I can see it... for state funded healthcare for the poor or discounts or something like that...

Unemployment and stuff like that seems well over the line though.

Of course i think drugs should be legal anyway. (even if i would never use them.)



i cant read all that but i do agree with the title.....



i agree whole heartily with this

i feel you really need to stop with the hand outs and start giving a hand up



 

isnt a better solution to just legalise drugs?



Around the Network

that or just completely remove welfare because its just lazy people leeching off of taxpayers



SciFiBoy said:
isnt a better solution to just legalise drugs?

You'd think.

If people are being random tested for drugs you'd think they should be random tested for booze and other such things as well.

Or maybe even just go to peoples houses if you want to go that far.

I mean drugs waste money, but so many people waste welfare assistance on stuff like flatscreens too.

 

 



coolestguyever said:
that or just completely remove welfare because its just lazy people leeching off of taxpayers

 

Yeah, and then you'd have to make do with a higher crime rate (which would cost taxpayers money anyway, due to public goods being vandalised, higher costs of policing, and greater numbers of prisons, prison staff, etc), and when unemployed people have no money, they can't spend, which means that shop keepers will suffer from lower demand.

It's not as simple as "they don't work, don't give them money", there are benefits to the system, if there wasn't, then the system wouldn't be in place.



Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
isnt a better solution to just legalise drugs?

You'd think.

If people are being random tested for drugs you'd think they should be random tested for booze and other such things as well.

Or maybe even just go to peoples houses if you want to go that far.

I mean drugs waste money, but so many people waste welfare assistance on stuff like flatscreens too.

 

One of the things in life that winds me up is people who misspend their benefits. The Gov't should pass regulation on what benefits are spent on, and they would be able to that easily if they basically gave pepole on welfare a special card that recorded all purchases and worked out ratios of essential to non-essential goods.

Benefits are there to keep people living a healthy, good standard of living whilst also supporting the community, not to be wasted on unnecessarily large screens that hardly fit in the room in the first place.



SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
isnt a better solution to just legalise drugs?

You'd think.

If people are being random tested for drugs you'd think they should be random tested for booze and other such things as well.

Or maybe even just go to peoples houses if you want to go that far.

I mean drugs waste money, but so many people waste welfare assistance on stuff like flatscreens too.

 

One of the things in life that winds me up is people who misspend their benefits. The Gov't should pass regulation on what benefits are spent on, and they would be able to that easily if they basically gave pepole on welfare a special card that recorded all purchases and worked out ratios of essential to non-essential goods.

Benefits are there to keep people living a healthy, good standard of living whilst also supporting the community, not to be wasted on unnecessarily large screens that hardly fit in the room in the first place.

so the government should tell people how they can and cant spend there money, and police it, how is that a good idea?