Welfare Drug Testing

Is it fair that in order to obtain a job, some people go through drug testing while drug and alcohol abusers receive free, no strings attached, financial assistance (see appendix A)? Food stamps and Medicaid are provided to low and no income Americans who would otherwise do without. According to heritage.org, a majority of the illegal drug use in American adults is tied to unemployed citizens. While there are many people who disagree with testing welfare recipients, the truth is that the pros greatly outweigh the cons. The long term improvements that drug testing will have on the country are substantial. The wellbeing and stability of America’s children, unemployment, fairness across the board for all Americans and the economy; all play

In 2010, 17.5% of unemployed adults collecting some sort of welfare failed drug tests. In 2011, 23.8% of welfare recipients admitted to using illegal drugs, including marijuana. The problem the United States if facing is that welfare recipients are using the cash they are given to purchase illegal drugs. Many of these people purchasing illegal drugs had prior illegal drug abuse problems and some of these people believe that since they are given this “free” money, they can continue on with these addictions instead of finding the help they need to get back onto their own two feet. Many employers ask all of their job applicants for a drug test to even be considered for the job, so why shouldn’t the government ask the same for people looking

As the variables above are added up it, quickly becomes apparent that the “war on drugs,” during the mid 1980s-early 2000s had a negative impact on American life. With all the money spent and lives ruined, the United States came no closer to solving drug issues it had faced in the years prior. Citizens took the biggest brunt of this “war” with the fact that not only did they have to forcibly financially support the “war on drugs,” but in some cases, they had their civil liberties encroached upon or even completely violated. It could be argued that retrospectively looking at the “war on drugs” makes criticizing our country and the officials in charge easy, but when you actually look at the statistics and events surrounding this time period criticism

Drug Testing Welfare Recipients To test or not to test has been has been the question at hand for many states that are dealing with whether or not to pass the law that welfare recipients should or should not be drug tested in order to receive assistance from the government. Florida was the first state to mandate the law in 2011 and thereafter twenty four other states in the last year have also passed this law in our own state of Oklahoma being one of them. Although alcohol is legal it is abused far more than marijuana or hard core drugs, According to the 1996 study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism the differences between the proportion of welfare and non-welfare recipients using illegal drugs are statistically insignificant. Although some states have decided to pass the law for welfare recipients in order receive government assistance, I believe it’s ineffective to drug test these welfare recipients in order to receive their benefits. Welfare in the United States commonly refers to the federal government welfare programs that have been put in place to assist the unemployed or underemployed. Help is extended to the poor through a variety of government welfare programs that include the Women, Infants, and Children Program, which is referred to as WIC, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families commonly known as TANF and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Drug testing welfare recipients is negative because drug tests performed on welfare

People work and get paid and have to submit to drug test isn't public assistance a form of getting paid. Welfare recipients should be held to the same standard as everybody else in this regard. Another pro for this side of the argument is that by performing these tests and removing drug users from the welfare system, there is the potential of saving the state millions of dollars every year. By spending a small amount of money to test an applicant the state could save the money that would have been given to a drug user and give it to someone truly deserving. Some people would say that if someone that is a recipient of these assistance programs are using drugs would it not stand to reason that if they can afford to buy drugs that they could afford to live on their own and not take advantage of these government assistance

There were a total of three dozen states that considered drug testing recipients. Those states included but are not limited to: Michigan, Maine, Florida, Tennessee, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Scott (2011), " In Michigan, drug tests are only to be administered to recipients only if there are reasonable suspicions of abuse”. A reasonable suspicion would include the odor of marijuana, paranoia, and the drastic loss of weight without and evidence of a weight loss plan or health relation. Money given to families by the government for financial support should not be taken away from the home to buy illegal drugs. There are roughly 30 million Americans receiving welfare in the United States. The Ohio Legislators believe that the idea of passing a drug test is a popular way to cut down on fraud, waste, and abuse (Milliken, 2011). Florida is the only state that actually passed a law on drug testing welfare recipients. All the other state proposed a bill for the testing but recanted. Sulzberger  (2011), “In Florida, people receiving cash assistance through welfare have had to pay for their own drug tests since July, and enrollment has shrunk to its lowest levels since the start of the recession”. Florida’s

The numbers do not lie—little evidence exists that supports the claim that drug testing recipients will save money. Striving to prove that the main source of the drug problem in the United States lies in the recipients of the welfare program, policymakers continue to work fervently. The overgeneralization of the poor as drug users has become common practice in Washington. Lawmakers seem to feel that because recipients receive government funding, they in turn give up their constitutional rights as U.S. citizens. The practice of criminalizing the poor has become commonplace in the creation of U.S. governmental policy.

When the United States’ welfare program was created during the Great Depression, it was meant to temporarily relieve the burdens of the one-fourth of American families who were unemployed, and struggling financially. President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Social Security Act in 1935, then amended it in 1939 to create programs to assist families with unemployment compensation, and to create government agencies to oversee these programs, including Health and Human Services. The purpose of the welfare program was to provide short-term assistance to families in need while they got back on their feet, and found new employment. It was and is still funded by the hard-earned money of American taxpayers. Since that time, government assistance programs have progressed to the point of serving 49.2 percent of the population according to 2011 statistics, released in 2014.7 Of those receiving benefits, approximately 20 percent have been on the program for over five years. These facts go against the initial purpose of the welfare program as a temporary crutch. Studies have shown that about 20 percent of welfare recipients have tested for, or reported illicit drug use (although, those numbers vary and can be higher, based on the testing method used). Taxpayers should be aware that their taxes are funding these drug users’ illegal lifestyles. Therefore, drug testing should be a mandatory

Pretend you are in kindergarten again and you have just won your favorite bag of candy for behaving yourself in class all week, and right when the teacher presents you with your glorious prize a fellow classmate, which had already been to the principals twice that week, comes up and asks for a piece. You do not want to give him a piece because you worked hard for it and he broke the rules so he does not deserve it, but then he goes to complain to the teacher and she says you have to share with him. Would you be upset if you worked hard to obey the rules to win a bag of candy, and then you find out that you could have gotten a piece anyways? This is exactly how many taxpayers feel about welfare recipients that refuse to take drug test prior to receiving their welfare checks. Since 1996 there has been a call for welfare reform to drug test recipients prior to admission, but any attempts have been unsuccessful because they are viewed as a violation of the fourth amendment, more harmful for children, and an unnecessary expense. These common fallacies have been the main arguments leading the anti-drug testing campaign, but in the past few years many taxpayers have grown increasingly tired of their money being given to undeserving individuals, although there has not been a clear solution to please all parties.

This paper will explore the pros and cons on the issue of drug testing welfare recipients and applicants. The journals and articles used to determine whether drug testing is necessary or a hindrance to public assistance applicants, recipients and the government vary in their argument on the effects of those who receive assistance. The study, completed by Anderson, Shannon, Schyb and Goldstein (2002) determined that, due to the change in Welfare reform in 1996, the disruption of benefits increased the risk homelessness and usage of drugs and alcohol. Montoya, Bell, Atkinson, Nagy and Whitsett (2002) studied the differences in 442 female welfare recipients’ psychological and employment well-being based on chronic use or non-drug usage. Morgenstern and Blanchard (2006) argue that the changes in welfare reform may significantly reduce the amount of drug using recipients and applicants on welfare and increase in substance abuse programs. This paper will examine statistical data, recommendations by the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights and the studies of Anderson et al. (2002), Montoya et al.(2002), and Morgenstern et al.(2006) to bring to light the varying conclusions made over the last 13 years, 2002-2015, as to the effectiveness and ineffectiveness that drug testing may have on welfare recipients and applicants.

Since its conception welfare has been a source of continuous controversy. The main negative throughout the years has been that people on welfare will never attempt to find a job and just live off the government, but recently there has been a lot of attention brought specifically to the recipients that are drug abusers. Therefore, some taxpayers are calling for a system in which recipients are drug tested prior to receiving aid, but these systems are strongly opposed by those who are current members of welfare.

One major argument is that it wont affect the parents receiving welfare, but instead the children. Approximately 81.5 percent of those receiving (TANF) have children. With that many having children, they are bound to see the biggest impact of drug testing since the money is supposed to pay for food, clothing, and shelter. Some say that it will cause children to struggle and possibly go hungry. Another reason that some people are against drug testing welfare recipients is that it will cost more than it saves. Such as in Florida where drug testing actually cost the state money. Each drug test cost around thirty dollars and with so many applicants it ended up costing the state forty-five thousand dollars (Greenblatt). This is a lot of money that could have went back into the program. These are two of the several reasons that some are against the testing of welfare

With a new president, and many policies and procedures changing in the government systems, it has recently been brought to many people’s attention how certain recipients in government assistance programs do not use the money correctly. As a result of that many now believe that everyone on government assistance should be drug tested. The welfare system can provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and targeted social services to poor and low income Americans (Duffy). Drug testing the recipients would ensure that no one was receiving aid that was using any type of illegal substance. This is a very controversial issue in today’s society and has both sides fighting hard for what they believe in.

I feel if someone has to pass a drug test to gain employment the same rule should apply to a person(s) before the qualify for welfare assistance. There are others that hold a similar position on mandatory testing, for example, Governor Paul LePage of Augusta, ME “hailed drug screenings for certain welfare recipients a way of protecting taxpayer’s dollars…arguing that welfare dollars shouldn’t be enabling drug abuse” (Durkin, 2015, para. 1). Illinois state representative Bill Mitchell, “would like to see mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, and work requirements for those who receive food stamps” (Keever, 2015, p. 1). On November 3rd, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, “approved an administrative rule…that would establish a process to screen for and test for the use of controlled substances by applicants for state work experience programs, and to refer those determined to be abusing drugs to a treatment program” (King, 2015, para. 2). These are but a few examples, which suggest mandatory testing is gaining ground.

In Oklahoma, it is required for every applicant to go through a serious of drug screening when applying for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Welfare. If they get flagged for suspicion and possible drug use, they are required to be tested for illegal drugs. Proposals for drug testing laws and regulations began in 1996 since the Welfare reform has been in act. People agree with it because certain deserving individuals should only be allowed to be granted TANF if they qualify. Others disagree with this because they believe TANF is a “right”. The Oklahoma State law should be the example for a Federal Law regarding Welfare drug testing.