Welfare Recipients Drug Tested

Furthermore, the concern is directed to the wellbeing of the children of the recipients who do not fulfill program requirements. Thankfully, the NCSL also explains that those who are deemed ineligible for not completely the programs can “designate a protective payee to receive benefits on behalf of the child(ren)”(National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). In summary, drug testing welfare recipients will enable families to do two things: feed their children and get help for the parent or guardian who is abusing substances.

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

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

In his article, “Should Recipients Be Tested for Drugs?” David Vitter talks about the issue of drug testing people who are on welfare in the US. Vitter believes that annually drug-testing recipients of welfare will stop people from using the money to support their drug habits. He further believes that those who are using drugs and test positive as a result can then get the help that they need.

The United States has many welfare programs, such a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), that provide social welfare payments to those in need. Welfare recipients statistically have a higher potential to use illicit drugs, making it more difficult to secure a job. Often, these benefits are abused by drug users those who lack the ability or motivation to find employment and become self-sufficient. Incorporating drug testing into the welfare systems allows the government to provide those with drug addictions the needed treatment and suspend the benefits from those who continue to use drug and test positive after treatment. In the long run, there will be a costs savings

The state of Tennessee began drug testing the applicants for that states welfare program. They notice that since they has started only one person out of eight hundred have tested positive. The month of July they had six people submitted a drug test. Just one tested positive out of the eight hundred who applied in that month. Four of them were turned down on the spot after they refused to participate in the drug screening. That I a 0.12 percent of those who took part in the screening. Compared to the 8 percent of the state’s residents who generally use illegal drug. Some many say that that test shows nothing, and that we are just stereotyping. However there are other states that have started doing the same thing. In Utah, just 12 people tested positive in a year of drug testing applicants. In Florida, 2 percent of applicants failed the tests in 2011 but the state has an 8 percent rate of illegal drug use. The Governor of Maine even wanted to take it one more step by trying to prove that welfare recipient in his state were using their benefits to buy drinks and cigarettes at bars, or even at strip clubs. However he turned up next to nothing. Eleven states have enacted drug screening or testing for welfare applicants.

This proposal points out how Texas should adopt drug testing policy for welfare recipients. We researched the state of Oklahoma, its efforts to improve its well-being, the decreased amount of welfare recipients received while increasing employment and the welfare program abilities. Texas is currently reopening this Bill and reconsidering this proposal for drug testing all welfare recipients. This will allow all of Texas welfare recipient’s access to different programs for personal improvement, job opportunists and economic growth.

United States lawmakers face one of the most pressing issues of our time-welfare reform. New screening processes, often considered a direct violation of constitutional rights, have already been enacted in many states. Strong evidence exists, asserting that the practice of administering drug testing to welfare recipients will cost the U.S. taxpayers more money in the long run, stigmatize applicants and participants, and serve only the purpose of making the pharmaceutical companies more powerful. In order to protect the constitutional rights of potential welfare recipients, United States lawmakers should avoid further criminalizing the poor by submitting them to drug testing and/or a nationwide welfare registry.

Should welfare recipients be drug tested? What do you think about this argument? Although some people believe that welfare recipients should not be drug tested because it invades their privacy, welfare recipients should be drug tested because, taxpayers provide the benefit, improves the health and safety of their children and, because it helps to break the poverty cycle.

Florida's policy of requiring drug testing for welfare applicants appears to have reduced new welfare enrollments by as much as 48 percent. Welfare recipients in Florida now will have to undergo screening for illegal drug use. “Gov. Rick Scott says will ‘increase personal accountability and prevent Florida's tax dollars from subsidizing drug addiction.’”(Florida to drug-test welfare recipients) It starts on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services is required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying for assistance. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would reimburse in their assistance if they qualify. Parents who fail the drug test may assign another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of the children. Although drug testing in Florida has been shut down because the judge says it goes against Americans rights from unreasonable searches. Some supporters say that you need to be drug free to prepare them for jobs anyways and that business have been requiring these drug test for years. They also say that the government so take these extra precautions to ensure that tax payers money doesn’t

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