States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

[JaggedEdge]

Agree or disagree? Personally I think they should test for everything including weed and if you test positive, revoke the benefits. The way I see it, if you are collecting tax payer money to live, you can't afford $25-100 a quarter. The only exception being if you live in a state that has legalized medical use and have a prescription.

Drugs are a luxury and should be used by those who can afford them.

From FoxNews.com:

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 Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site â?? notwithmytaxdollars.com â?? 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 â?? Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia â?? 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.

JaggedEdge Reviewed by JaggedEdge on 03-27-2009. States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients Agree or disagree? Personally I think they should test for everything including weed and if you test positive, revoke the benefits. The way I see it, if you are collecting tax payer money to live, you can't afford $25-100 a quarter. The only exception being if you live in a state that has legalized medical use and have a prescription. Drugs are a luxury and should be used by those who can afford them. From FoxNews.com: Rating: 5

[Breukelen advocaat]

For actual welfare recipients, it's probably a good idea, but I think that people collecting unemployment insurance should be not be required to participate in drug testing. Unemployment insurance is not the same thing as "welfare", as the recipients worked and got laid off usually through no fault of their own - and they paid into the system from their salaries, along with employers.

Plenty of Americans are now, and will soon be, getting their first taste of unemployment benefits. It would be totally unrealistic to test them all, even in Floriduh.

[40oz]

I disagree. There's nothing like kicking a man when he's down like telling him he will get no longer be able to afford food because he is addicted to heroin. We all know how easy that habit is to drop. Its as easy as quitting smoking, right?

[Breukelen advocaat]

Actually, smoking is considered by many to be harder to quit than heroin.

Why should we give welfare payments to junkies? A better solution would be to legalize and regulate all drugs, and have treatment centers set up for addicts who wish to kick the habit. Continuing to enable drug addicts in their never-ending lifestyle is not solving any problems, it's only creating new ones.

[bigtopsfinn]

How about cigarettes and alcohol? Those are drugs also... Do they even have tests for these? Well, once everyone has their personal microchip implanted, they can regulate what you buy and how much :wtf:

[killerweed420]

On paper it sounds like A good idea, but in reality it will only hurt people. I would not have a problem if they drug tested to try and get hel[ for addicts but if its just to turn them over to leo and boot them out of the system I'm against it.
Its the same age old issue. Should me make laws outlawing every potential drug available or should we just use education to inform people of the dangers?

[40oz]

Actually, smoking is considered by many to be harder to quit than heroin.

Either way, my point is that people don't intend to be addicts. Nobody shoots up or smokes anything with the intention of becoming dependent on the activity. Those people need help and denying them welfare would be (in my opinion) illegal discrimination.

Ricky lost his foot to diabetes because he ate too much junk food but he gets approved for welfare. His friend tom who has a crack smoking problem got denied. Makes no sense.

Why should we give welfare payments to junkies? A better solution would be to legalize and regulate all drugs, and have treatment centers set up for addicts who wish to kick the habit. Continuing to enable drug addicts in their never-ending lifestyle is not solving any problems, it's only creating new ones.

Yea well at the rate we're going now we'll lock all the junkies in a hole in the ground before that happens. I agree that the best way to combat the drug problem is treatment, not punishment, but unfortunately there are still a couple generations of people alive that don't believe that.

Basically what you are suggesting is to take away their means for food and let them wallow in their own hopeless situation while we sit here and wait for the laws to change.

[JaggedEdge]

Either way, my point is that people don't intend to be addicts. Nobody shoots up or smokes anything with the intention of becoming dependent on the activity. Those people need help and denying them welfare would be (in my opinion) illegal discrimination.

Ricky lost his foot to diabetes because he ate too much junk food but he gets approved for welfare. His friend tom who has a crack smoking problem got denied. Makes no sense.



Yea well at the rate we're going now we'll lock all the junkies in a hole in the ground before that happens. I agree that the best way to combat the drug problem is treatment, not punishment, but unfortunately there are still a couple generations of people alive that don't believe that.

Basically what you are suggesting is to take away their means for food and let them wallow in their own hopeless situation while we sit here and wait for the laws to change.

How, if you are an addict with a job and they find out they have a right to fire you. Why shouldn't we have the right to pull welfare funding if they can't stay clean.

Nobody asks to become an addict? Don't do stupid shit. I know I have an addictive personality, so aside from cigs, I stay away from highly addictive substances.

It's called personal responsibility. If you aren't responsible enough to not use addictive drugs, why should we be responsible for supporting your lifestyle.

Rockstars can do all the cocaine and heroine they like. Someone living in a ghetto of trailer park parasitically surviving off other citizens can't.

[40oz]

How, if you are an addict with a job and they find out they have a right to fire you. Why shouldn't we have the right to pull welfare funding if they can't stay clean.

For one I don't think they should have a right to fire someone anyway just because they are addicted to something. As long as they can still do their job of course.

Pulling welfare funding from someone with a drug problem won't solve anything, it will just make things worse for the addict as well as society who has to deal with that desperate person in the streets.

Nobody asks to become an addict? Don't do stupid shit. I know I have an addictive personality, so aside from cigs, I stay away from highly addictive substances.

It's called personal responsibility. If you aren't responsible enough to not use addictive drugs, why should we be responsible for supporting your lifestyle.

Personal responsibility is good and everything, but people are stupid and they will make stupid desicions. This whole attitude of us vs them isn't healthy. I know some people do take advantage of the welfare system, but honestly what can you expect? Some people will take advantage of any kinda of help they are given. Does that mean we should stop helping everyone?

What if someone has kids but because they also have an illegal drug in their system they can't get food for them? Drug testing for welfare is too black and white. It makes a distinction between what kind of irresponsible behavoir is ok, and what kind isn't. If something like this passes, then all the drunks and winos will be alloud on welfare but a hard worker who is struggleing to get by who might like to enjoy a joint now and then will be shit out of luck.

[JaggedEdge]

Personal responsibility is good and everything, but people are stupid and they will make stupid desicions. This whole attitude of us vs them isn't healthy. I know some people do take advantage of the welfare system, but honestly what can you expect? Some people will take advantage of any kinda of help they are given. Does that mean we should stop helping everyone?

Yup, that's exactly what I would like to see. I don't agree with the welfare system. I disagree on every level with FDR's "New Deal."

What if someone has kids but because they also have an illegal drug in their system they can't get food for them? Drug testing for welfare is too black and white. It makes a distinction between what kind of irresponsible behavoir is ok, and what kind isn't. If something like this passes, then all the drunks and winos will be alloud on welfare but a hard worker who is struggleing to get by who might like to enjoy a joint now and then will be shit out of luck.

Seeing as their drug addiction is the result of their being unable to afford food for their kids, the state should take them away. People on welfare should not be having kids anyway.

And no they won't, someone who likes weed can quit until they find a new job. Boohoo, they won't be able to get high for a few months. Life is just terrible... I'm sorry, but when you accept federal money you are also accepting more federal control in your lives. That's how it works.