Our View: Testing for public assistance
Printer-friendly version
Send to friendAlthough not a new idea, there are now 23 states considering laws that would require anyone receiving public aid to pass a drug test.
The argument supporting these initiatives is tied to the idea that taxpayer money may be misused to support drug habits for people who receive food stamps, housing assistance or other government-funded services.
Put in common terms, if Joe Taxpayer is helping you out, he won’t be happy if you obtain food stamps then use your own money to buy illegal drugs.
Some states are requiring people seeking public assistance to submit to a drug test as part of the application process, then agree to random tests in the future.
Arizona has not yet joined the ranks of states with comparable legislation, but considering the conservative bent of the Legislature, it would not be surprising to see this effort in the future.
This is an issue that follows traditional partisan lines, with conservatives supporting the idea and liberals against.
At the national level, the American Civil Liberties Union has been aggressive in its argument against these laws. The ACLU has already filed a lawsuit in Florida to challenge a law enacted last year in that state.
Democratic lawmakers argue the laws make a presumption on the behavior of certain people and unfairly humiliate those who are already enduring tough times.
Republicans and conservatives are sticking to the argument outlined above.
What will be especially interesting to follow is whether this change actually saves states any money, and, the impact it will have on the number of people on public assistance.
Lawmakers will have to decide who is paying for the drug tests, and whether the law is worth the costs it creates if few people are turned away for failing to pass the tests.
Further, if a significant number of states do indeed enact this type of law, there is the question of whether those states that don’t have this law will become public assistance “magnets,” attracting people who need help but fail tests.
Keep an eye on this issue as it plays out across the country, and watch what is sure to happen in Arizona.
If you find a correction for this story, please contact our editorial department
Related Terms:
The public assistance programs in this country are beyond broke and highly abused. I would be a supporter of completely doing away with them, but I don’t believe this will ever happen so doing things like drug testing in order to receive any assistance is a step in the right direction. There is also an awful lot of trash that needs to be picked up in all the vacant lots and along the streets here in SV. Wouldn’t it be great to see the people that want the handouts made to go do some work for that check?
the trouble with drug test is millions of people over 5 million are on manditory drugs every day, these are all prescription drugs yet as bad as it gets. many neurological conditions are treated this way.
And when those people take the drug test, they are informed by their doctors to take the medications with them and inform the person conducting the test to make the notations on the file, in many cases, employers that conduct the tests are trained to confirm the results with the medications that the person taking the test provides, the bottles should have valid prescription labels on them that confirm the patients, the medication and the dosage, therefor justifying any results that come back on the drug tests. If some needs welfare that bad, they should be more than willing to share their medical conditions with the DES office.
The only thing I would be happy with is to completely get rid of all ‘public assistance’. The federal and state government should not be in the business of feeding, clothing, housing, and/or educating people. People need to take care of themselves. Those truly unable to should be assisted by organizations other than governments, such as churches and the Red Cross, or other charitable organizations. Or individuals who feel the need to help. Why would anyone ever think it’s a good idea to get people on welfare? It does them no good and it does society no good. There’s simply no moral, economic, or biological value in it.
In the meantime, just give the welfare recipients a card that can be refilled monthly. It’s easy enough to have a computer check to see what they buy. We don’t even have to be picky. When they buy a big screen TV, an Escalade, have a $200 a month cell phone bill, subscribe to cable or NetFlix, or any of the other really ridiculous things these people generally end up with, then just cut them off.
the NGOs that you mention and any others do not receive government (federal, state, local) monies or any other supprt and any contribution by private individuals (including corporations since they are individuals) are not tax deductible.
”Why would anyone ever think it’s a good idea to get people on
welfare?”
The welfare system is pure genius. While it gives off the appearance of
nobility & compassion for those down on their luck, it also prevents the
hardship person from rising up to challenge for success. The welfare system
ensures those that have established a very handsome standard of living from
the threat of those that could achieve future ambitions.
The welfare system is also a very clever way to legalize segregation. I’m
sure you have noticed all the proponents of the welfare program don’t
reside anywhere near the section 8 housing communities they created. They
also don’t enroll their children in the public education they promote,
participate in the health care programs they endorse, & apply the same
standard of living they encourage upon themselves.
You see, Socialism is for the “People”, not the “Socialist” & yes,
the road to serfdom is always paved with good intentions
Florida tried this and only 2.6% of applicants failed the drug test (compared to around 8-9% as a national average and 3.3% of MEPS applicants in 2001). As a result, the program either just about broke even or it ended up generating a bit more in administrative costs than it saved in denied benefits. a Federal judge halted the program because it amounted to a search based on membership in a class rather than probable cause.
I understand the impulse behind this measure. We all see the system being abused but rather than restrict access to the people who are willing to endure the most humiliation, how about we tailor the system to work for people who can demonstrate responsibility but just need help. My own favorite: if you receive public assistance and you have kids, make those kids’ report cards part of your quarterly benefit calculation. I see too many kids who show up to school once or twice a week and disrupt class when they do because no one at home cares.
How about the working class, that has to get a drug test to get, or keep a job? The working class that pays the taxes, to support, those that would rather not work.
“How about the working class, that has to get a drug test to get, or keep a
job?”
Well, mostly, they should be hanging their heads in shame for sacrificing
essential liberty without even getting the _illusion_ of temporary safety.
Because only a tiny percentage of jobs (like, say, airline pilot or munitions
ship loader) carry the risk of catastrophic results from working impaired
that would justify drug testing.
Most of the people getting those benefits ARE “working class”. And most of
the ones who aren’t have been, and will be again, as soon as they get the
chance.
Except they won’t be working at jobs that give them enough to support their
families, because you wanted cheap jeans at Wal-Mart. So the jobs that used
to let them be self-sufficient have gone to China and India. So now millions
of them will be on food stamps or medicaid permanently.
Welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequences.
“Except they won’t be working at jobs that give them enough to support
their families, because you wanted cheap jeans at Wal-Mart. So the jobs that
used to let them be self-sufficient have gone to China and India.”
Any chance you can explain just how does an employer pay their help better
wages if the government takes more -n- more of it’s profits, create more
regulations imposed upon their industry, & mandate products for them to
purchase?