Drug Testing Proposed for Welfare Recipients
If the downturn in the economy is forcing you to seek public assistance, you may need to get ready to fill up a cup. Lawmakers in at least eight states are considering laws that would require anyone seeking assistance to submit to random drug testing.If you want the government's help, you may need to get clean and sober first.
Proponents of the move argue that the goal of most welfare programs is to return people to the workplace. If they cannot pass a drug test, they can't get a job.
In West Virginia, Rep. Craig Blair has proposed legislation that would require random drug testing for anyone who are recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare programs.
More States Plan Similar Laws
"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Blair. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"
To support his effort to pass the legislation, Blair created a website notwithmytaxdollars.com to gather support for his measure.
Similar laws have been passed or are being considered in Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Hawaii, Florida and Minnesota. At least six states - Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia - require drug testing for convicted felons and parolees seeking public assistance.
Proposal Gains Popularity
In the past, efforts to drug-test welfare recipients have been rejected due to the additional costs of the actual testings, but now with many states facing budget cuts and more people seeking assistance, the move may gain popularity.
Opponents of the drug tests claim they target society's most vulnerable.
"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, of the American Civil Liberties Union.
News Source: States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients
More About Drug Testing:
Photo: BigStockPhoto.com
Comments
Drug testing for welfare recipients? Absolutely not.
ALL drivers of any type of vehicle…..maybe.
ALL government employees and civil servants……maybe.
ALL individuals with a post-graduate degree…….maybe.
ALL parents of minor children……maybe.
But welfare recipients? That’s the most ridiculous idea I’ve heard in quite some time. Think about it.
~Debra D.
This should have been done a long time ago. Absolutely! But the testing must be done with no forewarning because there are ways to get around UAs which, when given sufficient time, can produce false results. Practicing addicts are a major financial drain on our economy… to say nothing of the loss of potential talent and creativity. We must stop being a nation which systemically enables them.
I think it may be a good idea….
I am a Substance abuse counselor and have many referrals from government agencies. These clients have drug problems and if they were not drug tested would be able to get help.
Heck yes, these people need to be drug tested. If people only knew how many welfare recepients were on drugs it would shock them beyond belief. Why should we (tax paying citizens) pay for there drug habit. I don’t know about you but I do not want to fund someone elses drug habit by allowing them to be on welfare. That is just free money for them to go and get high with and neglect their children at the same time.
I too am a substance abuse counselor and it kills me to see the number of women that are on drugs, with their kids and on welfare. I am sorry but people should not be allowed to be on welfare if they cannot be free of drugs. I am all for drug testing welfare recepients.
I totally agree with randomized drug testing, it is only logical. I, as a tax payer, have to submit for random testing and even to procure my job in the first place so why shouldn’t it be feasible that government assistance programs require the same from it’s recipients? Again I say YES YES YES!
I am in support of this as long as we start requiring blood tests of all citizens in our country. For too long we have enabled people to become fat and slovenly. I too am a tax paying citizen and am abhorred by the amount I have to pay for my health care premiums because Joe and Mary want to eat themselves in to oblivion. With blood tests we can find what people are eating and, if their serum cholesterol is over a certain limit, we should stop paying for their health care. This way we level the playing field here. Now all of you judgmental people can have a dose of what you are dishing out with the most vulnerable people who have no voice. Here’s a better idea: Maybe we should truly accept it as a disease that is chronic in nature. Would you apply these draconian standards to a diabetic? The person did not exercise, maintain their diet, monitor their blood sugars adequately so we cut them off at the knees? You people who claim to be substance abuse counselors need to go back to the drawing board about what the disease means. Maybe you had no first hand knowledge of being an addict and received your knowledge out of a book. If you find that these people have drugs in their system will you cut them off? Then they resort to crime and we build more prisons. Our taxes are high right now. If you truly want to resort to this method, without supporting treatment for people who come up positive, be prepared to spend more than you do now on prisons. In California the budget for Corrections is near 15 billion dollars per year. Grow up people. We can’t afford to throw away our neighbors when one out of 31 adults in our nation is under supervision with corrections. Maybe we can come up with some creative ways to treat people rather than doing things which further add to their problems.
Ms. Blackburn is concerned about the most vulnerable with no voice . . . what she fails to understand is that it is the children in these homes who are truly the most vulnerable and have NO voice. These kids are being neglected and going hungry while parents take welfare money and buy drugs, or trade food stamps. $2 food stamps for $1 worth of drugs was the going rate last I knew. I doubt kids are being neglected or going hungry because “Joe and Mary want to eat themselves in to oblivion”. The proposal I read gives them 4 months to get clean and a second test before any adverse action is taken. We are not throwing away our neightbors by giving them a major incentive to stay clean, thus helping them be better parents, less involved in criminal activity, more healthy, and more ready for the job market. We are throwing them away when we toss ‘em a few bucks and tell them we don’t care if they go ahead and get high.
Unemployment insurance is NOT WELFARE. It is idiotic to lump it in with food stamps and Medicaid and cash welfare payments such as TANF. It is a program paid for by employers, in case they have to let their employees go due to no fault of their own. It is stupid and unjust to insinuate that people receiving unemployment compensation are in the same category with those who are receiving programs based on “need” or being low income. No income requirements are attached to unemployment benefits, but they are finite, they do end, and it makes no sense to say the people receiving it, especially in this terrible economic time, should be humiliated by being subject to a violation of their Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure, just to get something they are entitled to anyhow, by prior eligibility requirements determined by the federal government some fifty years ago. Like Social Security, it is one program for everyone in America that has done what it has set out to do and worked to our benefit for many years.
Pam:
After 31 years in the business of treating substance use disorders I don’t fail to recognize anything at all. I also feel for the children of the people who have addictive disorders. The proposal is still draconian for a disease that is chronic in nature and the children will be affected more if you cut their funding off if the parents cannot stay sober. As long as you are willing to pay the extra tax for the removal of these children from their homes, then go for it. It should then be applied to everyone who has kids though, whether they are on public assistance or not, with your argument. Many middle class and wealthy parents drink to excess and drug in the homes. Apply the standard nationwide. The proposal I read gives them two months to get clean before cutting them off. I again will apply the same standards to fat people; you have two months to diet and lose weight or I want you cut off from your insurance benefits. No more am I willing to pay for your gluttony. Also, people with diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, adult onset conditions, same thing. People do not want to change unless they have a size 12 kick in the pants so I wish this to be applied across the board. Kids are vulnerable in all of our homes no matter whether we are rich, middle class, or poor. Parental influences knows no cross section.
YES!!!
Yes, I do occasionally smoke some pot. Yes, I think they should do random tests for welfare and food stamps. I feel that I work hard for my money; and that if I want to spend it on a movie or a joint, that choice should mine. However, I believe that if one is getting assistance because you can’t seem to make ends meet by yourself, then you have no business spending said money on drugs. But you may say, “what about me, I have a job, and still can’t make enough money, so I need food stamps.” There is a simple answer to that as well: If you only smoke once and awhile, it only stays in your system for a day or three. If they are going to randomly pee test you, they are not just going to show up at your house. You will have a few days notice. Therefore, a little smoking is fine. Wait a day and you will be fine; but if you are a pothead, junkie, addict, or whatever, then your not gonna clean your system in a few days and pass the random test. That is essentially why I think they should implement this program in every state immediately!
NO NO NO cut off a drug users funds and you create a drug dealer(more drugs in our community),or they will resort to stealing(more crime in our communities).People it sounds like a good idea but lets think about the negative effects verses the positives.Another point I would like to make is who is going to pay for all these test ? Sounds to me like you want to spend a dollar to save a nickel.No thank you please use your heads before you use your lips.
I think that some people are in for a very rude shock..and not the people asking for welfare assistance. You are assuming that everyone on welfare is a drug using criminal and this ‘idea’ is just an act of collective punishment for the majority who are not! You precious counsellor types had better hope you keep your jobs – ironically ones you only HAVE because of the existence of drug users, and hope like hell that your kids dont get raped or abused and need clinical or medical welfare support or that you have healthy babies who dont need daily treatment, or that your partner doesnt die or you dont get sick or dear me, burn out in your stressful jobs and get yourself a mental health condition and need hosptialisation or treatment leaving you unabel to work again.
Keep in mind that at ANY time NOT of your choosing, you could instantly be one of ‘those people’ – the next one in line at the dole office could be YOU……and it happens j u s t l i k e t h a t and woosh YOU become one of “THEM”. How would YOU want to be treated? Would YOU want some pimply faced pervert underpaid government employee watching YOU do a pee? Watching your daughter pee or being forced to have a blood test against her will? No?
Take note bozo’s…that ANYONE who buys any product at all anywhere IS a taxpayer…get that through your heads! EVERYONE pays tax. Everyone. Just because you can add payroll tax to your credits doesnt mean anything when you can claim it all back and get a fat chcek every year. Get off your high horses stop whining and actually help people instead of judging them! You dont help them by hurting them more..oh..wait..I’m talking to Americans arent I….hmm.
I think this is absolutly ridiculous. This law is presuming that everybody who is one welfare is a drug user. I have seen more state employees that are drug users than welfare receipients. So test them. We pay their paycheck too. My husband is a good provider but his hours got cut at work. So we are currently on food stamps. We do not do drugs. We are a good family. And it hurts to see you people on here assuming that our family should be subject to drug testing by the government just because we are “spending your precious money.” I’m sure we’ve put just as much money into the system over the years as we are currently taking out. And I completly agree with Blue. This could be anyone of you tomorrow. You could lose your job or get into a terrible car accident and not be able to work. It is embarrassing enough to have to go into that welfare office and get benefits. You are treated horribly by the workers. And the other people there to get benefits are sometimes quite gross. Don’t make things worse on us.
The first person who posted on this is an ####! They must be a drug addict who is on welfare. I think its the best idea every thought of! I you want our help then you have to play by OUR rules! This will save the NON drug addict tax payers countless millions of dollars! Why hasnt this been already implemented?
It kills me that anyone would be against this. Unless of coarse you are one of the people getting everyone else’s tax dollars for free and using them to buy your drugs. I must say that I do however agree that it should be something for everyone, welfare, workers, police, firemen, ems workers, doctors, lawyers, parents, and the list could go on for ever. My point is that drugs are not good for anyone, and to get free money of any kind (even if it’s medical or food stamps)or raising children you should have to prove that you deserve what you have.
I think that this is the best idea ever. and yes the first person who posted is crazy. Drug testing should have been done a long time ago. I hope this passes because after that alot of lazy people that think they can just live off the system will finally have to get off their butts and get a job like us.. so, I hope that this happens…
No, it shouldn’t be random, anyone seeking a handout in any form should have to submit to a drug test before getting assistance. We’d save millions. If you are resourceful enough to sell your food stamps for crack or go from dr to dr to emergency room for pain killers you shouldn’t be allowed to use our money. To those of you that say what about the innocent kids, maybe it will be a wake up call. Free voluntary sterilization for all those that test positive for drugs. We sterilize cats in shelters is it that much of a stretch, they are all breeders!
this is pathetic… how about testing where all the tax money is going wall street and detroit the minimal amount of money that goes to these programs could have went on another 200 years with the money the banks and the auto industry has recieved thats where your tax dollars are going…how about a test for top execs of companies that got bailed out, how about craig blaire having the GUTS to go after the real problem,lawmakers they make plenty of laws that dont affect themselves, craig if you want my support put you and your peers at the top of that drug test, and p.s. if you do get it passed its gonna cost even more than the states already spendingon these programs,the state will have to pay for the drug tests, for the rise in crime which will come along with this law people are not going to starve to death there going to become criminals, and top it off with a prison system so over crowded its all ready about to bankrupt the state….but hey this all about making a name for craig blaire so isnt that whats truly important, go craig your a true politician making laws that dont affect you and in the end if you bill goes through it will only cost the state more money, but hey by then if everything goes to plan you will be in washington then so who cares…to the people of berkley please dont vote for this guy again we already have a room full of guys like him in washington……….
you guys blogging about this are crazy, it will cost more money and raise crime period, start thinking for yourself and stop lisitning to what people tell you
I totally agree on testing all welfare recieptants. if we have to take a urine test to work for OUR own money those collecting off the government need to take a urine test too! I hope this bill passes SOON! Get these welfare drug addicts out of the system!
If you want to save money on welfare, cut off anyone receiving any government, county, state or local benefit that is illegally here in this country. Then, those people that need welfare because MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE RECIENTLY LOST THEIR JOBS (in case you didn’t see THAT on the news) would actually have money available. Do you really think there are more dope fields then illegals on welfare. I have been sober for 7 years (never had welfare) but if I was the bread winner of my home with a wife and children and I lost my job, I’d want to drink. Even you non-alcoholics go have a drink when you’re stressed out. Its a great idea to drug test and money does need to be spent on recovery but maybe the person on welfare should be charged say $50 a month for counsling if a test comes back positive or go to a free program (NA or AA). But I must say Mrs Blackburn has it 100% correct. What about my tax dollars going to addictive eaters or those that eat in times of stress or can’t control their eating? Just replacing one thing for another. Oh so there’s a lower percent of drug addicts then over eaters so let’s pick on one group and ignore the other??? Come on! We could save a lot of money here?? Its all about money here, right? Dam capitalists! You could improve the homes these children are in by teaching these parents how to live life sober (which is a VERY hard thing to get used to). Everyone has their own vice. Let’s just focus on compassion and progress. This cannot hurt to try social change from this light.
While this sounds like a good idea in theory, we have to consider some things which aren’t in the article. How much does drug testing cost? After all, the cost of testing will also come out of your taxes. How often will welfare recipients be tested? Should drug use even be a factor when considering who qualifies for assistance and for how long they should receive assistance? Our taxes pay for the housing and feeding of prisoners, don’t they?
Welfare is intended to be used short-term only until someone can get on their feet. If you can’t get on your feet because you piss your check away on drugs, it’s the same as the loser who simply can’t keep a job for any other reason (laziness, mental instability, etc). Perhaps the idea of drug testing is moot in this case. If welfare helps you become a contributing member of society, great. If not, then you’re on your own. Drug testing shouldn’t be the main focus here. A complete overhaul of the welfare system is more important and would make smaller discussions like this unnecessary.
For those who cry “compassion” for addicts, this is not a function of welfare. There are plenty of free clinics and rehab programs for those who are tired of addiction. There is something to be said for personal responsibility, which brings us right back around to the bigger issue of welfare as a short-term assistance to those who want to get back up.
I think all welfare recipients should have to take monthly drug test. I have to get tested to WORK for my money these scumbags should be tested before they get one dollar from the welfare program. They should also have to do community service then they would appreciate a dollar and wouldnt be so reluctant to RETIRE on welfare, all you liberals that support them not having to take the test should just take them to the grocery store and buy there groceries so i dont have to pay with my taxes.
DEFINATELY – no one says you have to use drugs. No one says you will not get any benefits if your clean. Those who are using drugs and work for a living so be it, but NOT when you are on welfare and my dime.