Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients – Yes Or No Take Poll
Pratt's Pub Original
Loading ...I stumbled upon a Facebook group called “Making Drug Tests required to Get Welfare” (over 1.2 Million fans). I joined the group because I honestly believe that a lot of money could be saved by identifying people that are abusing the American taxpayers money on drugs or alcohol. Granted the alcohol deal would be harder to prove.
But here is my thinking on it. I realize that many (most) people are just trying to survive and take care of their families. They are not doing anything illegal and are only buying food and tying to pay bills while attempting to get back on their feet.
But I would love to see an study estimating the amount of people that are on welfare that have drug/alcohol problems. I bet it is staggering and I am sure there are studies out there on this.
If someone is in need and needs the assistance of the United States Taxpayers, then that should come with some conditions. For starters it should not be a lifetime enrollment. It should be a set relatively short amount of time. Or, you need to be proving that you are actively out job hunting.
Next, you need to submit to drug testing once or twice a month. Why? Because no matter what your feelings are on this subject, if someone is using/abusing drugs then I can guarantee that our tax dollars (welfare) is being used to purchase and use drugs.
If the government can give loans to corporate America (bailouts) and then impose strict legislation on those companies that took the bailout, then why can’t the do the same for welfare recipients?
Basically by going on welfare you are telling the tax payers that you need this bailout to help get you back on your feet. You are going to do everything possibly to get back on your feet as fast as possibly so that you are not burdening the tax payers and in the process getting back to being a tax payer yourself.
If I was in need of welfare I would not care if I had to pee in a cup when I picked up every single check. I wouldn’t care. I would just want the money so that I could take care of my family and get back on my feet as fast as possible.
And what should the penalty be for coming up hot in the drug test. Nothing. No jail (unless it is a probation violation), no probation, no court ordered drug program. Just no money. Here is a list of free treatment clinics….get yourself clean and then come back and get assistance.
In Michigan they tried implementing this back in 1999. The following information I found at StopTheDrugWar.org.
Michigan passed a welfare drug testing law in 1999 that required all Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) applicants to provide urine samples to be considered eligible for assistance. But that program was shut down almost immediately by a restraining order. Three and a half years later, the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier district court ruling that the blanket, suspicionless testing of recipients violated the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures and was thus unconstitutional.
“This ruling should send a message to the rest of the nation that drug testing programs like these are neither an appropriate or effective use of a state’s limited resources,” said the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project head Graham Boyd at the time.
“Blanket, suspicionless testing of recipients” – It doesn’t matter. People on welfare are receiving tax payers money. It should just be a requirement in order to receive welfare. And once again. If you really needed the money to care for yourself or your family….would you care? Well I guess you would if you were doing drugs.
I refer back to the bailout example as well.
From a March 26, 2009 FoxNews ARTICLE
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 — notwithmytaxdollars.com — 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?”
What a great point. If employers can require drug testing (which I am all for) then why can’t the welfare program?
“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.
What a load that is! Defend themselves from what? Why is cutting tax payer dollars to drug addicts a bad thing?
“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.”
What does it matter if this is brought up in a recession or a peak of economic growth in the United States? I don’t get it. In fact, in the name of cutting some budget dollars here and there a recession is a perfect time to bring it up.
Once again, if it was me you could test me everyday of the week if that meant I was temporarily able to provide for my family while I got back on feet.
At least six states — Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia — tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.
I understand convicted felons or parolees in a lot of cases have lost a lot of their rights as citizens. But even with that in consideration how can it be OK to test them and not average Joe.
I could not find a projected “saved dollar amount” anywhere. But I have to imagine it would be pretty high. And of course I am not talking about unemployment benefits. I am only referring to benefits provided by the government or states for people that TEMPORARILY need assistance.
Filed under Pratt's Opinion. Tags:
FYI, there is a limit to TANF. 5 years over a lifetime and 2 years in a row only at any given time. In addition, the welfare rolls are much lower than they have been in the past, because they do now force you into looking for work.
Drug testing does not solve the problem behind welfare. Welfare is assistance for people who are disadvantaged, regardless of the purpose or reason behind their disadvantage. The reason it exists is to prevent people from starving, or turning towards inappropriate ways of making money like stealing. I believe that society is better served by helping the people in need, rather than judging them. It is invalid to judge these people by the same standards you would with someone engaged in a successful career, because you are dealing with a population that lacks the skills or resources to take care of themselves. There has long been an erroneous conservative fear, which if you make welfare easily accessible, then all of society would live off of it and that would be the end of it all. First of all, welfare does not pay that well. Jobs give the recipient more money, respect, pride, and the promise of a brighter future. Now, there is such a thing as hardcore welfare recipients. This is a small minority, but there are those who do not wish to participate in real work. This demographic is most likely to suffer from some sort of mental illness or emotional disability, and I believe that we are better off helping those people rather than suffer their chaotic efforts at attempts of survival in the workplace.
Remember that welfare is a helping hand, not the hand of judgment.
Jeff, just out of curiosity (mainly because I want to know) what is that “small percentage” of hard care welfare recipients? I am not calling you out or anything, I just like to see some numbers/percentages.
And while I don’t know if it is a “small percentage”or not, I would agree that most people on welfare are being responsible. Now…most pretty much means over 50%….but I don’t know. It may be 60,70 or even 80% are using it as they should. Hell, it may even be 90%.
But, I think the more and more money the government (states or federal) spend and with this economy, jobless rate and deficit (growing and growing) the American people want to know how their money is being spend.
And I am sorry. Even if it is a “small percentage” of people doing the wrong thing, that would still be money saved if they were denied aid (tax payers money) because they were doing drugs.
America over all needs to become more responsible and get out of this “gimme gimme entitlement” mind set.
If I ever need it, what ever form that may be, I hope there is welfare available for me and my family. I also know me and I won’t be on it for long at all. I will find something to support my family.
And I have no problem submitting to a drug test in order to receive money from tax payers if I ever need to be on any kind of welfare. They earned that money which will now be going into my pocket.
This is a little bit of different subject,but I think people who collect unemployment (like I have before) should be required to be job hunting at least 20 hours or more a week. I know, hard to track, but if your collecting unemployment your full-time job should be looking for work…8 hours a day. That is why I have been on unemployment twice…..once for 1 week and another time for a week and half. Both times all I was doing was searching online, newspapers..where ever I could for ANY kind of work. Interview after interview until I was hired. (actually every interview I have ever been to has resulted in a job offer…..just something I am kind of proud off). The trick of course is getting your foot in the door for that interview. And of course these 2 times I mentioned the economy was in a lot better shape than it is now.
Bottom line is that overall tax payers don’t mind helping out people that need help. We are a generous country. But, people want that generosity to be accountable. That is almost everyone that has answered the poll agrees that drug testing should be conducted. Granted, not that many people have responded….but out of those that have it is obvious that people want to know what happens to their tax dollars.