Posted on 06/28/2011 5:34:43 AM PDT by scottfactor
Should we require people who receive taxpayer money welfare handouts to submit to random drug testing? As with most social-fiscal issues, this is a divisive one. Opponents claim this would be a violation of Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search, and of course, some of them play the race card as well and insist that this would be a racist thing to do (do they understand how very old the race card is?). Supporters claim this would save millions in taxpayer dollars and help people get off drugs.
We already see that many employers require their employees to submit to random drug tests, so how is this any different? I have long disliked random drug testing policies where there is no suspicion of wrongdoing, because I view them as a gross invasion of privacy. On the other hand, our society has devolved to the point that bad behavior seems to be almost the norm rather than the exception. So, in one sense, Americans have, in part, brought these kinds of policies on themselves by behaving badly and lawlessly.
Without a doubt of facing court challenges, Florida just passed welfare recipient drug testing legislation, and it was signed into law by Governor Rick Scott on May 30. As the New York Daily News reported,
“Applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment.
Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving the funds for three years.
‘While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,’ Scott said. ‘This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars.’”
How can anyone object to not allowing taxpayer money handouts to drug addicts who can easily turn those “benefits” into illegal drugs? Then again, here we have yet another example of heaping law upon law to try to cause people to do right. There is no amount of laws that can be made that will “create” a moral people. When the soul of a nation turns rotten and the people become lawless, then the leaders will naturally turn to ever increasing heavy-handed legislation to try to control the people. Ultimately, a police state is the result.
Besides saving taxpayer money, a common argument of drug testing proponents is that it will help people overcome their addictions. I just don’t think that is necessarily the case. There are too many ways to beat that system. Also, some of the harder drugs, like cocaine, amphetamines and methamphetamines are not as easy to detect, since they are water-soluble and quickly leave the body. The same is true of alcohol, which, although legal, is the most commonly abused substance in America. Next to phencyclidine (PCP or “angel dust”), marijuana is the substance most likely to be detected in urinalysis, because the active ingredient in marijuana is fat-soluble, and thus stays in the body for a much longer period of time.
I don’t know how effective this kind of law will actually be in the long-run. It has been tried before with mixed results. In 1999, Michigan became the first state in the nation to implement random drug testing of welfare recipients. As a matter of course, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued, and the law was struck down as unconstitutional.
This is an issue that creates unlikely allies from the Left and Right. Although I detest much of what the ACLU does, they occasionally have a valid point. In reporting on random drug testing of welfare recipients, The ACLU cites Judge Victoria Roberts in her ruling against Michigan’s law,
“In halting the implementation of Michigan’s drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients ‘could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.’[18] Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well.”
Again, this brings me back to the question of how it can be acceptable for many non-welfare, working class Americans to be subjected to the humiliation of random drug testing, yet it not be acceptable to apply the same standards to people who receive free taxpayer money. There’s the rub. And, I believe that is a large reason why we are seeing more states willing to consider this type of legislation.
Virginia lawmakers have been working on passage of welfare drug testing legislation, although the legislation is currently stalled. Last week, the Louisiana State Senate voted down welfare recipient drug testing legislation.
The Mississippi Gulf Coast 912 Project, a powerfully influential South Mississippi Tea Party group, is feverishly collecting petition signatures for a welfare recipient/state employee drug testing ballot initiative to be placed on the November 2012 ballot. Unlike other states that have taken up welfare recipient drug testing legislation without voter input, the Gulf Coast 912 Project is working to let the voters of the state decide.
It is Ballot Initiative #33, and it would amend the Mississippi State Constitution. The summary of the initiative states,
“Initiative #33 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to require that persons receiving public assistance, as well as state contractors, subcontractors, and state employees, must undergo random drug testing. Failing two drug tests results in loss of benefits. Persons not currently receiving public assistance must pass drug testing before receiving benefits. This initiative also requires that persons residing in the state illegally are prohibited from receiving public assistance or state salary of any kind.”
As for those who argue against the potential cost of such legislation, Ballot Initiative #33 would require the costs of drug testing to be paid by the recipients themselves, as the money would be subtracted from their welfare or state salary payments.
The ballot initiative also provides yet another check against the illegal alien invasion of America, as no one who is unable to prove their legal citizenship status would be able to get taxpayer money handouts. I think that is an excellent proposition.
The last line in the full text of the ballot initiative states,
“This amendment recognizes that public assistance is a privilege and not a right.”
That’s the bottom line, and it is a strong argument for requiring welfare recipients to undergo the same type of drug testing that many Americans in the workforce are subject to, as well. The stronger point of drug testing welfare recipients is that we are talking about taxpayer money being confiscated from working people and then given to unemployed or underemployed people who have not earned it.
When we are dealing with private sector employers who choose to drug test their employees, that is said to be the choice of the employer, since it is his money going to pay the worker, so how is it that the provider of money to welfare recipients—the American taxpayer—is not given any say in holding welfare recipients accountable in the same way?
The Fourth Amendment argument could easily be said to not apply to drug testing of welfare recipients, because as ballot initiative #33 points out, welfare is a privilege, and no one is forced to receive it. If you do not want to undergo random drug testing to receive taxpayer money handouts, then no one will force you to do so.
The Mississippi Gulf Coast 912 Project is working to collect the 90,000 needed petition signatures of registered voters by the end of September in time for the 2012 ballot. The end of September is a self-imposed deadline of the 912 Project, since the actual State of Missippippi deadline for 2012 is mid-October. The 912 Project members are trying to avoid leaving anything to chance. However, if the true mid-October deadline is missed, then mid-December is the deadline for the 2014 election.
If you are a registered voter in Mississippi and would like to support Ballot Initiative #33, please log on to the Gulf Coast 912 Project’s website for information on where to go in South Mississippi to sign the petition or how to print petitions and collect signatures.
I commend the Mississippi Gulf Coast 912 Project members for their hard work in all they do. It’s easy for me to sit here and write about taking our country back from the communist clutches of the radical Left, but the Gulf Coast 912 Project, and other Tea Party groups like it, are actually going out there and doing the real work, the heavy lifting, it takes to make that happen.
Thank God for the American Patriots!
Also, more and more employers require a drug test. SO... if you get government assistance while you are unemployed, how can you ever get off welfare and find work if you do drugs?
Duhh
good article. makes some fair and valid points.
i would like to see the overall standards for welfare tightened. i think that would have far more savings and benefits. (as the GOP congress did under Clinton.)
this would save little, have little positive effect, and bad unintended consequences.
will they stop using drugs? no. absolutely not.
so, if you take away their welfare, what will they do?
begin mugging and stealing from honest citizens, if they are not already.
(which is one of the MANY good reasons why i support legalization. make drugs cheap, so they won’t steal from functional citizens.)
also, in MANY cases, there might be a mother on drugs, and this money actually does help her children.
this will not accomplish anything except saving a small amount of tax money, which will be used up 10 fold in extra costs in police and family services.
Yeh right....then we will additionally foot the bill for rehab....which means more free stuff...They even cook the meals for you...clean bedding....friendly atmosphere with your best buds...Very good idea!! S/
not to mention, the HUGE amount of money it will cost, for the drug testing.
that cost ALONE, will probably almost equal any savings.
(and if you are really sincere about this, how about stopping welfare users from buying and drinking alcohol, which is a far far far bigger problem.)
My guess is the politicians are being paid off by the drug testing companies. It’s a profit motive.
I have no problem with the concept though, just make the welfare recipients pay for the test, not the taxpayer.
How about angus steak testing?
great point. another example of a program with huge costs, and almost no benefit.
sounds cold, but there are a lot of decent hardworking people who are much more deserving of help.
and social programs help very few, except those employed in it, and the tax money is basically stolen from the pockets from hard-working responsible people.
again, the drug war simply raises the cost, and increase crime to pay for it. just like prohibition, it’s a failure.
...i have compassion only for their children. remove children from addicts and care for them. leave the addicts alone.
and to me, the biggest benefit from ending the war on drugs, is it will end the drug war in Mexico.
(if you remove the profit, then the cartels will go away.
all that death and violence, is simply about making money.)
and, even more important, Islamists, like the Taliban, get major funding, from our drug war ! take away the profit, and they get nothing to support themselves.
That’s Racist
(SARC)
I agree.
Those squealing about saving money are full of it. It’s about control and that is all.
The cost to drug test people on TANF (as well as the associated agencies that will have to be created) will far outweigh the benefits.
Yes. All members of congress should be tested on at least a quarterly basis.
I think before we worry about drug testing for welfare recipiants we should start to do drug testing for people with national security clearance.
Just sayin.
The cost is one point the Mississippi ballot initiative takes into account. The welfare recipients and state employees pay for the tests themselves—the money would be taken out of their welfare payments or state salaries.
Let’s take TSA out of the airports and have them screen potential welfare recipients. The gadget above is a skin test, not a urine or breath test, and would mean a multimillion dollar production contract. Buy stuff- employ TSA- harass people, sounds like a natural for FedGov.
I agree, completely.
Shouldn't people be testing for drugs & alcohol when people apply for or renew a drivers license? Especially alcohol, the major killer on our highways. Perhaps license applicants can be questioned closely about their drinking & drug habits. Their license will be issued depending on the testing & the questioning.
And how can we be giving welfare checks & tax refunds to obviously obese people? They'll just spend it on twinkies. These folks are costing gov’t & society a bundle of cash in medical costs. Medicare & Medicaid recipients can be tested by their doctors when they receive treatment. No pass, no heart medicine.
Later on, the program can be expanded to include tests for cholesterol, sugar, & excessive weight gain.
Drug testing welfare applicants doesn’t seem to be cost effective. Interesting results from the first 6 weeks.
From Tampa Bay Online:
Welfare drug-testing yields 2 percent positive results
Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.
Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free — leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.
The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott’s arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.
.
.
.
Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
.
.
.
More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.