Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Justice, Politics, Religion, Society

Drug Testing Welfare Recipients to Prevent Abuse

220px-Cannabis_sativa_leaf_Dorsal_aspect_2012_01_23_0830

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

I have seen the suggestion before that Welfare recipients need to be drug tested to make sure that taxpayers are not paying for the drug habits of those evil poor people.  I have even seen relatives allude to it in messages on social media sites and I have witnessed friends championing the idea in personal emails.  I always wondered why some people think that the poor must be abusing the state and federal aid programs and therefore must have drug tests to insure that the taxpayers money is not being wasted.  While I agree that taxpayers money should not be wasted, I have not seen any benefit from forcing people to be drug tested before they receive their aid payments.

The State of Florida tried this from 1999 to 2001 and reintroduced it in 2011.  The Florida plan was subsequently struck down by the courts because there was no evidence that poor people abused drugs more often than their wealthier counterparts.  “The state of Florida passed an almost identical testing procedure that ran from 1999 to 2001 and was reintroduced in July of 2011 that was struck down by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta the following month, citing the fact:  ‘ “there is nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a `concrete danger’ that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use.” ‘  Crooks and Liars   Does it surprise you that it took the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals before this expensive and intrusive process was ended in Florida? 

The Florida experience proved to be a costly waste of taxpayers money according to the Tampa Tribune.  “The Tampa Tribune investigated the results of those July 2011 drug tests and found that “96 percent proved to be drug free”, another 2 percent never bothering to complete the lengthy application process, and 2 percent actually failing drug testing. At an average cost of $30 per test, the state was hemorrhaging tax dollars at a rate of “$28,800-$43,200 monthly”… FAR out pacing the supposed “savings” from preventing drug-abusers from gaming the system to buy drugs.” Crooks and Liars  The failure of this idea in Florida did not prevent or dissuade the Texas State Senate from unanimously passing an even more draconian plan to screen and drug test welfare recipients.

“On Wednesday, the Texas State legislature, currently composed of 19 Republicans and 12 Democrats, unanimously passed Senate Bill 11, which mandates that every Texan applying for food assistance through the TANF (Texas Assistance for Needy Families) program, submit to an undefined “screening process” and possible drug test before receiving benefits if the screener finds “good cause” to even suspect that person is… or is likely to… abuse any “controlled substance” — despite the fact that there is no evidence at all that people seeking assistance are more likely to do drugs.

According to the bill’s author, Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound), the purpose of the bill:  ‘ “It ensures that TANF, formerly known as welfare, supports its core purpose of helping families to achieve self-sufficiency,” said Nelson, as she introduced the bill. “We found common ground to support a plan that makes sure state resources aren’t used to support a drug habit while at the same time making sure children receiving benefit in a productive environment.” ‘ Crooks and Liars

I can only assume that the venerable Texas State Senators failed to read about the experience this type of plan had in Florida or merely discounted the facts available to them.  Is there a reason why politicians of all stripes jump on the bandwagon that claims the poor and needy are just lazy and may even be on illegal drugs and therefore do not deserve the help of their fellow citizens?  These same Texas Senators ignored the Houston Chronicle which published an article critical of SB11 and other proposed bills designed to root out those drug abusing poor people out of their assistance programs.

“Four times during last week’s House Human Services Committee meeting, Rep. Scott Turner asked whether Texas has a problem with parents diverting assistance dollars for food and children to buy drugs.  Agency officials could tell the Frisco Republican only that they do not test recipients, and few people lose their benefits because of drug convictions or tips that can be corroborated. ” Houston Chronicle  

The Chronicle discussed a similar plan in Michigan that was struck down by a State court for being unconstitutional and the plan in Florida discussed above.  According to the Chronicle there are seven other states with similar drug testing of welfare recipients programs.  ” Seven states have enacted similar measures – all but two require risk screening before drug testing – and another 29 states are considering legislation this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Three Texas bills propose testing some applicants for state unemployment benefits rather than TANF applicants.” Houston Chronicle

Just where does this pervasive fear that the unemployed or impoverished are stealing from the public in order to support their drug habits?  Does this relate to the old “welfare queen” meme?  Is it related to the attempt by some state legislatures to pass voter ID laws to prevent non-existent voter fraud?

As usual, it seems that the politicians are unfazed by the fact that the poor do not use drugs any more than the middle class or the wealthy.  Growing up my family received Veterans benefits and Social Security benefits that kept us from ending up on the street.  Today, these onerous screening and drug testing programs would have forced my Mother to be tested before she could receive her check which paid for the housing and food for herself and her 5 young children.   Remind me again, why is this a good idea?

Additional References:  ACLU;

120 thoughts on “Drug Testing Welfare Recipients to Prevent Abuse”

  1. Well. I’m no more likely to be on drugs that anybody else that HAS a job. But most employers drug test you these days. I know every one I’ve worked for has. So why SHOULDN’T they be tested?

  2. Unemployment benefits are an insurance program, not welfare at all. What other insurance programs, public or private require drug tests? People on unemployment benefits should be treated like SSI recipients. The government is I believe overreaching with the drug testing for Unemployment benefits recipients. I would like to see that law challenged legally.

  3. The unemployed are a far different kettle of fish than the dads of welfare kids. By definition, the unemployed were working and got laid off and are drawing benefits paid for the worker when he/she was working. Deadbeat dad who doesnt work but sires kids is a bad apple that serves as a bad role model for the offspring and is a drain on society. Mom ought to buy her own rubbers and not rely on wikileaks.

  4. Thanks Elaine. This drug test the poor and unemployed is the latest attempt to continue the Reagan era welfare queen myth that as a group, the unemployed and poor are just lazy and do not want to work.

  5. You May Have to Pass a Drug Test to Get Unemployment
    Posted April 12, 2013 in Government Your Personal Rights
    by Aaron Kase
    http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/04/drug-testing-the-unemployed/

    Some 85,000 people in Arkansas who collect unemployment might soon have to pee in a cup. A bill that would require recipients of unemployment benefits to sign up for random drug testing has passed the state Senate, just one out of a number of similar measures being considered by states nationwide.

    At least seven states have passed laws on drug testing for people who receive public assistance, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and another 29 have proposed similar bills this year alone. Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah all passed laws since 2011 that demand testing for people who apply for welfare benefits, food stamps or both.

    Last year the U.S. Congress joined the pro-testing club, passing a law allowing states to test unemployment beneficiaries if they lost their jobs because of drug use, or if their profession is one that routinely requires drug testing.

    Arkansas’s bill goes further, requiring all beneficiaries to subject themselves to random testing, and Texas is also currently considering a bill that would specifically target people on unemployment for testing. The proposals stem from model legislation drawn up by the American Legislative Exchange Council and other conservative groups that push to have anti-consumer laws enacted in states around the country.

  7. rafflaw,

    I wondered if ALEC might have a hand in these mandated drug-testing laws that were popping up in many states. Look what I found:

    Proposals to drug-test the unemployed gain momentum
    ALEC-developed model legislation would see only the poor and desperate scrutinized for receiving government aid
    By Natasha Lennard
    Wednesday, Jan 16, 2013
    http://www.salon.com/2013/01/16/proposals_to_drug_test_the_unemployed_gain_momentum/

    Excerpt:
    GOP lawmakers in statehouses around the country are pushing legislation that would force the unemployed to pass a drug test in order to receive benefits. In February 2012 Congress gave states the go-ahead to introduce such legislation, despite criticism from worker advocacy groups and civil libertarians.

    When the federal law was passed, House Republicans initially wanted to let states have all 7.5 million people collecting unemployment compensation pee in a cup. A compromise was reached, which authorizes states to test applicants for benefits in two circumstances: if they were fired for using drugs, or if the only occupation they’re suited for is one the Department of Labor lists as commonly requiring drug testing. Which jobs the department might include in the provision is not yet determined (Democrats say a small number of professions, Republicans say most), but in the meantime GOP state legislators are pushing forward with drug-testing proposals.

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry has asked lawmakers to push through legislation requiring not only unemployment beneficiaries to be drug tested, but also individuals applying for food stamps — a particularly draconian move on the governor’s part, especially since in the few states where where drug testing of welfare beneficiaries has been attempted, like Florida, there has been no evidence of reduced drug use.

    A state GOP senator in Arkansas filed legislation Tuesday that would require applicants for unemployment benefits to undergo a drug test, while the Wyoming statehouse is currently considering a similar bill.

    “Legislators in Wyoming would better serve their constituents by trying to pass bills that solve problems that actually exist,” Judy Conti, a lobbyist for the National Employment Law Project, told HuffPo, adding that Wyoming already has has the fifth lowest unemployment rate of all the states and a healthy unemployment trust fund.

    As Corolines commented last year, “Like many conservative legislative movements, drug testing poor people isn’t an idea that’s spreading through happenstance.” The proliferation of similar legislation proposals across multiple states is facilitated by the use of model legislation written by policymakers working with think tanks including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

  8. Fair enough…. a closer look at the numbers like in that link (re: Florida)…indicate to me that a good case could be made that those numbers are kinda cherry-picking a bit and lead to some incomplete conclusions.

    I’m not surprised that people using drugs wont, in huge numbers, go voluntarily pay 30 bucks to be denied cash benefits – let alone they show up and apply at all. Now that I think on it a bit… I’m actually surprised they got to as high as 2% 🙂

    I dont like the Michigan law b/c it gives weird discretion to govt officials on who has to take a test and who doesnt, and the 1999 law that was struck down was “random” drug testing on only certain people I think, which I also disagree with. Both are way too arbitrary to me.

  9. P Smith,
    I think you and Elaine hit upon the real reason for this drug testing nonsense. Money for the corporations that do the testing.

  10. Elaine M. beat me to the punch about Scott and Solantic. I have no doubt that if a thorough investigation is done, all the companies that will do the drug testing have connections to politicians making this a law.

    This isn’t about stopping drug users from living off taxpayers, this is corporations living off taxpayers. The only welfare fraud happening is corporate welfare.

  11. Atnor,
    I believe the Tampa numbers because the Michigan experience had similar results.

  12. “The Florida plan was subsequently struck down by the courts because there was no evidence that poor people abused drugs more often than their wealthier counterparts.”

    Was the struck-down law changed substantially in the 2011 version to address those concerns? My understanding is the 2011 version hasnt been struck down but is currently halted while it winds it’s way through the courts.

    To me, the point about poor people’s drug rates would be relevant if catching drug users was the goal, but it doesnt seem to be the right basis here. It’s not that they use drugs at a higher rate ( I dont believe they do)… it’s that they use drugs while asking the state to directly support them. The goal seems to be to prevent taxpayer money (in the form of cash benefits) from going towards furthering someone’s drug habit, when it should be used to help people get back on their feet. Drug usage can be a strong contributing factor (if not a primary reason) towards the need for cash benefits in the first place, so “not being a drug user” seems like a reasonable-to-me request to someone receiving taxpayer cash.

    I’m generally pro-legalization when it comes to drugs, as what you put into your body is your own business. If you use drugs and can support yourself, I pretty much dont care. However, continuing to use drugs but being unable to support yourself or your family to the extent that you ask the taxpayer for money… that’s a bit different.

    I’ve also seen those same numbers from that Tampa Tribune investigation in other articles. But, I’ve also seen another group that took a look at the Florida law after the Tribune story and their conclusions are pretty different. As a disclaimer, I’m wary of even marginally unbiased “studies” (of course, one could argue the Tribune isnt fully objective either), but I couldnt really find much fault with this one. They seemed to me pretty transparent about their numbers and methods, so take it with a grain of salt. 🙂 I’d be interested in seeing other’s opinions on it:
    http://www.floridafga.org/2011/09/the-impact-of-florida-new-drug-test-requirement-for-welfare-cash-assistance/

    Basically, they argue the standard “2%” number is misleading, and that Florida could potentially save a decent chunk of money, possibly several million. The 2% number was taken only after the 1st month of the law being in effect, and so it only counts people who went to the state, filled out all the paperwork, got approved for benefits, and then paid 30 bucks to take a drug test…. all while knowing they’ve used drugs and will ultimately fail… then they (surprise) fail the test. If you also count all the people who go through the entire process, get approved, but then never actually go show up and take the test (which requires looking at multiple months b/c of how applications are closed)… the number ends up significantly higher than 2%. If you also look at year-over-year applications, it does suggest the possibility of an additional deterrent effect, which could add to the number. The savings of preventing a drug abuser cash benefits for the average (at the time) 4 months someone is typically on assistance covers the cost of quite a few people who otherwise get reimbursed for passing their drug test. According to their figures, you apparently dont need that much of a percentage to end up saving money.

  13. There is considerable resentment that Aid to Dependent Children does not filter down to the children. Why did the woman get knocked up? Why did the father not step forward and live with mom and child? Does the program promote single parentage? Why cant moms work and have kids. Perhaps the program should be day care for kiddo and jobs mandatory for mom and dad. If mom wont rat out dad for being dad then mom should work longer hours. Drug addicts should not raise kids, should not be subsidized by Aid For Dependent Children and perhaps they need radical treatment. Perhaps lobotomies for meth heads. Shock treatment for potheads. Export to the desert for heroin and crack heads.
    If you test welfare recipients for drugs then test them for job skills while you are at it. Almost anyone can do road work or pick up litter. Florida is a RepubliCon warped state with a shaved head governor and a Senator who thinks that Castro took over Cuba in 1956 when his parents “fled. Liar, liar, pants on fire Rubio. But I diverge. Test him while you are at it Florida. He talks funny.

  15. Skeletor:

    Might it be just a little less of a headache to instead chill out on a beach on a remote island in the tropics? I get the power bit–master of the universe thing and all, but think of all the responsibility and that cell phone ringing off the hook. And that face mask must get a little tiring to wear, especially when having to always entertain guests (suck ups) and their children always pointing fingers. Why go through all that, just for some fancy title to put on your resume?

    Just chill man, eternal life is just too short.

Comments are closed.