Under the guise of ensuring prudent government spending and personal accountability, state Legislatures across the country are proposing that mandatory drug testing be a condition for receiving welfare assistance. Everything from food stamps to unemployment benefits would be awarded only after screening for illicit drug use, and supporters are championing this measure as a sensible means of preventing the waste of tax-payers’ dollars on “junkies” and “addicts.”
Whatever the intent, such drug testing policies violate the constitutional rights of those who are already facing financial hardship and simply will not stand up against legal challenge.
In previous cases, the US Supreme Court has ruled that drug testing constitutes a form of search, and when carried out by a government agency, falls under the regulation of the fourth amendment. As a result, the prerequisite of probable cause must exist prior to conducting a drug test. Such conditions must be met on a case by case basis, and the blanket approach of screening all welfare applicants is overly presumptive.
In essence, states are taking the position that all welfare applicants are suspected drug users and are subject to being searched. There is no reasonable basis for such suspicion, hence the conviction that this form of obligatory drug testing is illegal.
Of course not all mandatory drug testing programs are constitutionally prohibited. Select government employees can be subjected to testing when there is a “compelling interest.” Jobs related to public safety or that have the potential to expose the public to danger meet this definition, and they justifiably warrant pre-emptive drug testing.
Additionally, private enterprises, which by definition fall outside the realm of government, are free to conduct random drug screening as a condition for employment.
Legality issues aside, drug testing mandates are oppressive, imprecise and largely ineffective. Welfare recipients rarely garner much public sympathy, but stigmatizing poverty by associating it with drug abuse is patently malicious.
While there is a definite correlation between drug use and poverty, there is no indication of causation. That is to say, similar conditions lead to both, but drug abuse is not a source of poverty and vice versa. And at a time when an increasing number of people are reliant on state and federal welfare, the link between the two is weakened further.
In addition, studies from the Department of Health and Human Resources have found that the unemployed and employed use illicit drugs at comparable rates, and in terms of absolute numbers, 70 percent of illegal drug users between the age of 18-49 are employed full-time.
Supporters of mandatory testing claim such policies will serve as de facto rehabilitation programs. This argument that screening welfare applicants will help curtail drug use is, at best, disingenuous. To begin with, the most commonly used testing procedures specifically focus on a short list of illegal substances and fail to identify the most commonly abused drug — alcohol.
More to the point, simply denying welfare benefits to drug users is unlikely to break the powerful grip of addiction. On the contrary, pushing people into further destitution will tend to increase drug use as their situation becomes more dire and hopeless.
The sentiment that drug users are undeserving of government aid is understandable, and mandatory drug testing may very well have a practical and positive impact on government welfare programs.
But the fact remains that this form of financial assistance must be allocated in a manner consistent with the Constitution. That some small percentage of welfare benefits will go towards the purchase of illicit drugs is a regrettable but necessary consequence of constraining government intrusiveness and maintaining personal freedom for all.
Marc Anderson is a 3rd-year cell biology Ph.D. student and may be reached at [email protected].
Welfare itself–as we know it today–is unconstitutional. Funding drug abusers is the same as funding drug dealers. Where in the constitution does it say that hard working Americans should be forced to fund drug dealers?
Exactly how is welfare unconstitutional? Welfare is not even mentioned in the constitution, let alone is it specifically prohibited. Welfare is a social program that is put in place out of charity and for the good of the country as a whole. I really don't think that charity is unconstitutional. You might disagree with it, but that doesn't make illegal. As for your second point about funding drug dealers, no one is forced to do anything. Like I said, government, both state and federal, have chosen to implement welfare programs under the guidance of the will of the (majority of) people. At the state level, many of these programs are directly voted upon by the people, and at the federal level, legislators decided things at the consent of their constituents. If they vote on something unpopular, then they pay the price by being voted out of office. Welfare programs are enacted knowing that some abuse will inevitabley occur, but the benefits have been found to outway the costs. Your arguement about funding drug users is like saying no one should hire anyone who uses drugs, because some of their earnings will go to drug dealers. Do you know how many people would be out of job then?
How is welfare unconstitutional? You answered it with your second sentence: "Welfare is not even mentioned in the constitution…" Haven't you heard of strict constructionism?
Haven't you heard of necessary and proper?
Have you guys not really read the Constitution? I quite clearly remember reading the Preamble in grade school, and there is a General Welfare clause…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clau…
There is nothing "charitable" about welfare. The word charity implies the money's where given willingly. Last time I checked, no one asked me to donate to welfare.
"In addition, studies from the Department of Health and Human Resources have found that the unemployed and employed use illicit drugs at comparable rates, and in terms of absolute numbers, 70 percent of illegal drug users between the age of 18-49 are employed full-time."
the only difference in the above qoute is that employed drug users pay for their own drugs, whereas welfare recipients don't.
"drug abuse is not a source of poverty and vice versa" – isn't that true though? Not regarding people who are suffering from the recession, but of all the poor people living on the streets, didn't they get there due to drugs? Yes, clinically they are probably mentally ill, but I'm sure their mind developed like that due to the use of drugs.
"drug abuse is not a source of poverty and vice versa" – isn't that true though? Not regarding people who are suffering from the recession, but of all the poor people living on the streets, didn't they get there due to drugs? Yes, clinically they are probably mentally ill, but I'm sure their mind developed like that due to the use of drugs.
The fact that the U.S. social welfare system is deliberately designed to be difficult to access so as to discourage its use and inevitable dependency, has not, in case you haven't noticed, kept multitudes from using, abusing, and making a life on it. Being able to subsidize one's drug habit is really just one of many perks. That minuscule percentage who need the supplements won't care about a drug screen; only the abusers and civil rights nuts will. Our welfare system only goes back to LBJ and his Great Society in the 1960s. Since, entire generations have grown up on it and, thanks to Lyndon, have no sense of personal accountability, responsibility, and have developed a genuine addiction to this black hole of taxpayer-subsidized mooching. Clinton tried to "end it by creating Welfare-to-Work. Has that worked out? Not really. The response of using drug screens is just the latest attempt by exasperated states with bloated welfare rolls trying to undo LBJ's nightmare. Good luck with that.
Consider that the amount of money that is given out per family for "welfare" is not enough to sustain the lifestyle of a college student living on campus. Those persons with severe drug addictions are not typically sitting at the HHS offices. If the though process of this country was shifted from the individual to the community, we could create neighborhood industry (community gardens, childcare cooperatives) that would allow for more people to have a dignified way of life free from having to spend an entire day every 6 months to justify their existence for a handful of dollars just to survive.
Consider that the amount of money that is given out per family for "welfare" is not enough to sustain the lifestyle of a college student living on campus. Those persons with severe drug addictions are not typically sitting at the HHS offices. If the though process of this country was shifted from the individual to the community, we could create neighborhood industry (community gardens, childcare cooperatives) that would allow for more people to have a dignified way of life free from having to spend an entire day every 6 months to justify their existence for a handful of dollars just to survive.
Even if drug testing were constitutional, it is still a stupid policy.
It costs more to do the tests than you save by denying benefits.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/florida-welfa…
I dont think it is stupid at all, do you know how many needy families really need help (not that welfare gives you much) but you see women in the welfare offices with gucci bags, armani, dkny, etc. They find parking for their landrovers and bmw's while they are dragging 5 or 6 kids into the welfare office to complain about a 6 dollar cut in benefits. You have people that stand outside supermarkets offering to swipe their foodstamp card in exchange for cash while itching and twitching and their kids are malnourished. the country complains there is no money and they take forever to reach a budget. Stop giving our hard earned money to supply drug habits and luxuries, while i bust my ass 70 hours a week to feed my family and have been wearing the same simple sneakers for a year!
Karma PT 1: Native Americans had rather nice communistic lives, untill we self-righteous Anglos showed up and decided those dirty "savages" needed a little Jesus and enslavement. That hasn't' worked out so well for them, has it? Unless one's idea of community is forced displacement to a shitty patch of land where you are forced to try to adapt to inhospitable living conditions. Reservations anyone?
Karma Pt II: And I'm wondering if your idea of the pauperish college students lifestyle includes the $4,000 per semester UH charges (the middle-low range, BTW) just for a cockroach-infested 1/2 a room you share with a complete stranger? That's $1,000/ mo rent. Yes, Karma, that amount could get you rather spiffy digs off-campus. So,if your logic were law, welfare recipients would be living in tax-payer-funded condos in a River Oaks zip code. And, I can assure you, having worked in the social services field drug addicts do show up at a variety of service provider locations and do get benefits. Many kinds of benefits from housing to clothes to food, etc. They get them, trade on them. There is an entire under belly to the system out there involving the black market that deserves to be exposed. Good luck getting that done. The system is toxic from within and deserves to be eviscerated.
In my opinion, it would not be considered unconstitutional if you didn't penalize them or seek persecution for those who tested positive. If you simply denied them money that would be wasted, perhaps it would stop them from wasting so much money…. yeah right( the price of cigs keep going up and everyone who smoked before still smokes them…)
Chow: I see where your headed. BUT…most social workers are mandated reporters, because most work for some government agency (or in an institution that has a strict compliance policy) They can face penalties for, in effect, turning a blind eye. Just like if a battered wife comes into an ER. the nurse HAS to tell someone or risk her licence revocation (Wife beaters beware!) That's not the big problem. The BIG problem is the swarm of ACLU-esque civil rights types who would swarm the courthouses citing the addicts right's violations, thereby hamstringing — even negating — efforts to detox the system. It's backward's logic, but that's the wonder of living in our beautiful democracy. Quite frankly, given the compromises Clinton had to make getting his Welfare to Work bill passed, I'm surprised it has any teeth left. God Bless America, etc., etc..
The taxes I pay in each year go towards social welfare programs both state and federal. Bottom line is that these social welfare programs are paid for each year by anyone who pays into the system. How the Gov. decides to run these programs is totally up to them.
I believe they should limit the amount of welfare given to any one family and in place institute a time line that they are allowed to receive the benefits. Once that time-frame is up; get these people out in the workforce. Track them and see where it goes.
The government, especially under the current administration wants the American People to be at their door with their hand out.