It’s no secret that there are probably more people on the welfare system now than in previous years. Welfare is basically cash money that a recipient can use for anything. It isn’t regulated, like food stamp purchases, and that means that the government cannot stop recipients from using it for illegal drugs, instead of buying nonfood items, like toilet paper or paying for prescriptions. Because of this, many states created welfare reforms that focused on drug testing to weed out the individuals who may not be using their welfare for legal practices. There are many states that have instituted these practices, but some states have also abandoned them just as quickly. The problem is that while this may be a good idea in theory, many legal issues and hurdles make it almost impossible for state lawmakers to initiate these practices without coming very close to violating the constitutional law preventing illegal search and seizure. There seems no way to get over these hurdles. Until lawmakers can find a middle ground that is safe to work from, these tests should not be run or welfare recipients.
Lawmakers were not the only ones who were concerned about the impact of these drug tests. Many welfare recipients felt violated. Many recipients of welfare who had never had so much as a speeding ticket felt as if they were being convicted of a crime That they had never even dreamed of committing. I n a country where the prevailing belief was innocent until proven guilty, these people were already being portrayed as guilty and had to expose themselves to mandatory testing It also should be mentioned here that some welfare programs are not run by state senates. Florida’s welfare program is run by the Department of Children and Families. This makes it very confusing when trying to figure out who is making and regulating the laws for the state welfare program (Loehrke, 2012). In Florida, when the practice was banned, it was reported that two percent of the welfare recipients tested for illicit drugs. Th9s additional information adds credence to the guilty proving innocence theory. The research came from the ACLU as well as state research.
The other concern was the types of doors this could open up as a way to deny food stamps and other forms of cash assistance to people who need them. People who needed the available assistance would have harder times getting what they needed. This was also the ACLU’s concern. They did not just worry about what kinds of rules and regulations could be imposed as criteria for getting state funding. This type of concern was also why some states are following the examples of Florida and Michigan, and stopping the program in other states. The need to protect the civil liberties of people who need assistance is crucial, especially since many of these people are generally already in delicate situations, as they struggle to pay rent and power bills (CNN, 2011).
The consensus that welfare families make bundles of money also must be revisited. Most state welfare laws budget between #300 and $500 per month. Many of the families that qualify for welfare do so because there is no income in the household. In some circumstances, they will allow families with income to receive welfare. However, these families have less than $100 in monthly income. These are hard statistics to hear. It makes little sense to buy drugs with this money when it is barely enough to cover rent, let alone the power bill. While there are some people who will use this money for nefarious purposes, these are generally the people who are picked up by the system. It simply seems unfair to make the process harder on those who desperately need the help.
In theory, this would have been an excellent idea, except that it also costs the states quite a bit of money to run these drug tests. Since welfare is state run, and not run federally, they cannot depend on nor can they accept federal money to assist in running these tests. Thousands of people apply for welfare each month. Each applicant had to go trough the drug testing as part of the process before they even knew if they were approved or denied for the program. Couple this with the earlier stated information that rate of positive test results was only about 2%. This means that the state is throwing away an awful lot of taxpayer dollars. Even if a person tests negative for welfare, they could still be denied the benefits, which again means that the state has wasted a lot of taxpayer dollars. This is money that could go towards the education deficit for the state or important after school programs for special needs or inner city children. Whichever way the issues are considered, someone is going to lose and lose big (Loehrke, 2011).
There is a multitude of information that should be considered when deciding on the policy for drug testing welfare recipients. Sadly, there is no real consensus on how to do this without wasting a lot of taxpayer dollars, and keeping everything legal. Whether or not this program should exist, the real truth is that it cannot successfully exist as it is. Each state has to individually decide on a body of regulations that avoid the violation of constitutional rights and civil liberties. Unregulated programs violate the rights of innocent people and cast them in a negative light in which they must prove themselves innocent, and find a way to keep the lights on all at the same time. Until a real consensus can be reached, welfare recipients should not be drug rested as a part of the benefits application process.
Works Cited
[Last Name], [First Name]. "Drug tests for welfare applicants produce less than meets the eye."
USA TODAY (Arlington, VA) 19 Mar. 2012, FINAL, NEWS: 8A. NewsBank. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
Federal judge temporarily bars Florida's welfare drug-test law." CNN Wire 25 Oct.
2011. Academic OneFile. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
Document URL
Associated Press. “Welfare Drug Test is Blocked”. The Washington Post District of Columbia (2011); A2. Print.
