States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare

[Peaches]

Your thoughts on this topic.

States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare

By A. G. SULZBERGER

Published: October 10, 2011

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — As more Americans turn to government programs for refuge from a merciless economy, a growing number are encountering a new price of admission to the social safety net: a urine sample.

Policy makers in three dozen states this year proposed drug testing for people receiving benefits like welfare, unemployment assistance, job training, food stamps and public housing. Such laws, which proponents say ensure that tax dollars are not being misused and critics say reinforce stereotypes about the poor, have passed in states including Arizona, Indiana and Missouri. In Florida, people receiving cash assistance through welfare have had to pay for their own drug tests since July, and enrollment has shrunk to its lowest levels since the start of the recession.

The law, the most far-reaching in the nation, provoked a lawsuit last month from the American Civil Liberties Union, arguing that the requirement represents an unreasonable search and seizure. The flood of proposals across the country, enabled by the strength of Republicans in many statehouses and driven by a desire to cut government spending, recall the politics of the '80s and '90s, when higher rates of drug abuse and references to "welfare queens" led to policies aimed at ensuring that public benefits were not spent to support addiction.

Supporters of the policies note that public assistance is meant to be transitional and that drug tests are increasingly common requirements for getting jobs.

Story here: http://www.nytimes.c...lfare.html?_r=1

[bozodog]

"unreasonable search and seizure"?

Say what? If that's so, then collecting any assistance while on drugs is highway robbery. I don't care how needy they are, no drugs on my dime.

[TheTerrorist_75]

Any person who is paid with taxpayers money should be drug tested. This includes politicians, judges, district attorneys, cops, firemen, teachers, public employees and etc.

[hitest]

Any person who is paid with taxpayers money should be drug tested. This includes politicians, judges, district attorneys, cops, firemen, teachers, public employees and etc.

I am a public school teacher and I would not object to being drug tested.

However, I think that blanket drug testing does violate the civil rights of an individual. I think it would make more sense to drug test individuals where there are reasonable grounds to suspect drug use. It could also be argued that drug testing should be extended to all citizens as people who use illegal drugs put a strain on health care, etc.

Wide spread drug testing is a slippery slope in my opinion.

[bozodog]

Oh, you sound so very liberal, hitest...Wide spread!?!!! No offense, but most quality employers have drug testing mandates. Before employment, on the job accident, and random.(even MacD's and Home Depot) My neighbor's company hits hard the day after the superbowl, with a round of random tests. Even temp agencies test...

I'd suspect drug use by anyone that is wanting a ride on the taxpayers dime, and yeah Terrorist, that means politicians too. Am I to assume hitest isn't subjected to testing?

[hitest]

Oh, you sound so very liberal, hitest...Wide spread!?!!! No offense, but most quality employers have drug testing mandates. Before employment, on the job accident, and random.(even MacD's and Home Depot) My neighbor's company hits hard the day after the superbowl, with a round of random tests. Even temp agencies test...

I'd suspect drug use by anyone that is wanting a ride on the taxpayers dime, and yeah Terrorist, that means politicians too. Am I to assume hitest isn't subjected to testing?

No offense taken:) Yes. I am a Liberal through and through.

No I am not subjected to drug testing (I am subjected to a criminal records check), although I would not be averse to taking a drug test.

My problem with the wide spread drug testing policy is that it tars everyone with the same brush, that is, all welfare recipients are guilty of being a druggie.

If they are required to take drug tests then so should we all as drug users put a strain on the infrastructure of society in general.

(yes I enjoy being a PITA playing Devil's advocate)

[bozodog]

So that means ALL Home Depot employees are druggies? Stryker corp. engineers? Manpower temps? The hospital staff? The hotel staff? You have it bassakwards. Those folks are drug free, everyone of them. Can't say that about the "entitled" unless they're tested.

(must be that Canadian air )

[hitest]

So that means ALL Home Depot employees are druggies? Stryker corp. engineers? Manpower temps? The hospital staff? The hotel staff? You have it bassakwards. Those folks are drug free, everyone of them. Can't say that about the "entitled" unless they're tested.

(must be that Canadian air )

No it does not mean that all of the employees that you listed are druggies. I am just making a point, which you agree with, that drug testing everyone is ridiculous. All welfare recipients are not drug users. Some welfare users are drug users as are some employees in the various groups you listed.

As to living as an entitled one I wish that were so. In America you have a progressive President who is fighting a difficult battle to try to improve the lot of working people. In Canada we are living in a very right wing regime with a Conservative Prime Minister. In BC, the province where I live, the Premier is working very hard to cut the wages and benefits for workers (myself included). Entitlement?! I think not:)

I do realize your argument is a bit tongue in cheek as is mine.

[Peaches]

I don't care if anyone wishes to test me for drugs ... I have nothing to hide since I only use prescribed medications. In my last place of employment one of the staff was a drug user and scammed the company out of $100,000 before she got caught. No drug testing of employees was done so perhaps with today's popularity of drug usage, it is not such a bad idea.

And living in a right wing regime also kept Canada out of a deep recession and the #1 country rated out of 10 [up from #4] worldwide for investing into. Not bad when other countries are going bankrupt. On one hand people complain government is spending into a deficit and on the other hand when it is a self interest then spending is okay.

A bit off topic but it was brought into the conversation.

British Columbia (Vancouver) $73,972 2011 BC's Local Collective Agreements (2006 - 2011)

I do not feel it is such a shabby wage given the time off & short hours teachers enjoy plus the rich extra benefits demanded. The disadvantaged can only dream of such a salary and benefits.

BC Teachers are asking for the following:

* Ten days paid bereavement leave is among the proposals B.C. teachers requested in their bid for a new collective agreement. But that request and others are unrealistic and out-of-touch with the province’s economic climate, says the B.C. Public School Employers Association.

According to the BCPSEA, it will cost taxpayers an additional $2.1 billion to meet proposals tabled by the B.C. Teachers Federation in contract negotiations, which recently ground to a standstill.

Among the proposals is a 26-week, fully paid leave of absence per year for direct or indirect compassionate care “to any person,” a concession the BCPSEA estimates could cost $49 million.

And I for one cannot afford to foot that kind of bill as many other BC residents cannot afford it either and can only dream of such benefits.

[bozodog]

I am just making a point, which you agree with, that drug testing everyone is ridiculous

Nooo, I'm not agreeing with that. I think drug testing every/anyone is a legitimate requirement for employment OR receiving welfare. Everyone that works at the companies above had to test before going to work, and face random and post accident testing everyday. Why shouldn't folks that DON'T work for their money?

Here in Michigan we finally made a law restricting welfare to 48 months. Four years!!! Social programs are supposed to be a hand up, not a career.

[hitest]

Nooo, I'm not agreeing with that. I think drug testing every/anyone is a legitimate requirement for employment OR receiving welfare. Everyone that works at the companies above had to test before going to work, and face random and post accident testing everyday. Why shouldn't folks that DON'T work for their money?

When society introduces laws that violate the civil rights of certain individuals it sets a nasty and dangerous precedent. The next new law might be: "We think that there are lots of people taking drugs in this particular neighborhood so we will just stop any person of our choosing on the street and do a full body and cavity search." "It is for the greater good of society that we do this."

I understand the intent of the new law about screening welfare recipients for drugs, that is, let us protect the taxpayers from shelling out too much cash. When civil rights are violated it is a slippery slope. Where does it end......a big brother police state? Well, we are just about there anyway.

I respectfully disagree with you on this.

[bozodog]

Where is it a violation of civil rights? If you don't want to take a drug test, don't apply for a handout. That's easy, and no violation.

If you don't want to take a drug test, don't apply for a job with quality company, and keep mowing lawns.

If you don't want tests, don't be a pro athlete.

I know we will agree to disagree, but it's the working taxpayers, "too much cash".

[TheTerrorist_75]

What is a quality company? Does it mean that a well established landscaping company isn't quality? I don't think any company should be allowed to test for drugs unless the employee showed up to work wasted or caused an accident that harmed themselves or another employee. I think that if you want to test welfare recipients then you must test all other individuals who receive compensation from the taxpayers. The taxpayers pay out more for government employees than we do welfare. I believe that we get much less out of the government employees than we do the welfare crowd.

[hitest]

Where is it a violation of civil rights? If you don't want to take a drug test, don't apply for a handout.

How is that a choice?

I'll give you a good example of why that is a bad idea. Up here in Canada we have eased back on supporting people who have mental illnesses, that is , there are fewer halfway houses and therapists to help people with psychiatric disorders. There are many homeless people who are mentally ill. These are people who cannot hold down a job. How can a person who is unemployable refuse to apply for a handout? Your response I take it would be: "If you don't like it starve." These people do not have the option of refusing help.

The sign of a civilized society is how it treats the citizens who are least able to defend themselves. Our society fails on all counts.

[bozodog]

The answer is so easy, don't do drugs if you want/need help .Don't do drugs if you want a good job.(that includes government workers) Cops and firemen are already tested. Would YOU like a doper cop protecting you and your family?

What does the unemployable that are mentally ill have to do with testing welfare takers? Here in the US, under sixty percent pay the income tax that funds handouts to the rest. How is it fair that the citizens "least able to defend themselves" has become nearly 50% of the nation? Some out there just don't deserve it, and are scamming the system.

[hitest]

The answer is so easy, don't do drugs if you want/need help .Don't do drugs if you want a good job.(that includes government workers) Cops and firemen are already tested. Would YOU like a doper cop protecting you and your family?

What does the unemployable that are mentally ill have to do with testing welfare takers? Here in the US, under sixty percent pay the income tax that funds handouts to the rest. How is it fair that the citizens "least able to defend themselves" has become nearly 50% of the nation? Some out there just don't deserve it, and are scamming the system.

You and I will agree to disagree on this issue, bozodog. Thanks for the debate, I enjoyed that a lot.

[Georaraile]

It's concerning that some states are introducing drug tests as a requirement for welfare eligibility. This policy adds another barrier for those in need, often targeting vulnerable populations who are already struggling. While some argue it's necessary to ensure government assistance isn’t misused, others believe it’s an unnecessary intrusion that only stigmatizes the poor. Moreover, there are questions about the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of such measures, especially when they might involve tests like the ket drug test for substances that aren't necessarily linked to employment capabilities. This approach could end up punishing rather than helping those in need.