This is a topic that has been debated for many years and is probably derived from the stigma that associates welfare in a negative light; such as calling those on welfare “crackheads” and “drug abusers”. The stereotype of drug abusers with welfare has been around for centuries and has created this negative feeling for those families who find themselves needing to apply for help. Although most states have cracked down on welfare to a point where it is extremely difficult to get on TANF {Temporary Assistance for Needy Families aka Cash Assistance} there are still some who abuse the system. Whether you are talking about a public assistance system or employment opportunities, there will always be that small percentage of people who find a way to abuse the situation.
Let’s look at welfare as a paying “position” that helps you get back on your feet from unexpectedly losing employment. Most employers in America now require you to have drug testing done prior to being offered an employment position. If you take a moment to compare TANF to a paid employee position then it would make sense that one would have to be drug tested in order to receive such benefits. Some say it’s unconstitutional to drug test welfare applicants, even a Judge in Florida temporarily blocked such request citing the idea of drug testing welfare applicants as possible breach of the people’s constitutional rights, saying that “it may violate the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures“.
The definition for unreasonable searches and seizures is “search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without “probable cause” to believe evidence of a crime is present”. source The Free Dictionary. Does this definition really make any sense as a valid argument for drug testing welfare applicants?
If a state requires applicants for welfare to be drug tested prior to receiving any benefits then it’s not unjust and judgmental. Creating a law that allows drug testing as part of the application process for welfare could be simply be defined as; a way to ensure TANF is being used for it’s intended purpose. As with any new laws they get grandfathered in, so this process wouldn’t affect current recipients of welfare but may affect them when they are up for reevaluation of eligibility.
There is much debate over the topic of whether or not welfare applicants should be required to go through drug testing as part of the eligibility process and the debate will probably continue on for centuries.
Would you want to be drug tested as part of the TANF application process or do you agree with those that say such an idea is unconstitutional? Share your thoughts in a productive way, refrain from being hurtful and judgmental.
This debate is insane! Why is it okay for our tax money to be used so that these people can buy drugs? We know they’re doing it, maybe not all of them, but a good percentage are.. Grow some balls America!
Not everyone on Welfare is buying drugs lol I had to be on it when my ex (oldest child’s father) and I broke up. The plan was I would be a stay at home mom and without welfare I wouldn’t have had anywhere to go – seriously. BUT I was one who used welfare for it’s true purpose – to get up on my feet as fast as possible and ended up on it a short time before I finally had a full time administrative assistance position and a great home daycare for my child. if you read some comments Ben actually it seems Idaho and FL find that most are not actually doing drugs – or at least are testing clean on tests. Interesting to hear that …. I think it’s just the stigma and stereotype surrounding welfare that makes some think druggies, but I am sure in larger areas the percents are higher. I am just a small town gal … thinking outloud and trying to see what everyone thinks on the topic.
I absolutely agree that Welfare benefits should come with a drug test. For all the reasons you mentioned, and here’s another… When I apply for a job, most employers require a drug test before offering employment, If I am required to submit to a drug test to earn the money that is then taxed and part of which is used to pay those welfare benefits, then I feel that people receiving those benefits should be required to submit to testing as well. I have a choice; I can refuse to work for a company that requires drug testing, and so do people applying for welfare. They can choose not to take the benefits if they do not want to take the drug test. I don’t see why is is such a big issue really, I have no problem taking a drug test, because I don’t use drugs. If a person is applying for welfare, and intending to use it as it was intended, then submitting to drug testing shouldn’t be a problem.
That is how I was feeling too Kristy but then reading some of the other comments here – it sounds like many who tried to do the drug testing option found it was a waste of money as there were too few coming back as “drug users” that would be interesting to see because if their are not truly that many on “drugs” applying for welfare then maybe it wouldn’t be so cost effective. I still do not feel is a violation of rights – drugs, whether pain killers (RX legal drugs) or illegal drugs – no one has the right to use them if they are illegal drugs or abuse them if they are legal drugs – so …. it wouldn’t be considered violating a right because no one in America has the right to abuse drugs nor do drugs except RX as prescribed by doctor according to law. lol just my two cents. Such a tough subject for sure because we don’t know what’s going on “behind the scenes” with these programs.
This was done in my state (FL). We ended up spending more money on the tests than the money we saved from not giving the “druggies” welfare. They also found very few drug users. I think this policy is a complete waste of money. I also believe it was done in my state because Gov. Scott was in bed with the company making the tests. It’s a failed policy. It’s just too expensive.
Oh that is an interesting insight on the topic! I do agree – that the stereotype of “drug abusers” goes along with the idea of welfare when that isn’t the case. Interesting to hear that the rate was rather low for drug users, which would make sense it would be a big waste of money! I have had to be on welfare myself after becoming a single mom for the first time – I worked my butt off to get a great administrative office position, but had I not been able to have a program like TANF and Food Stamps – it would have been difficult to find a job and daycare fast enough to survive while nursing my 4 month old child. I personally wouldn’t be opposed to be tested for drugs in order to qualify if the need/emergency situation ever arose for me again, however, if it’s going to cost the state and government more money without having validation for the testing -such as you stated “very few drug users” then no way should we do it. Drug user looking for welfare percentage may vary from state to state of course.
Employers that drug test often do so because the position requires the employee to be able to do the job safely for their sake and others. So no, I don’t think they should drug test. I feel it is a violation of their rights.
I agree with the commenter who said it’s a waste of money. In Idaho, in order to receive benefits you must be looking for work 40 hours a week and even then, it’s only for $300. Anyone on drugs would obviously not fulfill the requirements and then would be kicked off the program anyway for lack of participation.
In my opinion, and this does make people twitchy, I find a lot of the supporters to be people who never had to be in that position and have the “it’s my money” attitude.
Now, don’t get me started on Health Care…
I have had to be on welfare in the past – and have worked since I was 13 years old. Having found myself a single mother when my daughter was four months old – I had no choice but to be on TANF and Food Stamps. They helped me move forward faster, I don’t have family to ‘fall back on’, I am the first born daughter, grand daughter, great granddaughter, which means pressure was always put on me to succeed. I wouldn’t be opposed to drug testing and I don’t feel for the “application process” it would be a violation, however, it does sound like there could be other ways to ensure welfare is used to get people back on their feet instead of just shoving them away or wasting more money. Interesting to hear on Idaho does this, wow. NH Is rather strict with many programs for those who have to get cash assistance. LOL on Health Care – yeah I am not sure I can address that topic! ROFL- trying not to get too “political” just was curious what others thoughts were on this particular idea that has been tossed around everywhere.
I know in Washington, like Idaho, you have to work for the cash benefits. It’s hard to get on welfare here. You have to be seriously in need. And even then, it’s a flat rate of 300 (I think WA is per household member).
With medical, its the same. If you want insurance, you have to have practically no income. I guess I should look at other states, since I just don’t get what all the commotion is about. Welfare Reform of the 90’s got rid of the lifers and druggies…or so I thought.
That’s why I think, why make the people feel worse than they do already for applying. I haven’t done drugs in my entire adult life, and even as a teenagers very little, yet I would feel like scum if they asked me to do that. I think it breeds stereotypes.
Next thing you know, they will pull your criminal records or your credit history. Where does it stop?
Fabulous points – fabulous. Can’t say I don’t disagree with this reply.
Well maybe it has not been cost effective in some of the states that have tried it – but that doesn’t mean it’s not cost effective everywhere… Kristy already made my second point, employers have every right in the world to drug test their applicants.. How is it possible to even consider drug testing welfare applicants to be against their “rights”. That makes no sense when you take the blinders off and look at the whole picture!
I know first hand that most of the people who live on the same street as me here in Georgia are non-working welfare addicts. I also know first hand that almost all of them are meth & crack dealers/buyers… Again people, this is OUR tax money supporting their drug addictions.. I would rather spend our tax money ensuring those people are kept off the system, be it cost more or not… It’s not fair to our country!
As a resident of Georgia, I agree 100%. The amount of people who sit around doing nothing – not even TRYING to move forward – is unbelievable. I just moved out of a neighborhood that was overflowing with welfare-recipients and I only know this, because they brag about it! Then they sit on their front steps and smoke pot 6 days a week. 🙁 I’d be interested in knowing the stats per state on welfare.
It is, it’s like a ‘bragging right’ around here to be on welfare – I don’t get it…
I totally think that anyone who receives government assistance should have to pass a drug test.
Ditto that!
RT @brandyellen: Should Welfare Applicants Be Drug Tested? http://t.co/3ZNTQNx7
I think if they are going to drug test, then there has to be a plan for what happens to people who fail the tests. Someone needs to be making sure their children still have access to food and health care, and will the state then provide detox or counseling for the adults? What about child protective services? Do you let children remain in the homes of parents who test positive for drugs? Are there enough social workers and foster homes to provide for these children?
It’s a much larger issue than just “do we drug test or not”. Most people agree that people that take illegal drugs shouldn’t be supported by taxpayer dollars, but if our economy wasn’t so bad, and if unemployment weren’t so high, I am not sure this would be that much of an issue.
Lots of good points here …. re: children mainly. I couldn’t imagine having children pulled or losing out due to their parents decisions, etc. This is a much bigger conversation than a simple “yes or no” which one can see when the conversation is opened up – it creates more questions than answers I think.