Drug Tests For Welfare
- Date: 2009-04-20 - Word Count: 768
Share This!
There is a recent push to require people who are collecting state benefits to submit to random drug tests. CNN has an article that details a West Virginian legislator's push for such a law. Such laws are being discussed in ten other states as well.
Of course the issue is controversial and the ACLU has jumped on it to defend the rights of drug users or something like that. There is one valid argument against it at least. Even though it is government subsidized, unemployment benefits are insurance, not welfare. Each week money is taken off of your paycheck to go into this program. If you're an independent contractor who can't find work, you can't just go collect unemployment because you didn't pay into it. Agreeing to take someone's money but refusing to pay it back to them when they need it is a good way to end up in a lawsuit and the ACLU would be likely to win.
But what if we focus solely on people who are collecting government welfare? They paid in nothing to be eligible. We are not talking about millions of people who legitimately need help from the government because of some hard times. This is talking about a small percentage of people who are not only breaking the law but are taking advantage of a system that is meant to help the less fortunate and ultimately giving all recipients a bad reputation. We're all aware that some people have children for the sole purpose of collecting a bigger welfare check. Most people do not do this but anybody who has a couple of kids and collects welfare is accused by some people of doing this.
Now, does this single out a certain portion of the population? Yes. Is it unfair to expect people to obey the law? No. This is no more unfairly singling people out than a cop who only pulls over those who are speeding. I don't believe that it is being stereotypical to suspect that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs. Frankly I doubt that drug use among welfare recipients is any greater than any other portion of the population. If drug use was just a low class thing millionaire athletes and actors wouldn't get caught with drugs.
The intention of the law needs to be considered. If anyone thinks we're going to catch these drug users and deny them federal money and therefore save money, they're kidding themselves. At least in the short term, this is not going to save money. Therefore states that are scrambling to pass these laws while the economy is bad are not going to save any money. Any sort of drug testing program is going to be expensive to implement and maintain. Beyond the cost of the test itself, there is the question of what to do when someone is caught. Do we send them to jail? Is such a test result even permissible in the courtroom?
The goal of random drug testing would have to be to get a user off of drugs. Merely threatening to take away welfare benefits isn't going to work because a person's freedom is already in jeopardy as drug use is against the law. Drug rehab could be required for a person to regain or maintain welfare eligibility. This would at least be a start but even drug rehab has a high rate of failure as many people go back to drugs. In the end though, even if 25% of people who enter the program get off of drugs for good, this is a great success. These people would be able to get their life turned around any many would be able to get off the welfare system. Being on welfare doesn't imply that a person is on drugs but being on drugs definitely increases the chance for being on welfare. Getting users out of the system would be a great savings down the road. Welfare costs would decrease as well as health care costs for treatment of all kinds of problems that drugs can cause.
I believe that this program can work but that it is not a quick fix to save some money during a downturn in the economy. If it is implemented, it must be with the intention of helping people get off of drugs, not punish them for being on drugs. I have no interest in my tax dollars going to a welfare recipient who either got that way because of drugs and/or will spend the money on drugs. But simply taking the money away from them is not going to solve the real problem.
Of course the issue is controversial and the ACLU has jumped on it to defend the rights of drug users or something like that. There is one valid argument against it at least. Even though it is government subsidized, unemployment benefits are insurance, not welfare. Each week money is taken off of your paycheck to go into this program. If you're an independent contractor who can't find work, you can't just go collect unemployment because you didn't pay into it. Agreeing to take someone's money but refusing to pay it back to them when they need it is a good way to end up in a lawsuit and the ACLU would be likely to win.
But what if we focus solely on people who are collecting government welfare? They paid in nothing to be eligible. We are not talking about millions of people who legitimately need help from the government because of some hard times. This is talking about a small percentage of people who are not only breaking the law but are taking advantage of a system that is meant to help the less fortunate and ultimately giving all recipients a bad reputation. We're all aware that some people have children for the sole purpose of collecting a bigger welfare check. Most people do not do this but anybody who has a couple of kids and collects welfare is accused by some people of doing this.
Now, does this single out a certain portion of the population? Yes. Is it unfair to expect people to obey the law? No. This is no more unfairly singling people out than a cop who only pulls over those who are speeding. I don't believe that it is being stereotypical to suspect that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs. Frankly I doubt that drug use among welfare recipients is any greater than any other portion of the population. If drug use was just a low class thing millionaire athletes and actors wouldn't get caught with drugs.
The intention of the law needs to be considered. If anyone thinks we're going to catch these drug users and deny them federal money and therefore save money, they're kidding themselves. At least in the short term, this is not going to save money. Therefore states that are scrambling to pass these laws while the economy is bad are not going to save any money. Any sort of drug testing program is going to be expensive to implement and maintain. Beyond the cost of the test itself, there is the question of what to do when someone is caught. Do we send them to jail? Is such a test result even permissible in the courtroom?
The goal of random drug testing would have to be to get a user off of drugs. Merely threatening to take away welfare benefits isn't going to work because a person's freedom is already in jeopardy as drug use is against the law. Drug rehab could be required for a person to regain or maintain welfare eligibility. This would at least be a start but even drug rehab has a high rate of failure as many people go back to drugs. In the end though, even if 25% of people who enter the program get off of drugs for good, this is a great success. These people would be able to get their life turned around any many would be able to get off the welfare system. Being on welfare doesn't imply that a person is on drugs but being on drugs definitely increases the chance for being on welfare. Getting users out of the system would be a great savings down the road. Welfare costs would decrease as well as health care costs for treatment of all kinds of problems that drugs can cause.
I believe that this program can work but that it is not a quick fix to save some money during a downturn in the economy. If it is implemented, it must be with the intention of helping people get off of drugs, not punish them for being on drugs. I have no interest in my tax dollars going to a welfare recipient who either got that way because of drugs and/or will spend the money on drugs. But simply taking the money away from them is not going to solve the real problem.
Related Tags: drugs, unemployment, welfare, drug tests, current issues
Mike has been ranting for years. You can read his rants at his site My Angry Rant He also operates Camera Optical Zoom Your Article Search Directory : Find in Articles
Recent articles in this category:
- When Did The Term "racist" Turn Into A Political Tactic?
I had always thought that being a racist was a bad thing. The dictionary defines a racist as someone - Best Choice For You And Me - Palin, Tea And The Gop
Tea Party backed Christine O'Donnell's spectacular win in Delaware combined with others around the n - The International Response To Plastic Bags
Americans overwhelmingly choose plastic. Per year they use around 90 million plastic versus 5 billio - Using Comparative Effectiveness Research To Examine And Improve Health Care Reform
Our understanding of the effectiveness of healthcare interventions continues to grow - in particular - Landslides' Avalanche Of Mud.
When China observed a day of mourning on 15th August 2010 for the victims of the previous week's dea - The Fed's Role In Crisis And Recovery
Despite its apolitical mandate, the Federal Reserve remains one of the most politically sensitive in - Relocation Of 330,000 Residents Begins In Central China
In the country's largest relocation program since the Three Gorges Dam, China has ordered over 330,0 - China Launches Global English News Channel
The Chinese government owned news agency - Xinhua has started broadcasting events happening in China - After Hitting Record Lows Mortgage Rates Fall Again
The 30 year rate dropped this week from 4.69 to 4.58. This is quite a large drop for a week. What ma - U.n. Report: India And China Massively Improving Slums
China and India have improved the lives of more slum dwellers than any other country, the United Nat
Most viewed articles in this category:
- Campaign Time Again
Politicians are everywhere once more. They're on television, radio, billboards, the Internet and on - Salman Rushdie The Sensitive Prophet And Juma Gul
Between Danish cartoons and Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" that have raised the ire of Muslims worldwide - The Fight For La'au Point
There is a battle between the largest private landowner of Moloka'i (the Moloka'i Ranch) and the nat - Is Charles, The Prince Of Wales, Fit To Be King?
Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor named at his birth on the 14th of November 1948. Charles, the e - The Web And The 2008 Presidential Race
A lot of people have expressed that there is too much buzz on the upcoming 2008 presidential race. T - The Theory Of Globalization And Its Analysis
There has been considerable academic debate concerning the emergence and meaning of globalisation wi - High Fives To The Modern Day Colonists
The colonists from the 1700's would be giving the modern day colonists high fives for their spirit a - Isn't Your Job Mindset Suffocating You, Your Dreams, And Your Goals?
The chains of the corporate mindset holds people back from stepping forward and completely creating - Book On Bihar
There is one thing that I really despise - is the fact that people do raise eyebrows when you utter - End Of The World 12 21 2012
Can you imagine in 999 A.D. how many predictions that the world would come to an end there might be?