...Welfare Drug Testing: What is the Real Cost? DeeDee Reece English Composition II Professor Renee Reynolds February 28, 2012 DeeDee Reece Professor Renee Reynolds English Composition II February 28, 2012 Abstract In July 2011, Florida passed a law which required applicants seeking aid under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to take a drug test. If they pass the test they get benefits; if they fail – nothing! The law was developed to save the state taxpayers money. It was enacted on a biased foundation - without funds the poor can’t support their drug habits! It was mandated without any regard for the consequences of doing so. The problem isn’t taking the test; it’s what it stands for! It crosses the constitutional, social, moral, and ethical boundaries that society deems acceptable. The negative aspects outweighed the good! The testing has been placed on hold while the “real costs” are addressed. Welfare Drug Testing: What is the Real Cost? Being poor once meant you lacked funds or the means to support yourself. Today the meaning has been changed to define a person’s character. Florida law suggests the definition of poor is synonymous with drug user. Eligibility for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program now requires applicants to submit to drug testing to receive benefits. The problem isn’t with taking the test but the premise behind it. The law was enacted based on an...
Words: 2983 - Pages: 12
...Drug Testing Welfare Recipients: A Wise Choice Robert Denson ENG1420 Mr. A. Hewlett 10 February 2015 The national welfare system was created in 1935 to provide federal aid to the elderly, disabled and qualifying single mothers during the Great Depression (Costly, 2015). Public housing assistance, the Food Stamp Program and Medicare are examples of state programs available to assist families in need. Welfare, undoubtedly, is an essential source of assistance for many under privileged families. In recent years, some states have enacted drug testing for welfare recipients. This action has raised the question if it’s unfair search and seizure, other words, unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment to The United States Constitution, n.d.), or does it really discourage suspected drug abuse Many Americans agree there needs to be a reformation to the Welfare act and how the assistance should be utilized by its recipients. Opponents argue that the children will bear the brunt of the drug testing policy and it will cost more than it saves (Drug-Testing & The TANF Program, n.d.). The children depend on the adults to receive the benefits on their behalf, but when those benefits are being traded for drugs and/or cash to purchase drugs, there is no benefit. Discontinuing benefits to individuals who test positive for illegal substances would allow those funds to be returned to the state and federal budgets. In return, those unused funds will aid in balancing the state’s budget and...
Words: 1373 - Pages: 6
...seeking government assistance be required to take drug tests? INTRODUCTION On August 22, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, also known as the Welfare Reform Bill, into effect ending welfare as it had been known for many years. “This law transformed the traditional entitlement to cash welfare under Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) into a transitional program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which requires most recipients to work after two years of receiving assistance, or, at state option, even earlier, with few exceptions. After 60 months of receipt during a lifetime, a recipient is ineligible for federally-funded cash benefits (NPC, 2004)”. (1) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act shifted the responsibility of the poor to the states. The Act also made allowance for states to perform drug testing of those who were in need of federal assistance. According to an article in the New York Times “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 (Sulzberger, 2011) .” The controversy rising from the proposed drug testing has many debating the question: Should people seeking government assistance be required to take drug tests? PROs/CONs: There are several pros and cons to the new legislature to drug test those seeking government assistance. PROS: ...
Words: 1619 - Pages: 7
...Drug Testing Welfare Recipients: Scandal or Solution Welfare programs as we know today were created in the 1930’s during the great depression to aid unemployed and under employed people in supporting their families. (“The”) It was not intended to be a government funded crutch for substance abusers. Often tax payers complain about tax monies being spent to support the habits of drug users who receive welfare. The fix to this problem is simple, drug testing. Drug test everyone on welfare and when the welfare recipient tests positive, take away the benefit. Problem solved. But is it? The consideration of testing welfare recipients for drug use has been debated since welfare reform in 1996. Subsequently, “at least eight states have passed legislation regarding drug testing or screening for public assistance applicants or recipients (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah)”. (United, par. 2) Legislators in twenty other states have also proposed drug testing for people who receive welfare. (Prah) However, drug testing welfare recipients is an ineffective use of tax monies because drug abuse is not common in welfare recipients, it is expensive and unproductive, and it is a violation of personal rights. It is easy to believe that most people who receive welfare have some sort of drug abuse problem; nevertheless this could not be further from the truth. The reality is, of the 310 million people living in the United States in 2011, only 1.95 million...
Words: 1301 - Pages: 6
...Mandatory Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Jason Hoops ENG325: Intermediate Composition Instructor: Ms. Heather Auger August 11, 2014 Mandatory Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients One of the most controversial issues surrounding the governmental welfare system today is the push for mandatory drug testing for its participants. With the present controversy surrounding it, several would pose the question as to whether or not the government should have the right to hold people who partake in the government entitlements accountable for illegal drug use or would this sort of action actually cross that boundary line of civil liberties into an invasion of one’s privacy? The state welfare system was established to financially assist those who are unable to meet the basic needs for everyday living; drugs are far from the basic human needs. If drug-using recipients receive the same benefits as those that are not parking in the illegal usage, they are much more likely to use their benefit check to obtain their next fix rather than to purchase the groceries needed to feed their families. Implementing mandatory drug testing for its recipients would decrease the amount of people abusing the system as it would require them to maintain a drug free status in order to receive their aid. In doing so, it would also reveal the recipients who are utilizing a portion of the governmental program for the wrong reasons; thus being a waste of tax payer’s governmental...
Words: 3017 - Pages: 13
...Substance abuse has had a history of being part of policy discussions pertaining to public welfare. Since the federal welfare reform of 1996, states had begun to proposition for drug testing of individuals applying for public benefits. Currently, the federal government allows drug testing as a precursor for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). In the past years, most states have proposed drug screenings or some other source of drug testing for applicants of TANF. In 2009, there were over 20 states with a legislation proposal requiring that drug tests become a part of the eligibility process for public assistance programs and 12 states had similar proposals in 2010. None of the proposals have become laws due to the idea that the legislations were based off suspicion or random drug testing. This idea is at odds with the 2003 Michigan Court of Appeals case. Marchwinski v. Howard which ruled the subjecting all welfare applicants to drug testing without out any reason to believe that they were currently using or have recently used was not in alignment with our constitution (Newell, 2011). Currently, Oklahoma has a policy that is in accordance with the testing of welfare applicants, but that abides by the Marchwinski v. Howard case because it does not violate the rights of applicants and is not deemed unconstitutional. Oklahoma’s Policy 340:10-4-1. Mandatory Drug Screening Issued 12-5-12 States: (a) Per Section 230.52 of Title 56 of the Oklahoma...
Words: 610 - Pages: 3
...Cons Of Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients Norman Zeitunian BCOM/275 Business Communication October 30, 2012 Todd Keller Cons Of Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients There are many states that have attempted to introduce or have laws on their books for drug testing when individuals who are applying for state benefits. Some of the states are Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Washington. The overall purpose of this testing is to better prepare individuals for employment purposes. Although that is a good sounding intention, there are many aspects that will be flawed and not viable. The most powerful argument against drug testing for welfare benefits stems from the constitutional standpoint. Organizations such as the ACLU have argued that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from being searched without probable cause ( Bowler 2012). This issue is the main stopping point for creating this program in states’ is that there are many legal issues and will be challenges in the court systems. This leads to the costs related to dealing with the legal ramifications and potential lawsuits that are filed against states agencies that impose drug testing. Another point that was stated in the same letter was that mandatory drug testing was an "ineffective" and "fiscally irresponsible" way to deal with drug abuse. Instead of drug tests, which cost an average of $42 each not including the costs of running the program, the money would be better spent on training government workers...
Words: 582 - Pages: 3
...Ways to fight against Welfare Fraud Joshua Eyler Eng/147 July 27, 2015 Elsie Walker Due to the overwhelming amount of welfare fraud that goes on across the United States, I’d like to share a few ways to help diminish this kind of fraud. Welfare fraud on any scale is wrong and something needs to be done about it being reduced. Some states have already put into affect mandatory drug testing, with other states to follow. This should help sift through the people who are breaking the law for one, and quite possibly committing fraud upon the welfare system. However, more could be done with random residential checks and cutting down the time they have to collect. Welfare fraud could be reduced by governing who is eligible for mandatory drug testing, home visits, and having shorter benefit collection periods. Mandatory drug testing should be implemented to be qualified for welfare assistance. There are just too many applicants who are under the influence of some kind of drug that they do not have a prescription for. (Pollack, n.d.) “Almost 20 percent of welfare recipients report recent use of some illicit drug during the year”. (para. 1) Drug testing would cut down on the applicants that use drugs on a daily basis, and also help eliminate a portion of the fraud. This is a route that all states should put into effect, and they should make penalties for those that break this rule. Another way to cut down on welfare fraud is to make unscheduled home visits. According...
Words: 623 - Pages: 3
...chose to do my discussion on Drug Testing Program for Welfare Applicants. I disagree with the judge for stopping welfare applicants from being tested for drug use because even marijuana is a drug. To me this would be a good idea; maybe it would cut down people abusing the government. I think that all applicants who apply for any kind of assistance from the government should be tested. You have to go different doctors to try to get on disability. Now even with the different jobs you get people are doing random drug testing. Now with the economy the way it is we have more and more people on welfare than in a very long time and I think that drug testing as a part of the application is a good idea. Why would the government give anyone who is an alcoholic or on drugs food stamps? I guess they are trying to help them kill themselves because then they wouldn’t be a problem. Drugs kill many of our people every day. To me if you can get the money to do drugs, you can support your family and give them all of the necessities that they need to survive. As stated in this case, “The drug testing pilot is an opportunity to help individuals find employment and to help strengthen their families”. Now even with the different jobs you get people are doing random drug testing. If you fail a drug test, you get put on probation or fired. Then you go apply for unemployment, so the government is still paying for their drugs. So, why be able to get assistance for failing the drug test, if you can’t even keep...
Words: 458 - Pages: 2
...A proposed law in several states that impacts the delivery of human services is requiring mandatory drug testing to be done for those who receive welfare from the government. States have proposed drug testing of applicants and recipients of public welfare benefits since federal welfare reform in 1996. It began to pick up speed in 2011. At least 18 states introduced proposals or had carryover bills that would require drug screening or testing for public assistance applicants and/or recipients in 2014.This has actually passed in some states, but it has been difficult for some to pass this. Unsurprisingly, there is an outrage by those who receive welfare. There are those that say that if you can be drug tested for a job, you should for welfare because you are still receiving money, like you would in a job. I think that the most reliable resource available to learn more about the implications of this law would be by reading the proposed legislation. Being aware of what is being done and said will highly help. Just standing on the sidelines and not actually acting is what can make the effects worse by doing nothing. Also, by having a meeting or some type of communication between the head of the organization and the senator that is proposing this legislation to help clarify any issues and even help to improve on the legislation that is being proposed. Other reliable resources could be other agencies that have dealt with similar laws in their areas, and how they coped with implementing...
Words: 1461 - Pages: 6
...COMMUNICATION PAGE 1 OF 3 DRUG TESTING FOR WELFARE CRITICAL THINKING/EFFECTIVE COMMUNIATION PAGE 2 OF 3 In the following paper I will discuss the topic of welfare and is it fair to drug test for welfare. I will go into the pro’s and con’s of the subject and why I disagree with this article on the stance that it is not fair to drug test the applicants for welfare. The main premise of the article, by the author, is to state the stance that it is not fair to drug test applicants. That the stigma of people who use welfare is already bad, so now they have to be classified as drug users too. Added to the argument is, are they going to test alcoholics for alcohol or prescription drug users for that as well. While I agree that just testing for drugs should not be the end all be all, I think that it is an important step in weeding out certain people from the people who really need it. Let’s look at the facts; there is no real way to police people from using welfare or food stamps properly. It has also been proven that it is widely abused and it is very easy to work the system to get. As a hard working tax payer, it frustrates me that people work the system and get my hard earned money in return. The way I approach this subject and many other subjects is would it be unfair for me or would it violate my rights. I view drug testing for welfare a lot like drug testing for a job. If you want the job you have...
Words: 455 - Pages: 2
...Court Decisions Checkpoint Axia College Court Decisions Checkpoint The “War on Drugs” is becoming more important to the government, program administrators, policy makers, and the public. Money has become an issue in social welfare programs that is vied for on a daily basis; who will get money to support their causes? In November, 1999, a U.S. District Judge ordered a temporary injunction barring the drug testing of new public assistance applicants in Michigan; citing questionable constitutionality. (Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, 1999) The use of drugs has long been a concern for citizens when giving money to people who are in need. How often have you heard someone say “Don’t give money to street beggars, they just use it for drugs and alcohol?” The problem of the abuse does not seem to be lessening, but it appears the courts believe that testing before receipt of benefits may not be legal. In this case, I believe that the courts have made the appropriate decision. While the use of drugs and alcohol do contribute to poverty and unemployment, they are also side-effects of a bad situation. While most people feel that those who can work should work, there will always be some that are left without opportunity or ability to provide for themselves and their families. There are several aspects of the drug testing dilemma that must be addressed when reviewing the legality, reality, and constitutionality of such a program. The first issue that must be addressed is equal protection...
Words: 1073 - Pages: 5
...ITT | Drug Testing Welfare Recipients | Why We Shouldn’t | | Michael Chiodo (11594970) | 8/30/2012 | Drug testing welfare recipients has been a major topic across the United States for a few years now. Many argue that if working class people are subject to a test prior to hire or randomly during the length of employment, why should those that don’t have to work for money not have the same treatment? Invasion of privacy is a huge disadvantage on the government’s part, yes it is free money but that doesn’t entitle anyone, even government, to control every aspect of your life or hold it constantly over a person’s head until they feel guilt or just flat decline assistance. Let’s ask ourselves just one question; if you went to the bank for a car loan, being this is a necessity for everyday living to own, how would you feel if they asked you to take a drug test prior to lending you the money? I feel many peoples’ tune would change drastically. Money, we all know this is essential in the world we live in. would you go to a restaurant knowing you had no money in your pocket or bank account? Of course not because you know after the meal follows the bill. Working class people are already indebted to the governments ridiculous fees they deduct from each of your paychecks, knowing damn well you will never see social security or and type of 401k. You are throwing your money into a pit that promises no return, would you like an additional fee tacked onto the end of your paystub...
Words: 1434 - Pages: 6
...induction during the Great Depression, the American welfare system has aided poor and low-income Americans within our nation, giving them opportunities that beforehand would have been impossible. With nearly 1 trillion spent on programs associated with welfare (excluding Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance), its continuation for these Americans is vital. However, in recent years, this system has become more abused by those benefiting from it with many stating that a number of welfare recipients are not self-sufficient and misuse their funds on drug use and other auxiliaries. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt—the enactor of these welfare programs—warned of their potential misuse. “The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence...
Words: 1071 - Pages: 5
...the United States today is whether people receiving welfare benefits should undergo drug testing to qualify. Critics argue that it is discrimination and unconstitutional, but it is requiring no more than almost any job that you apply for that requires you to pass a drug test in order to qualify for that job and benefits. As of now, the only thing that you must show in order to qualify for government assistance is that you are below the income requirements. I think that this encourages more citizens to not work, have children, and live off of the working citizens in America. I think that initial and random drug testing should be mandatory in all states for anyone who is applying for or currently receiving welfare benefits. This would ensure that precious taxpayer dollars are going to those truly in need. Right now only 3 out of the 50 states require drug testing to qualify for benefits. There are 23 other states that are seeking to adopt this same requirement (Alcindor). Of the three states that currently require testing, Florida is the only state that has practiced this for every applicant. As a result of the legislation that took effect of July 1st, people seeking welfare benefits in the state of Florida will have to submit urine, blood, or hair samples to be tested for the use of illicit substances, and pay for the testing (Kondro E721). If the applicant tests negative, then they will be reimbursed for the cost of the drug test. If they test positive, then they are prohibited...
Words: 537 - Pages: 3
