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? Drug testing is not free hence why you go through a rigorous interviewing process prior to being hired to deem if you are worthy of the companies money to send out for a specimen of urine. It is estimated that random annual drug test for welfare recipients would cost tax payers an additional four-thousand dollars per year, individual not household. Could you not spend four grand on anything better than random drug test for those on welfare? There is no punishment for failing a drug test, besides losing assistance. If a working person fails it cost their job, benefits, and tenure. Who is at risk for a greater loss? Extended drug use is known as an addiction, if you cut a sick person off their medication how do you expect them to recover. The vast majority of recipients in these cases have one to multiple children, we as caring individuals cannot blame the children for their parents poor choices, they are the ones that ultimately suffer. Removing assistance from mom or dad leads to ravished children with no chance of exceeding the circumstances. If you were in a drunk driving accident and the drunk driver survived and needed immediate medical attention, would you sit there and watch him die because he has an illness and made a poor choice based off his addiction. If this law were implemented, let’s take a look at the logically flawed government and what they expect. Florida was the first state to pass this law, formally, and it is proven they have saved nothing it has actually cost them more than they had anticipated. Their stipulation for new applicants is that they pay out of pocket for the test, only then if it comes back negative will they reimburse you and move forward with your application. Now how do they expect you to fork out money for a test when you are there to receive money because you have none, kind of rhetorical? Florida in 2011 tested 3,938 applicants whom were all negative, costing the state $45,000, or should we say the tax payers. It was a proven failure and gained nothing other than publicity for being the first to implement a much talked about law. 2.6% tested positive for illegal drugs; to me this is pinpointing a demographic and blaspheming them because they don’t make a certain amount of money a year, yet they don’t care to listen to their circumstances and what got them to this point. Another word comes to mind but will never be associated with it for governmental reasoning, this is nothing more than another form of profiling, it doesn’t have to be racist to be considered profiling. There are people who legitimately cannot work, i.e. disabled, handicapped, mentally unstable, among many other variations. They may see a 21 year old as an able working body, but what if this individual has MS, HIV, or Schizophrenia. Do you really want these people in the work force who are not reliable or able due to conditions they inhabit? Aside from profiling and invading privacy, drug testing welfare recipients is also a form of entrapment. Entrapment is unlawful and is asking a person to willingly partake in a drug test when or if they know they will ultimately fail. For instance if a person receiving assistance from the government regularly all of a sudden is requested to partake in a drug test to maintain their monthly assistance, and they regularly abuse drugs, they know what the results are going to be. Not only is this a waste of money for the drug test because the person could have just owned up to their addiction, but it is unlawful entrapment. Florida’s testing came out to more than they would have paid out in benefits. This is clear there is no reward in drug testing the recipients. We as a country should learn from Florida’s trial and error. It is unnecessary working class people that lose their jobs because of drug use or failed drug tests are ineligible for unemployment insurance in 20 states already. In the remaining 30 states, a drug-related discharge would likely be treated as disqualifying misconduct. This would fall under company policy, the employ knew before accepting the position that they would be mandated to random testing throughout employment with their current company. If they were going to drug test welfare they should have implemented this from the start when assistance was introduced as a possibility to the public in need. If a person worked for a company and never had to take a drug test and they leisurely used narcotics, and all of a sudden the company decided to drug test to keep employment as well as agree to sporadic ones whenever they feel is necessary, views would change quickly. Drug testing welfare perpetuates myths and scapegoats of the unemployed. Drug-testing proposals stem from false assumptions that the unemployed are lazy drug users who prefer unemployment checks to paychecks. Aside from being wrong, this assumption completely misunderstands what unemployment insurance does: It assists workers who've lost their jobs involuntarily, generally for economic reasons. Economic reasons also explain why so many of today's unemployed workers haven't found new jobs: There simply aren't enough to replace those we've lost. For nearly three years now, unemployed workers have outnumbered job openings by more than 4 to 1. Drug testing on a massive level is the last thing cash-strapped states can afford. A conservative estimate by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration puts the cost of drug testing at $25 to $75 per test. Because federal law prohibits charging applicants, states would have to absorb the cost of testing thousands of unemployed workers. The Texas Legislative Budget Board recently estimated the full-year cost of implementing such a program to be nearly $30 million. Is there a more redundant or extraneous way to spend taxpayer money? What about the children? Parental drug use may be dangerous to their families. But drug testing for TANF benefits won't protect public safety. The Supreme Court has upheld drug testing of railway engineers and U.S. Customs agents because of the dangers of drug use in those particular jobs. The testing in those cases was designed to keep drug users out of positions where they could harm the public. A positive TANF test would only mean that the user doesn't get financial assistance. How does that help their children? Child welfare agencies are charged with protecting kids from abuse and neglect; they have the tools to step in when drug use threatens a child's safety. Welfare recipient drug testing will only deprive needy families of money and ultimately the children suffer. Concerns among this issue are astronomical, however jumping the gun without a well thought out infrastructure that’s implementable without costing tax payers thousands as well as eliminating invasion of privacy and profiling innocent people whom circumstances are greater than your comprehension.