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 this if it does pass into law. In the beginning of 2014, Florida recently tried to pass a bill to have all the recipients tested that were using TANF for drug use. Judge Mary Stenson Scriven deemed it factually and legally insufficient to put in place. Scriven stated: “”[T]he only pertinent inquiry is whether there is a substantial special need for mandatory, suspicion less drug testing of TANF recipients when there is: no immediate or direct threat to public safety, when those being searched are not directly involved in the frontlines of drug interdiction, when there is no public school setting where the government has a responsibility for the care and tutelage of its young students, or when there are no dire consequences or grave risk of imminent physical harm as a result of waiting to obtain a warrant if a TANF recipient, or anyone else for that matter, is suspected of violating the law. We conclude that, on this record, the answer to that question of whether there is a substantial special need for mandatory suspicion less drug testing is “no.”” This issue does come up again in a different state later in 2014. This is happening all over America. In 2012, Utah, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Tennessee passed similar laws. In 2013, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, "at least 29 states have introduced legislative proposals requiring drug testing or screening for public assistance applicants or recipients in 2013. One state, Kansas, passed legislation to require drug testing when reasonable suspicion exists that the applicant is using controlled substances." It is believed that people that receive welfare benefits that help them support their cost of living should not be using their benefits to purchase illegal drugs. Those that are for this law have the belief that if a person is drug tested to gain employment which is constitutional as long as the person’s type of employment involves safety issues then people that are relying upon public assistance should also be required to be drug tested. One version of this law by a Senator will only require those that self-identify as having used drugs in the past as other versions have been found to be unconstitutional as it is seen to be targeting the poor and minorities without any probable cause past the fact that they need assistance. This law should not really affect the day-to-day operations within human service organizations too much, but there could be some potential impacts from it. For one, individuals that need to go get a drug test may be unsure of the process and ask more questions that others receiving the same benefits which could increase the amount of work that human service workers are expected to handle. This could slow down appointments, and cause a backlog of phone calls on information about this new law. It could also cause there to be confusion about whether or not a person’s test results have come back, as well as confusion about how to handle the benefits for juveniles that had parents that failed their drug test. This type of situation could cause more paperwork, and could involve more steps ensuring that the children and dependents are actually receiving their benefits. There could also be worry over any negative impacts that could occur from someone testing positive for drugs causing problems for the human service organization. The argument for the law is that people that receive government money for assistance should be required to prove that they are not drug addicts or dealers by taking a drug test before receiving assistance. This comes from the fact that tax payer money goes into the budget for these programs, and most people do not want to consider that their hard earned money that goes to the government is being used to fund someone that lives on welfare who is addicted to drugs, and is not using the system as it was meant to be used. Public assistance programs such as welfare is supposed to be used when a person is down on their luck and need assistance to get back on their feet, but there does exist some people that do take advantage of the system in one way or another. Supporters argue that this law is just one more way to eliminate the welfare frauds and cheats from receiving government assistance.
There are several arguments against this law. According to Colleluori (2012), “The Columbus Dispatch published an article discussing a new proposal to drug test welfare beneficiaries, failing to point out that drug testing laws are expensive, medically unsound, and have previously been found unconstitutional”. Statistics from states that have these laws in effect show that a great deal of money is being spent on drug testing with only a small amount of negative drug tests. It is believed that this is just another way for the haves to strike out against the have-nots for the simple reason that they are poor. There is also an argument that this will not stop those are on drugs from trying to receive benefits, and may be seen as a reason for a person that really needs the help to feel stigmatized by a drug test. The best recommendation to take would be to follow this particular legislation if it is passed into law. It does address several of the issues that were brought up by opposition. For one, it is believed by the Senator that it is not unconstitutional because there is probable cause that self-reported drug users may be using their benefits to supply their habit. Another issue that is addressed is that while the individual that fails the test will be ineligible for benefits, their dependents will still be allowed to gain benefits. Also, it addresses the issue of people feeling stigmatized as this only covers those that self-report drug use in the past six months. Finally, it also addresses the problem of drugs in that it provides for those that fail the test to get the help that they need which could help them get back on their feet in the same manner that the benefits are meant to help them. It is not a perfect scenario as there are still a huge amount of costs involved with drug testing the individuals, but it would make sense to garner some type of government program that can help to reduce the cost of drug testing so many individuals as this leads to the same type of money wasting as the reason behind the program.

References
Candisky, C. (2013, August 29). Drug tests for welfare pushed. The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved August 30, 2013, from http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/08/29/drug-tests-for-welfare-pushed.html
Cohen, A. (2014). The Atlantic: Poverty in a Cup. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/poverty-in-a-cup-why-a-federal-judge-rejected-a-florida-drug-test-requirement/282825/
Colleluori, S. (2012, December 7). Columbus Dispatch Omits Key Facts On Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients. mediamatters.org. Retrieved August 30, 2013, from mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/07/columbus-dispatch-omits-key-facts-on-drug-testi/191738