A Drug Test For Welfare Recipients – Public Good Or Expensive Constitutional Violation? (VIDEO)

In 1999, Judge Victoria A. Roberts ruled that a Michigan law requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests was unconstitutional. This was an important step in recognizing the unfairness of treating welfare recipients as potential drug users because of their economic circumstances.

Judge Roberts said,

“…Upholding this…suspicionless drug testing would set a dangerous precedent…drug testing under these circumstances must satisfy a special need, and that need must concern public safety.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Executive Director, Kary L. Moss, made mention of privacy issues and said,

“The court today reaffirmed the important constitutional principle that all people, rich and poor, are entitled to the same privacy rights … No one should have to choose between their constitutional rights and providing for their families.”

Under Michigan law, recipients who refused a drug test could be denied public assistance. However, the decision to bar drug testing for welfare recipients was overturned on appeal in 2003.

Advocates for policies that would require welfare recipients to take a drug test point out that many employees are subject to drug tests by their employers. While laws vary, federal, state, and private employers are allowed to subject their employees to drug testing. Jobs where drug testing is common include any job where people have access to heavy machinery, controlled substances, or weapons.

Some employers only make their employees submit to a drug test at the time of hire, or in the event of a workplace accident. Others submit their employees to drug tests at random intervals.

Advocates for testing welfare recipients claim that the state has a responsibility to ensure that tax dollars are not being used to fund illicit activities. They argue that a drug test can save the state a lot of money.

As of March 28, 2016, at least 17 states either had programs in place to test recipients of government assistance for drugs, or they had proposals to put those programs in place.

The existing programs, however, produced little in the way of significant results.

In Michigan, not a single one of the applicants for government assistance tested positive for drugs after appropriating $300,000 for the program.

In a Missouri, a program that cost the state $1.35 million over the course of three years, only .001 percent of welfare recipients tested positive for drug use.

Oklahoma, spent $385, 872 in two years and had 297 positive drug test results.

In Utah, 29 out of 9,552 applicants tested positive for drug use. That program cost the state $ 64, 566 during its two year span.

ThinkProgress reported,

The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent … Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.

While the numbers have yet to justify the need for testing welfare recipients for drugs some advocates have argued that the testing is not in fact to save money, it is for the public good. These advocates argue that a responsibility exists to identify drug users in order to provide them with treatment.

If this is true, why are not middle class persons and the wealthy also tested for drug use? Are we suggesting that only welfare recipients need treatment?

Wisconsin congresswoman Gwen Moore has adamantly opposed proposals aimed at drug testing of welfare recipients. She said,

As a strong advocate for social programs aimed at combating poverty, it deeply offends me that there is such a deep stigma surrounding those who depend on government benefits, especially as a former welfare recipient.”

She went on to point out that it is not only the poor who receive forms of government assistance and proposed a bill of her own, The Top 1% Accountability Act.

Congresswomen Gwen Moore stated.

My legislation would require taxpayers with itemized deductions of more than $150,000 to submit to the IRS a clear drug test, or take the much lower standard deduction when filing their taxes.”

She went on to explain the need for the bill,

It is my sincere hope that my bill will help eradicate the stigma associated with poverty … As I’ve said time and time again, the notion that those battling poverty are somehow more susceptible to substance abuse is as absurd as it is offensive. If anything, our nation’s opioid crisis continues to underscore how substance addiction knows no social, racial, or economic distinctions. The time has come to stop vilifying vulnerable American families for being poor.”

Congresswoman Moore has addressed the heart of the problem. Where public policies are concerned, there should be no scapegoating. If The Top 1% Accountability Act is passed, perhaps the richest of Americans and the most needy Americans will be held to the same standards.

 

Featured Image: Screenshot Of Employment Background Investigations, Inc. (EBI) Video Via YouTube.