What can you tell me about the new laws in America regarding drug testing before getting state benefits?
A friend in the UK asked this question. I gave her my opinion with the disclaimer that I knew virtually nothing on the subject.
Can any of you shed some objective light on this topic?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
42 Answers
It depends on the laws of each of the fifty states. There was a legislative initiative a few years ago in the State of Florida that would have required regular drug testing of all recipients of state support programs, but it failed by a very slim margin. The bill will be sent back to the legislature for a vote again next year.
From what I understand they implemented the mandate in a few states, such as Florida. Without exception it turned out to be a miserable, expensive failure. The percentage of people who tested positive was lower than the percentage of people who turned out positive who weren’t on any kind of assistance. (And I don’t think they tested members of Congress.)
As for me, personally, I find it highly insulting. If you’re poor you must be on drugs. You must be a drunk. You’re lazy and it’s your own fault.
Or, to quote a paragraph in the link I just posted “The underlying motivation for these policies seems to be an unwarranted assumption: if you’re struggling during difficult economic times, and relying on the safety net to keep your head above water, you’re probably abusing illegal drugs. If not, the theory goes, you’d find a job.”
Hmm. You’re right, @Dutchess_III . Florida actually passed the law, but the Federal Courts concluded within months that the law could violate the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure.
@Pied_Pfeffer:
Here’s an article from last March on the law passed in Florida, and how it was basically quashed by the Federal courts within months.
“During the few months the law was in effect—July to October 2011—about 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for drugs, the most common being marijuana. That means 108 of 4,046 tested positive.”
According to the same article, Georgia enacted a similar law, but held back due to the federal court action against Florida. It appears other states have backed off making similar laws.
’“Florida had the best policy,” said Robert Rector, an expert at the conservative Heritage foundation who helped craft the 1996 welfare reform law. “Other states have been frightened off by this.”’
@Dutchess_III ” The percentage of people who tested positive was lower than the percentage of people who turned out positive who weren’t on any kind of assistance. ”
That sounds like it is working and not a failure. If you are using your own money you are free to do with it what you want. But if you are taking taxpayers’ money you should be using it to support your kids and yourself and saving some of it to help you get out of poverty.
By the way for those who say it is demeaning. I disagree. I have a very respectable job and I am required to pee in a cup at my employer’s pleasure. I freely agreed to that as a condition for receiving a check. If I am taking other people’s money I agree to the stipulations that came with it.
Gasp! You mean poor people have protection under the constitution? What BS! The constitution wasn’t founded by people on welfare!
It’s demeaning and insulting, which is why the republicans put it in place,
@LuckyGuy Not really.
First off, the testing cost more than it saved. That right there is fiscally irresponsible.
Second, the number of people who declined testing was also low. It’s not that the welfare recipients on welfare bowed out, but rather that most were clean in the first place. Now, if you’re the type that believes that wearing your shirt inside-out protects you from elephants and cite the fact that you haven’t been trampled to death by an elephant as proof that it works, then I could see how you might think otherwise, but I don’t generally fall for that fallacy.
Third, the few who did pop mostly popped on something that is legal in many places. Why punish them for something that isn’t a crime?
Fourth, if you want to go with the “it’s taxpayer money” argument, then the same applies to corporations. I’m not down with the double standard though, so I won’t play that card lest it blow back on me. Now, if I could set policy for certain businesses, especially in the healthcare industry, and actually have some influence over government policy as is my right under your logic (taxpayers pay government payroll, therefore I have total power over them) then maybe… if not for other issues.
Oh, let us not forget who profits from that testing. When you own stock in a business, you kind of want to send them customers, right? That’s why certain places (those who are really into privatizing everything) tend to have higher incarceration rates; when an increase in prison population makes your portfolio value rise, you’ll criminalize everything and enforce the hell out of every law you can find!
The Florida law is in place because Florida governor Rick Scott profits nicely from it. He’s a major shareholder in the company that “won the bid” to do this testing for the state.
@jerv I’m just going with the quote from @Dutchess_III “The percentage of people who tested positive was lower than the percentage of people who turned out positive who weren’t on any kind of assistance.
For the system to work the testing has to be cheap and paid for out of the same budget. A decade ago the tests were expensive. Now, the latest and greatest kits are less than $1.00 per test. That is pretty darn cheap – cheaper than the paper used to print a check. If the fear of failing a test convinces even 1 person out of 100 to take the high (pun) road and avoid getting stoned isn’t that a good thing?
As a side note my friends know I can be tested at any time and I am not invited to certain parties and get togethers because of it. I don’t mind one bit! Great!
You have a job to do, and if you do it wrong, because you’re on drugs, some one could get hurt, @LuckyGuy and your company can get sued. That is a perfectly logical reason for random drug tests on the job.
Being poor is not a reason to get drug tested. It’s insulting and demeaning as @elbanditoroso said.
Not only that, the actual number of recipients who tested positive was very, very low. That means they wasted a boat load of money testing hundreds or thousand of people who tested negative.
Also, do you really think poor people are wasting what tad bit of assistance they get on drugs? Do you believe that?
@LuckyGuy They charge $35 for the test though, which is part of the problem. So, with a pop rate of 1%, you’re spending $3500 per claim you shut down. That doesn’t even cover the increased cost of administration, and without seeing the numbers, I cannot be sure that that added cost is paid from the $34 overcharge so I will assume it at least possible that it costs more than $3500 per claim shut down.
The irony here is that the program is pushed by the party who wants a smaller, less intrusive government, so even if we leave finances and corruption out of it, the policy undermines the entire Conservative platform.
Funny thing is, alcohol is still allowed.
Personally, I think everyone deserves the means to support themselves. Whether they actually do so with what they are given is on them; I’m not up for a nanny state. If someone wants to spend their welfare money on crack instead of rent, fine. Of course, if they complain that they’re starving, they won’t get a damn thing from me because they had what it took to feed themselves and chose not to.
I have to ask you, @LuckyGuy, do you believe the majority of people who have any kind of welfare assistance are on drugs, and that’s a big reason they aren’t working?
Here is an interesting article outlining why the numbers come in so low. It’s pretty clear everyone here has made up their mind already and the press has as well. No the less, it is interesting to see some of the shenanigans that are used in many of these discussions. It should raise red flags when the numbers come in at less than the margin of error but if you want to believe, you don’t ask questions.
@Darth_Algar: The Florida Law isn’t in place. It was passed, but overruled by the Federal courts as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was in effect for only about 90 days, from July to October, 2011, and only the enrollees in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) were tested; about 4,500 people, before the Feds shut down the testing. No other state welfare recipients were tested, although the testing was slated to spread to all state welfare recipients.
@jerv & @LuckyGuy The TANF assistance recipients were required to pay for the testing themselves.
From the article I cited in my last post:
“The ACLU of Florida filed suit challenging the law on behalf of Luis Lebron, a Navy veteran, college student and single father from Orlando. Lebron refused to submit to a test, arguing that requiring him to pay for and submit to one was unreasonable when there was no reason to believe he uses drugs.”
The cost is $40.00 per urine test, per month.
I have to ask around with my employer and find out what the laws and rules are regarding recipients getting tested. I know probationers get tested as a condition of their probation, sometimes. I know the residents of homeless shelters get tested, but I am not sure what the criteria is. Is it standard for all, or is it because they are parents, or is it only through court ordered supervision – I have to find out.
I can assure you that for myself, a condition of my employment is that if they want me to be tested, I have to comply, and I will gladly as I appreciate my paycheck and benefits and don’t find it intrusive. If that’s what I have to do, that’s what I have to do. They’re not asking me to jump off a bridge, they’re asking me to pee in a cup.
I was away from the PC for a bit.
@Dutchess_III “do you believe the majority of people who have any kind of welfare assistance are on drugs, and that’s a big reason they aren’t working?” Absolutely not. I think by far the majority are just temporarily stuck in a bad spot and need some help. I am all for helping.. But if someone is using the money for drugs then maybe they don’t need quite so much help.
My main point is that there should be a cost for collecting a check. No one should be getting it for free. If someone is collecting assistance then they should do some work – even 2 hours per week – to stay in the program. Read to a kid, adopt a street, sort mardi gras beads, something. Peoiple who do the work will get more. the peoople who don’t show up or blow it off will get less.
And if you are going to collect a check you have to follow the stipulations that come with the check – like 99% of us working slobs.
(Sorry. I didn’t mean to derail the thread.)
My point is, there are valid reasons for having drug testing at work. It isn’t based on pointless,negative stereotypes.
Also, the people who get tested at work are giving back to the economy.
Testing people just because they are poor is nothing but a drain on the economy, considering how few test positive.
The thing to keep in mind about social benefits in the United States is that there can be tremendous variations in both requirements and entitlements from state to state, as the discussion thus far clearly indicates. Even federally funded and mandated programs are frequently left to states to administer as well as stipulate requirements and levels of disbursement. There is currently a concerted effort in many states in this country to erect as many barricades and hurdles in front of potential recipients as can be achieved, and it would appear that this motivation entails rendering the process as arduous and degrading as can be arranged. I would therefore urgently advise your friend that she THOROUGHLY research the situation in whichever place she intends to settle before embarkation. And if your friend’s state benefits have anything at all to do with the nightmare health insurance situation here, then her need for preparation moves from urgent to dire. You in the UK have NO idea just how bad things can be!
Thank you all for the responses so far, especially those that provided a link to an article. I’ve read all of them.
The only outstanding question is what happens to those that fail a drug test and are barred from receiving financial aid?
@stanleybmanly My UK friend has no intention of relocating to the US. She is quite content where she is. She was able to quit her beloved job due to govt. financial support when her husband was was terminally ill in order to take care of him at home. It cost the govt. less than it would have had she been required to work during that time. It was a win-win situation.
Under UK law, she also qualifies for govt. funding due to having a son with a disability. She refuses to apply for it because he is capable of living on his own with minimal govt. support. If the son moved home and she accepted govt. funding, it would only be detrimental to his survival should something happen to her. She is not only a good parent but a great person.
I think it is insulting. As much as I hate the idea of people on drugs taking advantage I also hate the idea of people with actual needs through no fault of their own, who do need assistance being made to jump through hoops when they probably have worked before and paid taxes to have such a program when they need it most.
I’ll give you such an example. My dad had hepatitis (and no, he wasn’t an alcoholic. He got it from a bad blood transfusion when his extracted molar hemorrhaged) from the time I was 3 months of age till I was 18 years old. He worked 6 days a week to provide for us and so did my mom when I was in school full time. No matter how sick his doctors would not give him a letter for disability. Finally he got one 6 months before he died. Right after he passed away I got a letter from SS claiming that I had to provide proof I was still in school and proof of his passing,or I had to pay back the money with interests and reapply for child support. I quit school gave them the proof and told them to shove it but I wasn’t going to pay them a dime back. If they had asked me for a drug test on top of that, I would’ve really lost it. My dad paid for SS and taxes all his life and so did my mom. Without their help I could not continue school. So I had no options and never got my college degree. I am not the only one with a story like that. There are a ton of people who rather walk on nails than deal with this bureaucratic hurdle.
No kidding. It’s a nightmare.
@LuckyGuy I can think of other reforms that would be more effective though. Maybe instead of testing, use that money for training. Or hell, I know a lot of people that couldn’t get a gig because they couldn’t afford steel-toed boots. Rather than pay $80 to wiz-quiz the guy twice, why not give him a pair of boots and make him a taxpayer again?
@Jaxk How about testing for all? I don’t see why there should be a double standard, and especially not why there is a higher standard for the poor than for those who actually get most of our tax money. I think it’s the unevenness that really sets people off. As it stands, poor people already pay more for many things than middle-or upper-class people, so it’s really just another way to pile on, especially if they pay for their own testing. At least whenever I’ve peed in a cup, it was on my employer’s dime.
@jerv No kidding. I think that is a lot better. I remember growing up as a kid in NYC they had a program that gave people skills so they could get a job. They would learn a trade and actually have a job waiting for them. Businesses got tax breaks for taking them out of the system and got people they didn’t need to train. And the people got a new taxpayer. Everybody wins.
@jerv – I have no problem with training programs to get people back to work but that doesn’t change the issue. I also don’t want my tax dollars used to by illegal drugs. There is no shame or humiliation involved in taking the drug test. That is a red herring. Many if not most government jobs require a drug test. @LuckyGuy submits to a drug test. Oh the shame and humiliation! Nor does it mean that everyone on welfare must be a drug addict. It simply means that if you take government money because you can’t afford to live without it, don’t spend it on drugs. I have enough trouble supporting my own drug habits (cigarettes and alcohol), I can’t support yours as well.
Look at it like this. When you apply for unemployment, you must submit a list of places where you’ve applied for a job. That’s not because we believe that everyone on unemployment is trying to beat the system and not really look for a job. It’s simply a check to keep you active.
Taking a drug test for work, to ensure the safety of people around you, and to forestall a law suit against the business, makes sense. Stereotyping poor people doesn’t. Besides, just how much do you think folks get in actual cash? I don’t know of anyone who receives the cash who can actually live on it. It’s like, $500 a month for a family of 5. If they’re spending all that money on things other than rent, utility bills, shoes, school supplies, household supplies, etc. it will show up quickly, especially if there are kids involved.
However, to tie in with your assumptions, @jaxk, apparently some people out there think they get enough to take cruises and go to Disneyland.
I am with @LuckyGuy, if you have to piss clean to drive a big rig, fly a plane, drive a bus, conduct a BART train, and various other jobs involving public safety but using no taxpayer money, when taxpayer money is involved I would expect even more diligence. Maybe public safety won’t suffer but should those requesting state aid not be required to show they do not have a problem with drugs? You work in a day care, you piss clean or you get fired. I think some people (by Florida, many) do not want a law like that is because they feel they may one day need it and they do not want the fact that they get high to show up and bite them in the arse. Having worked with the poorest of poor the past several years I can say more are on drugs than what one wants to admit, and sometimes state aid allows them easier access to go to the connections house to get their next fix. Even without state aid they can hustle money to get high with, if they were getting state aid, would they be saving that money away for 1st and last, who knows?
@Jaxk “Illegal” is variable by jurisdiction, and some consider it no worse than alcohol which is perfectly legal. Given that the substance most pop on is one that is legal by prescription in most of the US and legal for all over 21, that in and of itself is a bit of a problem.
Granted, I’m used to wiz quizzes as my occupation involves heavy machinery that can kill people, so me working my machine is not too far off from driving and I see a valid reason as you wouldn’t want a DUI when you’re “driving” a CNC mill any more than you’d want one behind the wheel of a car. But for any occupation that allows you to ever drink alcohol even in your off-time, I consider it a bit silly.
Or are you saying that poor people can’t have even the minor luxuries and must suffer until they earn their way to a six-pack of the cheapest horse piss on the shelves?
In Kansas they are trying to prevent poor people from having the most minor luxuries, if they can. Kids can’t go to the pool or the movies.
Can’t buy crab legs and steak with food stamps. Well, if people can afford to buy crab legs and steak with food stamps, they’re getting too damn much in food stamps. And that’s for real. I got twice what I really needed just to survive. Why not splurge if it’s there?
@Dutchess_III Considering that a dollar goes different distances in some places, even within the same county, most states pick an area and base their benefits on the cost of living there. You might be able to feed a family of four fur $1.29 where you are, but that won’t even get you a candy bar here. But if Kansas is giving the rural folks who live where land is a dollar an acre the same benefits that they give someone in Wichita where things are more expensive, that’s on Kansas; don’t blame the poor for the stupidity of the government.
It’s also worth noting that, like many things, attitudes vary along geopolitical lines. Hard to believe it’s even the same country.
Well, from “this” link, the average is $900 a month, for a family of 4. I could have lived on $900 a month! And I did…in income I earned.
But that $500 figure I pulled out of my memory was probably for Kansas, and I couldn’t have lived on that.
I found out that in the area I work in (local government), if someone has a history of substance abuse, they take a test if they apply for benefits.
@jerv: If they test positive for prescription medication, they must have a prescription for it. If they test positive for oxy and they don’t have a prescription, it’s as good as if they had cocaine or whatever. They are offered the option of substance abuse treatment or no go.
@Dutchess_III Around here? $500 would do for a family of 3, maybe 4 if you’re good at clipping coupons.
@jca And for about half the states in the US, the most common “illegal” drug is legal by prescription, and in four states even recreationally. But yes, for the other stuff, I can see it. If I were an employer, I wouldn’t want my employees to be popping Vicodin without a prescription. Still, it’s a tough call as I would rather they spend welfare money for it than break into cars for their next hit. I’ve already replaced one car window.
@jerv…$500 would cover rent, utilities, supplies for the household, as well as car payments, phone payments, etc. there? Really?
@Dutchess_III I thought you were talking food stamps only. Around here, figure a grand for rent and utilities alone, more if you want transportation (even a bus pass), and that doesn’t even cover food or anything else.
@Hypocrisy_Central One is, those jobs are for public safety and you don’t invest in jobs before asking for employment. . Two you are assuming that all welfare recipients never paid into the system. So when you ask for assistance because you need it, you will feel utter disgust at how they want everything from you, even your piss before giving up some cash that you put into it. I understand that they are trying to keep those who live off the system from doing so and or undesirables but its like charging the grass for strong fertilizer and then using it all over the place and then saying well, we got the weeds and by the way, it kinda cost more than we thought.
No. Foodstamps you get plenty of. I’m talking about actual cash, which you can only get if you have 0 income. So, yeah, not enough to pay for anything, much less drugs.
I received food stamps for about 3 years. During those 3 years I received actual CASH assistance for 2 months total out of those 3 years. I got, like, $490 and I was supporting 3 kids. However, they attached the $150 in child support my ex was forced to send to help support those three kids, so my net was only $350. My RENT was $350 a month! I had plenty of food, but no money for utilities, phone, gas, etc.
@LuckyGuy If you are using your own money you are free to do with it what you want. But if you are taking taxpayers’ money you should be using it to support your kids and yourself and saving some of it
You are advocating drug testing and a ban on all frivolous spending with “taxpayer money”.
No drugs, no alcohol, no movies, no vacations. No cars if public transportation is available, otherwise used Toyota Corollas are acceptable.
To protect your taxpayer money, we will implement lifelong random drug testing for:
—Everyone who works at companies which sell goods or services to the government
—All local, state, and federal government employees
—All elected officials
—Every employee of every bank and auto company which received a bailout
—Farmers who get subsidies
—Veterans receiving medical, education and pension benefits
—Researchers with government grants
—Every employee of every medical facility which accepts Medicare or Medicaid money
—And on and on and on
There you go. Taxpayer money protected!!
”...otherwise used Toyota Corollas are acceptable.”
Yay, I’m safe!
^ It had been downgraded to a Yugo…..better rethink it…. LOL
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
