Should Welfare Recipients be Drug Tested to Receive Government Aid - Research Paper Example

Should welfare recipients be drug tested to receive government aid? According to National Conference of State Legislatures, drug testing of the recipients of government welfare aid will be mandatory in 23 states. The concern that has drawn attention to this issue is the efficient use of taxpayer money. Taxpayers don’t want their hard earned money to be used for consuming illegal drugs. However, what drives this issue is the general perception about the people receiving government aid that they are using the money to engage in drug abuse. Both sides of the argument have their point and both may be to some degree correct. This essay attempts to analyze this issue from the perspective of both sides. Those in support of drug testing the people on public assistance emphasize on the efficient use of taxpayer money and that saving money, that is otherwise deemed to have been used for illicit drug activity, would help in tight state budgets. Edward Buchanan, a Republican speaker of the Wyoming house said, “The idea from Joe Taxpayer is, ‘I don’t mind helping you out, but you need to show that you’re looking for work, or better yet that you’re employed, and that you’re drug and alcohol free.’ ” (The New York Times, 2012). This is as simple as it gets. The state will test you for drugs before you qualify to receive the compensation. To support the point, Garth Everett, a Republic who defended drug testing legislation said that concern for drug test grew out of bitterness that the workers in many industries are tested for drugs several times, whereas welfare recipients are never subject to any such tests despite a high possibility of drug abuse. Therefore their point is that government may require drug tests from the recipients of the compensation just to ensure that they are not involved in any illegal activity and utilize their funds responsibly. According to them this shouldn’t be contrary to the statute and constitution as government can be seen as an employer of welfare recipients in this case (Hall, 2012). On the other hand, those against the proposal have tried to make their point on the basis of statistical evidences and conclusions drawn therefrom. They argue that the rule to drug test these innocent patients is not in accordance with the US constitution as it makes unreasonable assumption about the welfare recipients to be drug abusers. Therefore testing these unfortunate citizens for drug abuse would amount to an unconstitutional search of people who sought help. This could also jeopardize the main purpose of this good cause. W. Patrick Goggles, a Democrat state representative said, “This legislation assumes suspicion on this group of people, it assumes that they’re drug abusers.” (The New York Times, 2012). In the past courts have dropped other issues on the similar grounds. Those against the proposal also say that the bureaucratic costs to conduct the drug tests outweigh the benefits and savings arising from it. Budget analysis was conducted in Idaho that supported this opinion. Statistics indicate that the recipients of government as aid are not more likely to abuse drugs than the general population. About 8% of the general population used illegal drugs. A similar drug testing program in Michigan was dropped by the court on the grounds that only 8% of the aid recipients were using illicit drugs. An ACLU attorney, Maria Kayanan, who is against the testing of aid recipients said, "What the states are doing by imposing these schemes … is creating a subclass of citizens based on their economic status that is not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection." (Hall, 2012). Over past years, about 3 dozen states have sought measures for this issue, but recently it has attracted massive attention due to tight state budgets and the need to cut down all unnecessary expenditures. This year, 23 states are moving forward with this legislation and want the screenings of nicotine among the recipients of the government aid. Florida law required the compulsory testing of all applicants of the government assistance. One of the federal judges blocked this rule on a wider scale, so proponents in Pennsylvania have come up with a better and more sensible approach that requires the drug testing of only those welfare recipients that have been convicted for drug abuse in the past. This approach definitely sounds better than its predecessor as it would cut down all unnecessary expenditure on drug tests of citizens who are clean, which is more than 90% of all the aid recipients. Officials believe that this program could clear the way for statewide application if it proves cost effective (FoxNews.com, 2012). The debate continues nationwide as those supporting the rule elucidate that the purpose of the rule is to ensure that the taxpayer money is being spend by the welfare recipients responsibly and that the people who are receiving it continue to look out for job and endeavor to get one. Everett said, "We're not trying to punish anybody or say that welfare recipients are bad people." (Hall, 2012) The program as put forward will require the applicants having past 5 years’ convicts of the drug offense, to submit a urine sample for drug testing. In addition to this, 20% of all government aid recipients will be subjected to drug testing on a random basis. The results will result in banning the cash assistance of the recipient as follows: First drug offence for controlled substances – the subject will be required to undergo drug treatment facility; or a 6 month ban. Second drug abuse offence – ban for 1 year on receiving government aid. Third drug abuse offence – permanent ban. People in Schuylkill County are also in support of this drug testing according to some sources. The pilot program is intended to answer how much of taxpayer money can be saved by eliminating drug abusers from the government welfare program (The Morning Call, 2012). Those against the rule of drug testing continue to seek whether the application of rule nationwide is in accordance with the Fourth Amendment discouraging unreasonable searches (Sulzberger, 2011). They claim that this rule is unfair cost-ineffective; and instead of saving the taxpayer money, it will waste it in unnecessary and costly drug tests as “Feb. 3 brief by the Center for Law and Social Policy, a low-income advocacy nonprofit, cited a 1996 study that found the proportion of welfare recipients with a substance abuse problem is consistent with the proportion of non-welfare recipients with the same.” (FoxNews.com, 2012) References FoxNews.com. (4, Feb 2012). Pennsylvania officials roll out drug tests for welfare recipients read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/04/pennsylvania-officials-roll-out-drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients/ Hall, P. (27, Jan 2012). Welfare drug testing tried in pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://articles.mcall.com/2012-01-27/news/mc-pa-welfare-drug-testing-20120127_1_welfare-applicants-drug-testing-welfare-recipients THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, N. T. (25, Feb 2012). Growing support for drug testing of welfare recipients. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/us/support-grows-for-idea-of-drug-tests-for-welfare-recipients.html?_r=0 The Morning Call. (1, Feb 2012). Testing seeks to remove drug users from welfare rolls. Retrieved from http://articles.mcall.com/2012-02-01/opinion/mc-welfare-drug-tests-argall-yv-0202-20120201_1_welfare-benefits-drug-users-general-assistance Sulzberger, A. . G. (2011, Oct 10). States adding drug test as hurdle for welfare. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/us/states-adding-drug-test-as-hurdle-for-welfare.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1353710963-sAon 2GL98NWTdUPyEFjuA Read More