Public Policy Issue: Drug Testing Welfare Recipients - Essay Example

Public Policy Issue: Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Numerous states in America have united with the aim of implementing new government guidelines. The states, which include Arizona, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kentucky and Indiana, have settled on a guideline that seeks to implement a new law. The law requires the individuals in need of the government’s financial assistance to undergo a drug test. These individuals seek government’s assistance in the form of getting job training programs, unemployment insurance benefits, subsidized housing and food stamps program. The proposal of the new guideline has the objective of making certain that recipients utilize all taxpayers’ money responsibly. Drug users have greatly thrived through promoting their drug habits under the umbrella of welfare assistance. The guideline has instigated a nationwide debate in that people all over America have expressed their different opinions regarding this issue. Both proponents and opponents of this law argue on their stand as being moral and just. Opponents argue that the new guideline invades privacy and violates human rights all that goes against the constitution. Contrarily, proponents argue that implementing the new guideline will see to it that responsible individuals utilize the resources from the government, which channeled towards public assistance. There are states in which this guideline is already operational, there recipients of the aid have to present themselves for drug-testing and pay up for the service. However, the law goes on to declare that, those who are found drug free are admitted to the government program, and at the same time they are refunded the money they paid for drug testing. Conversely, those who fail the test are suspended from the program for at least one year. Most of the individuals targeted by this law are drug abusers who use marijuana indiscriminately. Welfare recipients with the intention of benefiting from government’s assistance should be tested for drugs; this will assure that taxpayers’ money is spent in a justifiable and responsible manner. Over the years, drug abusers have benefited from welfare programs provided by the government. This issue has been witnessed widely to the extent of these individuals referred to with names such as welfare queens (Sulzberger 1). The name depicts the protection welfare has put on drug fiends and the irresponsible nature of individuals receiving government assistance. The government assistance is directed towards helping people from poor families to access the basic human needs. However, these individuals have taken advantage of the program by seeking its services, but still embarking on drug use. Welfare programs have been on the verge of misuse and irresponsibility all that initiated by the same individuals seeking its assistance. The welfare programs have missed the objects, which led to its creation and development. It is sad to note that, the welfare programs are part of the ever increasing drug abuse and addiction, since the beneficiaries thrive under its umbrella. The idea of welfare programs assisting in finances, food and some other basic needs to these individuals provides room for idleness and indulgence (Sulzberger 1). The idea of state governments coming up with guidelines that seeks to have welfare beneficiaries test for drugs had many reasons. The reasons were; the need for the government to cut down on its expenditures as a result of recession, the propensity of increase in drug abusers under the welfare program, and the political endeavors of the 1980s and 1990s. The above reasons made the government formulate policies, which see to it that tax money directed towards financing public programs, are used responsibly and objectively. The policy also had the intention of making certain that public finance does not become part of the factors that escalate drug addiction. The idea from the government was rational in that welfares should rehabilitate individuals from impoverished environments. The individuals wishing to benefit from the services offered in the welfares should show some dedication on their, which is essential in determining if they are worth being in the program. The program provides assistance in terms of home heating, food stamps, unemployment insurance and cash assistance (Sulzberger 1). Accountability on how government public funds are utilized is the central argument used by a large number of proponents of the new guideline, seeking to have welfare beneficiaries drug tested. The argument is that it is a common undertaking to be asked for a drug test when seeking a job. This requirement should not be limited when it comes to individuals using taxpayers’ money to seek public welfare assistance. People benefitting from public resources should be known since the program should also be transitional and transparent. Through this new program, the beneficiaries will be known from their determination to have themselves tested in order to admittance in welfare programs (Cappelli 1). In the state of Missouri, a Republican state representative, Ellen Brandom, expressed that, Americans work hard to ensure that ends meet, their hard work channeled to towards public assistance should not end up in escalate illegal activities. Brandom is part of the individuals who developed the legislation that demanded welfare recipients to be drug tested. Jay Nixon, a democrat Governor, signed the bill by Brandom into law in July 2011. Nevertheless, opponents of this law argue that, the real victims of this law are the poor. The poor are disadvantaged in that they cannot be able to acquire money in the first place, which will be used to have them tested before being admitted to the welfare program (Cappelli 1). The opponents also disagree from the fact that welfare programs have been negatively associated with the escalating drug abuse. The new law does not address how the already existing drug use in the welfare programs could be eradicated. The opponents continue on by warning that the new law poses the risk of increase in drug addiction. This is due to the fact that, the individuals who should benefit from the welfare programs are not capable of paying for the test, and some fail the test. Those who miss and fail the test do not get admission into the welfare programs. Individuals with multiple problems regarding drug use and addiction have been prevented from benefitting from welfare programs. More that 20 states enforce the restriction by banning unemployment payments to individuals without jobs as a result of drug abuse. Other states punish through repudiating convicted drug felons any welfare payments. The wide extent of drug testing has led to Congress instigated proposals of having all welfare programs test recipients nationwide. States like Michigan and Illinois consider testing individuals seeking public housing (Cappelli 1). The drug testing policy has faced a number of setbacks from federal court rulings, arguing against its ethical morals and legality. In particular, the law faced a critical ruling from a Michigan court banning it in the state of Michigan. The court termed the law as violating the welfare recipient’s constitutional rights through unjustified seizures and searches. The other challenge, which has faced, this law is the issue of money not paid to welfare recipients denied admittance will be channeled back into the welfare program (Cappelli 1). The idea of drug testing individuals before admittance to the welfare programs is spreading like a forest fire. A Republican from Louisiana, Senator David Vitter, is on the verge of introducing the Drug Free Families Act, with the intention of having all the 50 states in America drug-test individuals applying for welfare assistance. Drug-testing is an act that is now commonly carried out on individuals taking part in job-training programs sponsored by the government. Other bills on the verge of introduction will require the individuals in the bracket of unemployment get tested on drugs in order to acquire unemployment benefits. Drug testing is embedded on the essence that a bad habit like drug addiction should not thrive right under the nose of public assistance. Drug user and drug addicts take the façade of being poor and needy, and as a result, end up in welfare programs. There they do not have to work or look for food because the government will be responsible for all that. This will not be the case when drug testing policy will be implemented, because only the illegible recipients like disadvantaged and needy children will get the chance of being admitted to the welfare programs. As much as the welfare programs have been infiltrated by drug fiends, needy children should not suffer the consequence of welfare programs being closed. The best way to address this issue is to put up stringent measures, which will ensure that drug users and drug abusers getting admittance to the welfare are reduced. The measures will still continue supporting the disadvantaged and needy children (Cooper 1). In the past few years, the intention of bringing into law, the bill of having recipients tested has been regulated. Drug testing has only been accepted in limited circumstances such as when applying for driving licenses. Currently, the new law on drug testing faces numerous law suits, which disagree against its unconstitutional nature. The unconstitutionality of the law comes when referring to the Fourth Amendment also known as the Equal protection clause. According to the Fourth Amendment, citizens are protected from unlawful searches and seizures of their properties. In this case, unlawful searching is through drug testing individuals before getting admittance to welfare programs. In Florida, the fight against this new law comes from the doors of the Federal court. The Federal court put a temporary banned on Florida’s drug testing law, terming it first as a violation of citizen’s right and secondly going against the Constitution. Nonetheless, the new law, according to Governor Rick Scott, will help save up to $77 million, which is taxpayers’ money always going to waste due to the support welfare assistance has given drug users and abusers (Cooper 1). As from July, 7030 passed, 1597 failed to provide results, and 32 failed the tests, according to states. The state acknowledged that it does not often establish the drugs that caused failure; however, marijuana is one of the key causes of the failures. Both sides have disagreed on the early results of the study. One side that opposes the results has argued that drug addicts who receive public benefits is lower than the general public, while the other group argues that most drug users are deterred from taking the tests (Sulzberger 1). According to the Florida Department of Children and Families spokes person, there has been a considerable drop in the number of applicants since the tests began. State legislatures have backed up this program by describing it as “nothing more than an additional eligibility criterion” (Sulzberger 1). This means that this program is something that applicants are free to decline its benefits if they are not interested to be tested. Gov. Rick Scott, a republican who campaigned on the proposal, when giving his opinion on this program, said that “money is going to go to the benefit of children, not to a parent using the drugs” (Sulzberger 1). Critics of this policy, for example, Arthenia L. Joyner, a Democrat official in the State Senate who tabled a bill to repeal this law, argued that it was not right for the house to pass such bills. She said that “There are millions of people seeking aid from the state for the first time because they have lost their jobs, and they still have children to feed and bills to pay” (Sulzberger 1). These parents are, therefore, having the problem of having to undergo drug tests. In Orlando, Florida, Judge Mary Scriven once temporarily blocked Florida’s new law, which requires welfare applicants to undergo drug tests before receiving benefits, claiming this move will violate the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable seizures and searches (Sulzberger 1). She argued that drug test records are not kept confidential as medical records, and this can makes drug test to easily reveal a person’s private medical facts. She said that “This potential interception of positive drug tests by law enforcement implicates a ‘far more substantial’ invasion of privacy than in ordinary civil drug testing cases” (Sulzberger 1). The jury further said that Florida State did not approve the drug testing program to meet the requirements for exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. Other states apart from Florida, have also proposed the enactment of a policy that would guarantee citizens undergoing drug-testing program, to receive welfare or other government assistances. Proponents of this policy, like Gov. Rick Scott, are optimistic that this law will save the American citizens a total of $77 million (Sulzberger 1). The way Scott arrived at this figure is still not clear, and this made this statement he made during his campaign to meet a lot of criticism from several people, including spokesman for Florida Department of Children and Families. Scott’s spokeswoman, Jackie Schutz, on behalf of Scott, argued that “Drug testing welfare recipients is just a common-sense way to ensure that welfare dollars are used to help children, and get parents back to work” (Sulzberger 1). At the beginning of this year, Scott also directed drug testing for all new state workers, and spot checks of all existing state employees working under him. However, a separate court suspended his orders after the American Civil Liberties Union moved into a separate lawsuit to challenge that policy. According to the Department of Children and Families, since testing began in mid-July this year, almost 1600 applicants have declined to undergo drug test, and they are not required to give reasons as to why. Over 7000 applicants have successfully passed the test, while thirty-two applicants have failed the test (Sulzberger 1). The majority of the applicants who tested positive were established to abuse marijuana. Proponents of the drug testing program argued that most applicants declined to take the tests because they were afraid they will test positive for drugs. The agreement was that all applicants must pay between $25 and $35, and this amount would be refunded by the state for any applicants who pass the test (Sulzberger 1). Applicants who test positive for drugs are barred from cash assistance for one year; however, passing the results later can cut this period in half. Failing to pass the tests for the second time excluded from cash assistance for three years. The ACLU asserts that Florida State was the first to adopt drug testing law after Michigan State tried it more than a decade ago. Michigan’s attempts to introduce the drug-testing program only lasted for five weeks in 1999, before it was suspended by a judge. This initiated a four year legal battle, which ultimately ended into a lawsuit ruling it unconstitutional (Sulzberger 1). In contrary to federal court ruling, the United States Constitution does not ban states from testing welfare recipients for drug use and abuse (Cooper 1). Horace Cooper is a former law professor for the National Center for Public Policy Research. He further argues that drug testing of welfare recipients is a just public policy, and it is also beneficial to the recipients’ children. Cooper says that Mary Scriven’s, U.S. Federal District Judge, attempts to block the implementation of Florida’s welfare drug testing law is “predicated on an outdated idea that recipients have either an entitlement or other heightened legal claim on the benefits they receive from tax payers. Yet the Supreme Court and the nation have been headed in the opposite direction” (Cooper 1). The Florida law that demands drug tests for applicants for Florida’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Benefits Program, was challenged by ACLU in a lawsuit. The Constitution’s acceptance to test applicants of states benefits and other assistances for drug abuse has national consequence, as several states are currently considering funding those who can pass drug tests with taxpayers’ money as unworthy (Cooper 1). Copper cites Judge Scriven’s and ACLU’s challenges to the implementation of Florida’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Benefits Program, as a lesson to other states who will find it difficult to overcome the challenges of implementing this policy, “since Florida was the first state to get its program up and running, every other state that faces a court challenge will likely have to overcome the unnecessary hurdle that judge Scriven’s ruling created” (Cooper 1). He further adds that, “Why should tax payers cover anyone’s drug use? It is beyond bizarre to imagine that there is a constitutional right to get welfare and be a drug abuser. It is not news that ACLU opposes welfare drug testing. It is a blockbuster that it can get a federal judge to agree” (Cooper 1). According to Cooper, Judge Scriven never considered the applicability of the Supreme Court’s outstanding ruling involving welfare; Williams verse Dandridge, which facilitated the flexibility of states in formulating welfare policies (Cooper 1). He also gives an example of the 1996 welfare reform bill, which was signed into law by President Clinton, which banned Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). This welfare program further enlightened states to be cautious when designing welfare programs, and they should seek for legal authority’s intervention to review state standards (Cooper 1). While still considering judge Scriven’s ruling, Cooper argues that Scriven’s ruling “seems not to have kept pace with the times” (Cooper 1). In addition, “it is beyond serious dispute that the state has a need to ensure that the public welfare dollars are used by the recipients for their intended purpose-buying milk and eggs at the corner store, for example- and not dime bags from a corner pusher “(Cooper 1). Copper concludes by saying that states should primarily be concerned with the well being of the families and children of welfare recipients. This is because, as several researches have indicated, drug use and abuse interferes with a person’s ability to obtain and retain employment. Additionally, drugs prevent people from becoming responsible and effective parents. Cooper says that, “the incidence of controlled substance abuse is higher among welfare recipients than in population as a whole; and that drug abuse by parents contributes to child abuse and neglect” (Cooper 1). The United States federal and state governments have been very categorical in the priorities they give to individual’s rights, and the limits to which they intrude into private lives. This leaves the question of whether the state governments should allow drug testing for welfare recipients, or not. While personal liberty is a priority, approval becomes a key factor in determining the acceptance of state governments’ intrusion into private lives. Unlike government departments and corporations, private sectors or organizations have the mandate to impose any requirement on their employees, since these people are free to join or quite these organizations (Cappelli 1). This, therefore, means that human resource managers can choose to test job applicants for drugs as one of the requirements of obtaining the job. Only those people who are ready to be tested for drugs are legible to apply for such jobs, while those who are not willing to be tested for drugs can not apply for such jobs. It is important to note that not only organizations recommend drug tests for their employees, but learning institutions must also test drugs in students willing to participate in sports and other extra-curriculum activities, since such participations are voluntary. The same notion applies to welfare recipients too. Applicants of government benefits and other assistances do so voluntarily. Drug testing for welfare recipients is, therefore, not done for criminal prosecutions, but to establish the legitimacy of an individual to be considered for the benefits (Cappelli 1). Police officers have the legal rights to direct anybody to undergo drug testing if they suspect that drug abuse is the probable cause of a criminal activity. But for welfare recipients, none of the applicant is forced to take drug tests. This is because welfare applicants are individuals who choose to join the welfare voluntarily by making decisions over which they have control, just like students have the choice of joining a sport or extra-curriculum activity of their choice. Conclusion The relevancy of drug tests for welfare recipients can be made difficult to comprehend, when it is perceived that the applicants make the choice of joining the welfare because of poor decisions they make, or due to circumstances largely beyond their control. From this argument, it is evident that most people on welfare program and families and children affected are there by reasonable sense of choice. They cannot, therefore, decline to undertake drug testing as a requirement of joining the welfare. Therefore, drug testing for welfare recipients is not a government’s intrusion into private lives, but it is consistence with the United States Values. Both proponents and opponents of this law argue on their stand as being moral and just. Opponents argue that the new guideline invades privacy and violates human rights all that goes against the constitution. Contrarily, proponents argue that implementing the new guideline will see to it that responsible individuals utilize the resources from the government, which channeled towards public assistance. There are states in which this guideline is already operational, there recipients of the aid have to present themselves for drug-testing and pay up for the service. However, the law goes on to declare that, those who are found drug free are admitted to the government program, and at the same time they are refunded the money they paid for drug testing. Implementing this new law is very important since public funds will not be channeled towards a program that ultimately promotes drug use. Works Cited Cappelli P. "Should Welfare Recipients be Tested for Drugs." Debate Club (December 15, 2011): 1. Print Cooper H. "Federal Judges' Rulling is Wrong Says Scholar: The Three Dozen States Considering Drug Tests for Welfare Reciepients Can Do So Under the Law and U.S. Constitution." Analysis of National and State News, Politics, Opinion and History (November 22, 2011): 1. Print Sulzberger A. G. "States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare." The New York Times (Tuesday, October 11, 2011): 1. Print Read More