Drug Testing Welfare Recipients
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archive: Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

Hillbilly

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:20 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Welfare Recipients to Get Drug Test

By DEE-ANN DURBIN
Associated Press Writer

October 18, 2002, 2:51 PM EDT


LANSING, Mich. -- A federal appeals court Friday cleared the way for Michigan to test welfare recipients for drug use.

U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts halted a pilot drug-testing program in 1999 after a group of welfare recipients and the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan argued that the testing is unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Roberts' decision Friday, saying the testing program is based on a legitimate need to ensure that public money is not used for illegal purposes.

Robert Sedler, the attorney who sued the state Family Independence Agency on behalf of several welfare recipients, said he will appeal to the full court.

"We are dealing here ... with the suspicionless testing of adults," he said.

Michigan was the first state to pass such a program, and many other states have been watching the case progress, the ACLU said Friday.

According to the Welfare Information Network, a Washington, D.C.-based clearinghouse, states that have drug-testing in some form for welfare recipients include Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Oregon.

"It's clear that the Michigan case had a chilling effect, but some states have gone ahead and done it anyway," said Andrea Wilkins, a policy analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In Michigan, the state wants to require welfare applicants in a handful of communities to provide urine samples for drug screening before they can be considered for benefits.

Under the rules of the pilot program, the drug test results wouldn't affect access to food stamps and police wouldn't be notified, but applicants who tested positive for drugs would be sent to treatment and could gradually lose benefits if they failed to go.

Gov. John Engler praised the court ruling Friday and said Michigan plans to reinstate the drug-testing program soon.

"We know that drugs are a significant barrier to employment, and testing and treatment for welfare recipients for drug use is consistent with our goal of helping them reach true self-sufficiency," Engler said.
Copyright © 2002, The Associated Press

Hillbilly

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Okay...here's another interesting topic I just read. What does everyone think about this? Good idea? or is it a violation of civil rights?

Wargod

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:27 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Just a quick question...why are they only doing drug testing in "a handful of communities?"

Hillbilly

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:37 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I don't know War. I just found this article...this is all the info I have. I, personally, haven't formed an opinion one way or the other. Would this be unconstitutional....'the people shall be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their persons' (this is a poor paraphrase). But, then, again, I am subject to random drug testing for employment...both now at a private company and while I was working for the govt....as a condition of continued employment.

I think its an interesting topic and I'm sure its going to be discussed on FOX.

Car54

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:43 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
un-freaking-believeable.

I am seriously thinking about moving to Canada.

Max

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:44 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Yeah, that part about "a handful of communities" bugs me, too. Why not test EVERYONE who gets government funding? How about testin social security recipients, folks granted SBA loans, government-backed student loans, and so forth?

After all, drug usage is a "significant barrier" to succeeding in college and business, too. I suspect that one of the arguments in favor of this is that federal tax dollars shouldn't be given to known drug users. There are lots of drug users who get government money from sources other than welfare.

Hillbilly

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:50 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I'm sure this will end up at the Supreme Court soon.

Cjr

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:52 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I had to drug test to get my job. I get paid from the same office that pays the welfare recipients. I don't necessarily believe that anyone should be drug tested if they don't hold a job that holds people's lives in their hands, however since the government employees have to drug test, why not the welfare recipients?

Twiggyish

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:53 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Yes, I agree Max and everyone, and it is totally unfair. It seems suspicious to only test CERTAIN areas.

Hillbilly

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:59 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
<Under the rules of the pilot program>

If I'm reading correctly...the handful of communities is just to 'test (or pilot) the program'. Kind of like prototyping to determine the feasibility of a program before going full production. I'm assuming if they decide the program is beneficial that it will be expanded to include all communities.

I was not aware that some states are already doing this.

Maesin

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 01:48 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I am not trying to stereotype here, but in *some* cases *some* people treat welfare like a job. *Some* would rather rely on welfare than get a job. If that is the case, they should be subjected to random or not random testing as I am in my job. My taxes go towards welfare and I say equal opportunity.
I agree with the results not going to police etc. but going towards setting up rehab for people.
People’s lives are not in my hands, but I do deal with the company’s cash flow. I may not agree with the drug testing, but if I want to work for this company I must play by their rules or find another line of work. It should also apply to welfare, play by the rules or get out.
I also live in a state that has proposed a bill that would up the legal limit of pot to 3ozs. One group claims this would help the over crowding of jails and the other group says next we will be legalizing cocaine. The middle ground is very hard to cover.
Keep us up to date on this one please.

Sbw

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 02:05 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I have NO problem with it at all. We don't stop people in the middle of the street and ask them to provide urine for a drug screening - that would be an invasion of privacy. Ideally those on welfare would be employed at some point in their lives, if a welfare recipient is not employable due to a drug problem we will have NO way to get them off the welfare rolls and we will continue to pay them and they will not receive the help they need. This said, obviously the presence of drugs contained in legally obtained prescriptions will have to be exempt.

Loans are loans. Welfare is not a loan; that is the difference there. As far as SS and welfare - the difference here is that SS is based on money that has been previously paid into the system. As far as I know no state makes that requirement of a welfare recipient.

Twiggyish

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 02:15 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think it is the perception that people USE Welfare instead of seeking job, however, that simply isn't true. If given the opportunity, many people would rather be employed and off of welfare.
Those of us with opportunities cannot fathom the desperation of those at poverty level. They are stuck in the cycle. For some people, their education level is very poor, and they can't seem to dig out of the hole. Fortunately, there are now programs in place, to help people get off of Welfare. These programs educate and train people for the workplace, and they are usually funded by grants. (Totally free to the participant)
If anyone is interested in finding out more information regarding these programs, call your local United Way, Chamber of Commerce, and any of the countless agencies set up to help.
As for drug testing, it just isn't fair. It's implying that ONLY Welfare recipients need DRUG testing. This is an outrage.

Hillbilly

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 02:19 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
<As for drug testing, it just isn't fair. It's implying that ONLY Welfare recipients need DRUG testing. This is an outrage. >

Actually, this isn't quite true since most of us are tested for employment and agree to random testing as condition of continued employment. Now, if welfare recipients were the only people to be drug tested, then I would agree with this statement.

Twiggyish

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 02:23 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
That's true Hillbilly. I was drug tested recently at my school. It's standard practice.
However, read Max's post. That's what I'm saying, too.

Max's post: "Why not test EVERYONE who gets government funding? How about testing social security recipients, folks granted SBA loans, government-backed student loans, and so forth?"

Hillbilly

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 02:45 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Twiggy...I think that's a reasonable statement to make then about testing all government recipients.

However, I do think Sbw made a good point as well in that welfare people are supposed to eventually get jobs and that can't happen if they are not drug free.

Sbw wrote:
<Ideally those on welfare would be employed at some point in their lives, if a welfare recipient is not employable due to a drug problem we will have NO way to get them off the welfare rolls and we will continue to pay them and they will not receive the help they need. >

Max

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 03:45 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Many welfare programs now have limits as to how long the benefits will last and requirements that the recipients seek training and work, if they are not eligible for disability. This effectively begins to move the system towards one that ASSISTS people rather than MAINTAINS people.

The catch-22 for many welfare recipients is this: If they find a job, it's often a low-paying job. Trying to live on that salary would be next to impossible, especially when additional costs of child care and transportation become part of the deal. However, in many states, the income that would be realized from these low-paying jobs would be just enough that the person would no longer be eligible for welfare payments. Thus, the catch-22: Get a job, lose the benefits, don't make enough to support yourself, quit the job, go back on welfare.

A program that ASSISTS people with skill training and searching for a sustainable job and then continues a level of support on a gradually decreasing basis so that they can get settled and financially stable makes a WHOLE lot more sense to me than the "traditional" welfare system or the addition of drug testing.

Zachsmom

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 03:55 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Max..a friend of mine has 2 children..like me she was a single parent. Her cash benefits were cut off the day she made $10.00 an hour. She still recieved food stamps..and help with her child-care expenses. On the child-care expenses..she had to find a child-care center that actually took gov't assistance. Many do not. She was constantly changing child-care centers because they were not caring for her children properly. It's a tough world out there..and the "skill training"..she was put on a list..it's been three years and she's still not able to take "skill training". She makes $12.00 an hour now and still struggles!

I agree with you that ALL gov't reciepents who recieve cash aid should be subjected to drug-testing..not just welfare cases..

Car54

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 04:12 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
If it is universal and consistent it is one thing, but to select this group only is petty and punitive. I don't like what that says about our country...to do one more thing to people who are a the lowest point in their lives is just hateful and mean.

If ANYONE who receives money from the government has to do it, fine. That would include senior citizens, the handicapped, people on educational aid, grant recipients...then fine...it is the cost of doing business with the government. If I am tested when I apply for a job, I have a choice not to apply or to apply elsewhere.

Many people on welfare are in a place where they have no other choice at that time...to stigmatize them further is just cruel and damaging and if it happens I am ashamed of us.

Zachsmom

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 04:20 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
The more I think about it the more this bothers me..

to me is states that if you are applying for welfare there is an automatic assumption that you could be using drugs and that's where the idea came from. I am not going to deny that there ARE some welfare recipients who do use drugs..but most people are just plain poor and need help. I don't like the mindset that if you are poor then you must be a drug user. I've never worked for a company that has random drug testing..I don't know if I believe in it or not. People who use drugs their job performance will show that..they won't be productive employees and should be fired if they cannot perform their job. Then again there are jobs that rely on public safety so I could see them testing them.

I don't know..perhaps I should stop thinking about it..but it still get me up in a tether..

Misslibra

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 05:39 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Well we have a governors election coming up here in Michigan. Jennifer Granholm a Dem and Dick Posthumus a Rep. Dick Posthumus have been running his campaign ads on testing all Welfare Recipients for drugs.

John Engler is on his way out (And I'm so happy!!) and so far Jennifer Granholm is a head in the race, and have been endorsed by Michigan's two largest Teachers Unions.

I'm sure this ruling will be struck down by another court since it is unfair to only test welfare recipients in certain communities.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if they would test everyone who is getting welfare. Starting with the people who are getting corporate welfare.

Some of these big corporation's get more welfare then the poor people who really need the help. That is where they need to start. I bet they would probably fine more drug use there.

Whit4you

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 05:54 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Well, I have many friends who've relied on public assitance, and as long as they have small children at home I think it's fine to get help from the state... and don't really agree with how hard they HAVE made it now for a single mother with 3 small kids to get help here in Washington, while the guy gets away with paying 50 bucks a month for 3 kids. Anyhow...... the fact is the state IS supporting them and I personally see nothing wrong with this state 'job' having drug testing any more then any other state job has drug testing.

I know several of my friends used to sell their foodstamps to buy pot... and a few who sold them to support their meth habit. Why should their children be eating top ramen while we tax payers support their meth habit???? That I'd like an answer too.

Nothing bugged me more then when my son was small and we occasionally needed food stamps to suppliment our income do to a layoff.. I'd go into the welfare office and listen to all the folks there complain that they had to wait 2 hours for a appointment.. and I'm thinking to myself excuse me???? You had to 'work' by sitting in a warm comfy office for 2 hours this month.... ??? My hubby then made less then THEY were making on welfare -working on a rooftop in -20 degree tempatures 40+ hours a week.... and they made the same amount for their 2 hours sitting in that welfare office and complained! And watching them paying a janitor state wages to clean the place up??? I never could understand that.. there was no reason in my opinion that each of those welfare recipients who were able bodied could not work one day a week cleaning those offices.


Anyhow - most state paid people have to do random drug testing, I don't see why they should be treated any differently. Seems to me those who are not ON drugs will have no problem with it. Those who ARE on drugs... will probably have to get off welfare and get a 'real' job to avoid the drug testing. I don't think those found to be ON drugs should be cut OFF welfare personally... their chidlren would suffer... but I think a special program should be set up for those who do fail the drug tests... requiring them to spend part of the time they spend sitting on the couch watching soaps - spent at a drug treatment place.

When I was dirt poor - I bought foodstamps a few times (hey this was more then 7 years ago statute of limitations is up lol) then I realized that I was just helping to contribute to those kids eating nothing but top ramen... and ye they sold them to someone else I am sure but at least I could sleep at night :)

Even today when they have 'cards' - that they use rather then foodstamps - I have had a few aquantances that I know are on drugs try to sell me their foodstamps (ie they use their card to buy food for me and I give them 60% in cash...)

If it's unfair to random test these folks then I say all other state workers should demand equal treatment...

Sbw

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 08:23 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Car, I agree with you that anyone who receives money from the government as a GIFT probably should not be exempt but would definitely have to think about this some more, that includes a lot. I don't see how this would be considered kicking a person when they are down.

As far as drug testing for places of employment - even in cases other than public safety, often the safety of another worker is at stake if a person who is "under the influence" has a depressed motor function or impaired mental function.

Jmm

Friday, October 18, 2002 - 09:54 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I do know that a drug conviction can make you ineligible for some government grants for college. It will even knock you out of the running for some student loans. So if a college student can be penalized for drug use I don't see the problem with others who get federal aid to be penalized too.

Maybe instead of the drug testing they should pay more attention to who is getting caught with drugs and start there.

Twiggyish

Saturday, October 19, 2002 - 05:16 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Regarding the education of Welfare recipients, many agencies now offer programs which give skills training to mothers on Welfare. These women in many cases, can also have child care while taking classes. There are agencies offering help.
In my county, they offer help in receiving their GED and then follow-up with the skills training.

Suitsmefine

Sunday, October 20, 2002 - 03:54 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I personally do not have a problem with the concept...my husband is a nurse, its part of his continued employment to be randomly tested...the only ones there who have a problem with it are the ones who get busted and relieved of their employment. As for myself since 1990 I have tinkled in enough cups as well as given enough blood samples to keep medications from toxic levels and other testing that I wouldn't care if they decided to test Parents in general! JMHO! PLEASE don't yell at Me!!!!

Sia

Sunday, October 20, 2002 - 09:10 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I have to agree with those who say that drug-testing is acceptable. The only people who fear drug-testing are people who might be exposed for using illicit drugs. I have nothing to hide; I'll pee in a cup! What I don't buy is the argument that it's a violation of our civil rights.

Aussiedeb

Monday, October 21, 2002 - 02:29 am EditMoveDeleteIP
If they tested the welfare recipients in our county about 80% of them would get no money. I am surprised here how much drugs go on. We had the states largest bust go down in our town, it involved a lot of illegal mexicans, but also got welfare people too.

On the other hand I go to college with a lot of people who are in on welfare. The government pays their tuition and books, and the college has a day care center. I take my hat off to those who are willing to try.

I tried to help a friend get off welfare and into college, she is older than me, has 3 kids , 2 still at home. We got her in, she did excellent on the placement tests, I helped her with the FAFSA application, and got her classes scheduled. She would have had her entire education payed for and they had a spot in the headstart program at the college for the youngest. Well, turns out she would rather earn 5.00 an hour at dairy queen for 3 hours a day, go out partying, take drugs etc than go to college. I havent seen her in months now, and she is in her 40's with a 16 year old daughter, all I keep thinking is what a wonderful example to her...not. But at least I tried to help her be able to make a decent living and get out of the projects etc..

Deb

Sia

Monday, October 21, 2002 - 04:55 am EditMoveDeleteIP
That was wonderful of you to do that, Deb. You can only do so much for some people, though; a person has to be willing to do a certain amount for herself. Unfortunately for the daughter, your friend was not willing to be strong and travel the more difficult road. It's sad.

Twiggyish

Monday, October 21, 2002 - 01:42 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Aussie, the people who are in the educational system, are inspirational. They are working to get off Welfare. As you say, their tuition, books, daycare..etc. are all paid, as they are part of larger funded grants.