Join Together
Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Bills Tie Benefits to Drug Tests
April 1, 2009

Share Share Email
email
Print
print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

People who want to get public assistance would need to submit to drug testing under legislation proposed by a number of state lawmakers, the Associated Press reported March 26.

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican West Virginia lawmakers who has introduced a bill that would require testing for illicit drugs for anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment benefits, or the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Women, Infants and Children (WIC) programs. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

In Kansas, the House of Representatives recently approved a bill that would require TANF applicants to submit to drug testing, and similar legislation is pending in Missouri and Hawaii.

A bill in the Florida Senate would require drug testing as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits. "It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."

Tighter state budgets could mean a more sympathetic ear for such measures, said Christine Nelson of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The courts have allowed some drug testing of public-assistance recipients but also have struck down random, suspicionless testing. Some states also have had success with assigning recipients to case workers, who can refer those with addiction problems to treatment but also can recommend that benefits be cut if drug use persists. The interventions can cost less than drug testing, according to Nelson.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Terrance Lee Newton on 02 Apr 09 08:53 AM EDT
If this is followed up with treatment for addictive disorders, then it may be good policy. The legislature needs to realize, the chronic, relapsing condition that this disease is, so that they do not automatically cut someone off if they relapse. If these measures are not put in to place, prepare for more taxpayers dollars going to corrections, as the disenfranchised will resort to crime to survive. We already spend billions of dollars on corrections and typically kick the most vulnerable adults of our population. It sure seems like it is getting easier in our country to act judgmental and not be our brother's keepers.

Posted by Veteranalyst on 02 Apr 09 09:08 AM EDT
To pee or not to pee, that is the question. Many arguments advanced in favor of drug testing could be applied to a number of populations that benefit from public money, e.g. food stamp recipients, scholarship recipients, building contractors, etc. Maybe what we need is a universal, single-pee-er system(!?)

Posted by Susan on 02 Apr 09 10:29 AM EDT
As a long-time public employee, I have long been subject to drug screens in return for the money I receive from the state. I'm completely in favor of this move.

Posted by Miguel S. Lopez on 02 Apr 09 11:03 AM EDT
The tought is idiotic. This will dramatically increase the costs of providing the service. Who will pay these costs. They should start with themselves first. They tend to be the worst abusers of alcohol and drugs. So if you are poor, old, and young you will be labeled as a drug addict.

Posted by lgale on 02 Apr 09 11:21 AM EDT
Since these same states have drastically reduced funding for substance abuse treatment, the intent is obviously to intimidate otherwise qualified benefit recipients and prevent them from getting needed assistance. One wonders if any of those legislators advocating expanded testing own interest in laboratories or have received campaign contributions from them.

Posted by Bill Godshall on 02 Apr 09 11:28 AM EDT
The zero-tolerance witchhunt against politically incorrect drug users continues. But of course, the most harmful and costly drug problems (cigarette smoking and excessive drinking) will be exempted from the proposed law. Seems like these legislators just want occassional pot smokers to switch to cigarettes and hard liquor.

Posted by jeff.b.duncan@doc.state.or.us on 02 Apr 09 11:52 AM EDT
This is another example of a politician using the most disenfranchised of us to keep their name in the spotlight. As to Susan, you choose to participate in such employment. Public benefits are a safety net for all, not just whom we judge to be worthy. After all, 'we' are 'them'.

Posted by Luis M. Lozano on 02 Apr 09 12:25 PM EDT
I wonder if they asked the bankers and executives on Wall Street to pee for their billions in bailout money from the government? This is another example of our government going after the people who need the help the most to pay for corporate welfare. The money going to public assistance is miniscule compared to the sums we have given Wall Street. It is insulting and probably unconstitutional. Some one those Wall Street firms filled out a one page application to get their billions yet someone applying for food stamps or a $266 month check fills out somewhere between 25 to 50 pages of paperwork, reports every month, is asked the most intrusive of personal questions and made to feel like a criminal.

Posted by Diane Kopperman on 02 Apr 09 12:33 PM EDT
This is an extremely dangerous proposal. Where is the probable cause for a search? Additionally, it will NOT save money because the tests themselves cost $35 apiece. If the intent is to eliminate some receivers of public assistance, then change the eligibility criteria. I see this as another attempt to criminalize poverty. However, in response to a statement above, alcohol will NOT be ignored, although tobacco will. Thus, an occasional drinker could be denied benefits but, as we all know, the Poor shouldn't have enough money left over to drink anyway.

Posted by lgale on 02 Apr 09 01:09 PM EDT
When Ronald Reagan pushed for wholesale drug testing, the traditional justice premise of "innocent unless proven guilty" was abandoned. The precedent is unevenly applied with less wealthy citizens being readily targeted. An individual who claims an income tax deduction for the interest on a million dollar home is receiving public assitance: How popular would a proposal be to require that individual to submit to urine testing? I recommend the 1997 film GATTACA for a glimpse of where society is headed.

Posted by Michael on 02 Apr 09 01:30 PM EDT
Brilliant! If you want benefits and you are suffering from diabetes we'll apply a 'cookie test' before you qualify. If you have lung disease we will check for carbon dioxide levels. Give me a break!

Posted by Matt Radlowski on 06 Apr 09 10:57 AM EDT
This appears to not only be an attempt to criminalize poverty, this proposed law seems to ignore the concept of addiction as a disease and highlights the ever-present public perception of addiction as a moral failing or moral weakness. Requiring drug tests in order to receive benefits further entrenches the "worthy" vs the "unworthy" poor concept of public welfare. Addiction is not a moral failing! When will legislators and others in the public arena understand this and have a bit of compassion for those who need it most?

Posted by Al on 06 Apr 09 01:34 PM EDT
I think this is a great idea, but the impact on the treatment system must be kept in mind. It would also produce some very interesting data.

Posted by Doug Fifer on 06 Apr 09 04:45 PM EDT
All of this boo-hoo ing about criminalizing poverty is so far off what they want to do. We as tax payer don't want to buy you anymore dope,PERIOD. I used to use and I got caught. I couldn't get a loan to go back to college and I can't get food stamps if i loose my job. And I work at a treatment facility, you need a meeting!

Posted by KE on 07 Apr 09 07:58 AM EDT
I don't think this is about the poor, it is just the first time the poor are threatened with the same standards many of us who work have to live by. Most people I know are subject to random UAs at work. Pot decreases motivation, productivity. How easy to stay home, wait for the check stoned. Many benefits are based on the dependent kids in the home. Parents usings drugs, alcohol, tobacco is unfair the the kids many benefits are based on. This is not about being poor, it is about fairness. I work very hard but am 1 dirty UA away from unemployment. I am all for this if treatment is also made available to help those who want it.

Posted by Ck on 07 Apr 09 11:11 AM EDT
I think this is a great idea. My County TANF program does do drug testing and there are a few people who don't get assistance because they refuse to quit. We had a person get funding by having clean UA's but as soon as this person got the money they went out a bought meth with it. DHHS quit giving this person assistant. I think it can work, so my hard earned tax dollars don't go to people like this one.

Posted by Benjamin on 08 Dec 09 11:21 PM EST
The problem I have with the comments about being subjected to random UAs at work and being, as one poster put it "1 UA away from unemployment" is that every job I've EVER had (after the initial hiring test) only does a UA IF you are reasonably suspected of using, or if you have an accident (for insurance purposes and to cover their rear-end if you sue them.) That's NOT the same thing as what they're talking about here. And I don't think "a meeting" is what we all need. Perhaps someone speaks for himself on that. I know I've been in treatment and clean for years. That does not mean, however, that I'm willing to say that all addicts that are unfortunate enough to still be battling their addictions should be cut off from public assistance, nor does it mean that while I'm laid off from work, I want to have to go down and pee for someone across town, in addition to filling out the numerous papers each month, along with my job-hunting papers, along with my declarations of what I own, and have to mail it all in, when I should just be able to send my job-hunting papers and say "nothing's changed." If I get in trouble with the law for DUI or using or possession, THEN you can test me. If I come to the office of the case worker high or drunk, THEN you can test me. Until those things happen (or one of them,) stay away from my pee!! It belongs in the toilet, not in your cup. I know I don't have time for such bureaucratic B.S. as this.

Posted by steve on 14 Jan 10 06:36 PM EST
Excuse me but, does anyone have a right to any kind of privacy anymore? maybe the government would like to check my underwear for tire track's!and smell them too! everybodys rights to secrecy in this country are just going down the drain, and worst of all a lot of people that don't care about their privacy are taking everyone elses right's with them. I have always believed that having to let other people view my urine is a very barbareic practice and we should be ashamed to follow this practice like it's just a walk through the park,every employer just expects to hire the most perfect people, and no one else should be able to prove themselves without seeing their pee, this act is shameful and disgusting and needs to be eliminated from society, thats my opinion thank's.

Posted by Greg on 19 Jan 10 11:14 AM EST
Addiction is a disease like diabetes. No-one complains when their Doctor checks their blood sugar. Random drug testing identifies people in need of help before they hit a lower bottom. I would rather see someone lose all their public assistance than their life. Since the health system in our country does not adequately identify drug users for treatment and the war on drugs limiting the supply side is a failure, this is a Public Health issue that is appopriately addressed with drug testing in the workplace and now, hopefully, in the public assistance arena. And yes, I think we should also test anyone in office. No-one is immune to this disease.

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Submissions are held for review and approval.
Please read the guidelines before posting.

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

Guidelines for comments