Welfare Drug Testing In The United States
As of the start of the new calendar year, at least 10 states in the United States of America have enacted some form of legislation that requires drug testing for those applying for welfare. Although it isn’t necessarily a new idea, it is gaining national attention due to its rising popularity among state legislatures. In 2011, more than three dozen states considered actions that would require individuals to take drug tests if they applied for government aid, such as food stamps or unemployment benefits. Opponents of this new legislation, however, argue that the passing of bills such as these are very unnecessary as they cause more problems than they are solving in a variety of ways. This divide between support for the good of the people and the good of the state as a whole have long been in an issue, going as far as back as Victorian England.
The first major welfare programs in the United States were launched in the 1930s by the administration of President Franklin during the Great Depression. The new measures measures were part of Roosevelt's 'New Deal,” which were a series of programs designed to create jobs and provide assistance to those who were suffering. After being in effect for over 40 years, a reform to the welfare program had support from both sides of government. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program was created by legislation passed by the U. S. Congress and signed by the president in 1996. TANF is the main welfare organization that is still used today to provide families with children with the basic needs to live. This new program, which was formerly known as the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, saw many new changes in the overall program that proved to be very significant. Three of the most important laws that were created from this included, “Financing through block grants to the individual states, strict work requirements in order to qualify for federal aid, and lifetime limits on the number of years of benefit receipt which could be paid out of federal funds”. This new change in legislation made it clear that government officials were making a conceded effort to be more rigid and strict in the administration of their welfare programs.
This time period saw many people taking advantage of the benefits that welfare programs offered, and they decided that it was time for a change. If this strictness in welfare politics continues to be a reoccurring theme, then such laws coming into effect in the future may not be as unrealistic as critics believe they are. Because of the positive feedback that these new forms of legislation received, many people began to push for even stricter limitations to the programs. Supporters of the testing argue that these policies are good for families and children, taxpayers, and society as a whole. As one Ohio senator put it in 2013, 'It is time that we recognize that many families are trying to survive in drug-induced poverty, and we have an obligation to make sure taxpayer money is not being used to support drug dealers”.
In the eyes of many supporters, the goals of this bill are to get help to the kids who may need it, find treatment options to the drug user, and protect the people who are paying taxes. It is unfair, supporters argue, for hardworking Americans to pay for the welfare programs that people are using, only to be used for items such as illegal substances. In cities all throughout the country, people work extremely hard to provide for themselves and their families. And, according the supporters of the bills, it doesn't seem fair to them that their tax dollars go to support illegal things. In addition, supporters agree that welfare drug-testing measures will conserve government resources in a time of fiscal need. As one author out it, “As welfare spending approaches $1 trillion a year, taxpayers have a right to insist that their financial help not only goes to those who truly need it but that it's not wasted on frivolous or self-destructive activities such as drug use”. One study compared the odds of drug use among welfare recipients and non-recipients using data from the 1995 NHS on drug abuse and found drug use to be 50% more common in recipient households than non-recipient. This is a very glaring statistic that suggests drug use among welfare recipients is much more prevalent than those who are not on welfare. Even though there are numerous amounts of supporters of the bill, there are also a large number of opponents who are not in favor of the bill for a variety of reasons.
Opponents of testing welfare recipients for drugs argue that it not only adds an extra burden on the poor, but it is also unfair and unconstitutional. By issuing such tests, they argue that it forces the poor to deal with extra hardships that are unnecessary. At their core, all these proposals exacerbate existing stigmas associated with receiving public assistance, and create unnecessary hurdles for families that are already struggling just to get by. Critics also argue that many drug testing programs are costly and ineffective. One study noted that an Arizona drug-testing program tested 87,000 people for drugs and found only one positive result. Critics note that supporters of the program had predicted drug testing would save Arizona $1. 7 million annually. Welfare drug-testing programs, supporters contend, are largely an attempt by state legislators to enrich drug-testing companies, which often donate to their campaigns.
Not surprisingly, these companies are singing the praises of drug testing to curious lawmakers, while relishing the business boom that has accompanied this pernicious and unconstitutional trend. During the three months the Florida drug-testing program had been in effect, 108 of the 4,086 people tested under the law, or about 2. 6 percent, failed the test, most often for marijuana use. According to the U. S. Department of Justice, the rate of the general population that uses illegal drugs is closer to 8 percent. The state of Florida reimbursed applicants who passed the tests, which totaled $118,140, approximately $30 a test. That figure, according to analysts, exceeded the amount the state would have paid in benefits to those who failed the drug test. In addition, opponents of the legislation argue that an increase in treatment options would result in an increase of money that taxpayers need to pay. For example,” treatment is paid for by private health insurance, by public insurance such as Medicare or Medicaid, or, for those without any insurance, there treatment provider is reimbursed by public 'block grant' funds that are a combination of federal and state dollars”. Opponents insist that if we increase the cost of programs, more takes will need to be paid to support these people and the new programs in which they are apart of.
It is very common for federal, state, and local governments to conduct drug tests of employees who work in positions critical to public safety, such as national security or law enforcement. Many private employers also require workers to take drug tests. Courts have often considered drug tests to be searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, which would make welfare drug testing completely legal and constitutional. In several cases involving government-mandated drug testing, opponents have argued that requiring drug tests without any reasonable suspicion that a person has used illegal drugs violates the Fourth Amendment. There have been cases, however, in which a panel of judges have decided that drug testing welfare recipients could actually act as a precautionary measure, which would benefit all people who seek assistance from government programs.
In 2000, federal Judge Victoria Roberts struck down the statute in the case Marchwinski v. Howard, ruling that the purpose of the tests was not compelling enough to circumvent Fourth Amendment protections. The decision halted the program, which by that time had tested 268 people, 8 percent of whom had tested positive for illegal drugs, a rate roughly equal to the national average. In 2002, a three-judge panel on the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, reversed Roberts's decision. In a statement, the panel insisted, “We have not hesitated to balance the governmental and privacy interests to assess the practicality of the warrant and probable cause requirements in the particular context”. The panel ruled that state interests in protecting children in needy families, guarding public safety by discouraging the illegal drug trade, and ensuring that taxpayer funds were responsibly spent all justified drug tests. This is a very significant ruling from the court as it sets a precedent of ruling in favor of tests for future cases such as these. Even though the courts have ruled that such tests are permissible to issue, the underlying issue of addiction is still an issue for many applying for welfare programs.
The simple solution to this issue would be to have all people who are addicted to drugs get the help that they need through a treatment program that is tailored specially to their needs. The only problem, however, is that many treatment programs are expensive or not covered by the insurance of these people. According to Addiction: Why they Can’t Just Get Help, 9 out of 10 drug users said they have no accessibility to various treatment options”. This could be the result of many different things, but the underlying reason addicts cannot get help is that too often, their healthcare plans are very basic and prevent them from getting any treatment
at all. If welfare drug tests were to be enacted, treatment for addicts would have to become more accessible for all people. If addicts can get help sooner and get rid of their addictions sooner, the children born into these families who receive help from the government would already be off to a more successful start than their parents. In spite of all these things, however, there is still and always will be a public stigma towards drug addicts for one specific reason. Whether it is shown or not, there is a sense that drug addicts are to be blamed for their addictions, and only they can get themselves out of their situation. The public stigma that these addicts face is very similar to the stigma that not only prostitutues, but women in general faced during Victorian times in England. Furthermore, the passing of legislation allowing drug tests for welfare recipients had a similar effect like that of the Contagious Diseases Acts of 1864.
The Contagious Diseases Acts, first passed in 1864 during Victorian England, were enacted to prevent the spreading of diseases within the armed forces. This legislation essentially allowed for police officers to arrest women suspected of being prostitutes. Once arrested, the women were forced to endure medical checks for sexually transmitted infections. If they were found to have any type of disease, they would be confined into a hospital for up to three months. The Contagious Diseases Act of 1864 was reformed for the first time in 1866. The new Contagious Disease Act of 1866 worked to spread the population this legislation effected to include naval ports, army towns, and even the civilian population. It is also important to that within these acts to ostracize prostitutes, no laws were made to prevent the military and other men from engaging in these acts with the women. Similarly to the negative results shown in welfare drug tests, the number of women that were caught was not proportional to the expected numbers of women that would be caught. According to Prostitution, Race, and Politics, “In Brisbane, with a population of almost 400,000 in 1891,… the first year of the colony's CD act, 11 women were registered with the Brisbane police; a decade later, in 1877, the number had only risen to 115”. Just like in the programs that have already been enacted for drug testing welfare recipients, the total number of people that were caught in both situations are very low and suggest that the new laws are not as effective as people thought they would be. Because of these laws, many people began too revolt and question the way in which the government was running their country. People of all backgrounds, including famous poet Thomas Hardy, began to stand up and address the unfairness that was plaguing their country.
Thomas Hardy was a very radical writer in the nineteenth century Victorian Era in which science ruled and religion and morals seemed to crumble. For example, famous scientists such as Charles Darwin began to introduce new theories such as the theory of evolution that proved science to be correct. This surge in science and ideas sparked the minds of many brilliant thinkers, but had an inverse effect on young religious scholars such as Thomas Hardy. He became very saddened by this sudden loss of religion, and although “His attitudes toward the sacred remained tangled and vexed, what has been termed “the disappearance of God” affected him more deeply than it did many of his contemporaries”. Hardy took the decline of religious morals quite hard and was not afraid at all to express this anger in his writing. In fact, Hardy does this in one off his most famous poems, “The Ruined Maid. “ This poem specifically is a dialogue between two women in which Hardy suggests that being a woman was so hard during these times that being “ruined” might have been a relief for some. The new legislation that was enacted to control prostitution turned out to affect all women in Victorian England in some type of way, whether that be physically or psychologically.
For example, in the poem, “‘My dear — a raw country girl, such as you be, Cannot quite expect that. You ain’t ruined,’ said she”. Women were looked as outcasts from society, similar to the way that both addicts and welfare recipients are looked at in today’s age. In this excerpt from the poem, the division among social classes is very evident. Back in those times, those living in the country and those living in the city did not associate with one another. These two groups of people are on total opposites of the social hiearrachy, similar to how normal citizens seem to be on the opposite side as drug addicts or the poor. This novel by Hardy explores this reasoning and questions why these people are looked so down on by society and the ways they can get help from themselves. Just like how the poor are on the bottom of the social ladder today, women were on the bottom of the social ladder during Victorian times. Hardy acknowledges this throughout the poem, and even makes fun mom the situation by saying, “And now you’ve gay bracelets and bright feathers three!’ — Yes: that’s how we dress when we’re ruined,’ said she”. Here, Hardy suggests that since being a woman is so dangerous and bad during this time, maybe those who are cast off from society are lucky to be away from the pressures that these new CD laws have put on them.
Welfare wedge politics have long been a disagreement between liberals and conservatives, and will continue to be a topic of discussion for years to come. Despite the reform law of 1996, the debate over the extent of welfare benefits the government should give to the poor and what conditions it should set continues to rage. However, welfare drug testing is only one aspect of the continuing political war over welfare. How the debate will continue to unfold remains to be seen.
