Creating this policy is one way to theoretically identify the people who are most at-risk of developing an illicit addiction that could keep them out of the labor force for a prolonged period. Pros It Saves tax payer money When drug abusers are eliminated or identified from the program, it helps to save money that might be squandered. The problem with this development is there are so many ways to cheat and test clean. When citizens receive welfare; however, they are not required to take drug screenings, even though they receive the funds from the government. Commission of Civil Rights and the studies of Anderson et al. List of the Cons of Drug Testing Welfare Recipients 1.
If people are going to be lazy and accept money from a government agency, which the working class basically works for, the least they could do is be courteous enough to take the single drug test required. A significant number of these individuals in the poverty class do not have jobs and thus no means of surviving or providing for their families. Some apply to all applicants; others include specific language that there is a reason to believe the person is engaging in illegal drug activity or has a substance use disorder; others require a specific screening process. For those who test positive, they will be referred to a department-identified community mental health entity and can be eligible to continue receiving benefits. The children will be one of the stakeholders who will bear the consequences. The average person is not required to receive a drug test as they go about their daily lives.
A positive screening results in a warning that benefits may be lost. Some report rates lower than 0. Those who test positive for drugs would be ineligible for three years to receive temporary assistance benefits, which are given to individuals with children for basic needs such as; housing, utilities, and clothing. Which could lead one to ponder about what kind of logic leads to these short-sighted laws. It helps to discourage long-term drug use. Most people on welfare is using the money to go get drugs. State officials say that Medicaid would cover the costs of those drug treatment programs.
Roosevelt created the Social Security Act in 1935, then amended it in 1939 to create programs to assist families with unemployment compensation, and to create government agencies… 912 Words 4 Pages Drug Testing Welfare Recipients To test or not to test has been has been the question at hand for many states that are dealing with whether or not to pass the law that welfare recipients should or should not be drug tested in order to receive assistance from the government. The administration also found that heavy alcohol use was slightly lower in households receiving assistance than in those that do not. The main one is urinating in a cup and we all know that can be tampered with, but what about the hair strand, how is that possible… 1347 Words 6 Pages Introduction Since the reformation of welfare in 1996, nearly all states have attempted to pass legislation to require the use of drug testing among welfare recipients. It boiled down to the children of the welfare recipients. The pros and cons of drug testing welfare recipients come down to a single value proposition.
Why can't people get drug tested in order to get welfare? It is a way to help people know what they need to do to find the job that they want. As such, most of the individuals will look for work and become independent. Governor Herbert signed the bill into law on March 23, 2012. If less people in those areas have drugs the neighborhoods improve. Out of the 3,800 people questioned, only 83 of them were referred to drug testing because of their answers. As for the pros of the required drug testing, there are quite a few to take into consideration.
Many families may suffer because of the new bill. For those applying for welfare, if you are not doing drugs then you have nothing to worry about. One of the main reasons for this is the sheer cost of it. These include the fact that this move could possibly save the government money by taking drug addicts off welfare programs. Two weeks later when they fail a drug screen and lose their benefits because of their smoking some weed two weeks ago —everything changes.
Florida, Oregon and Pennsylvania have proposals to drug test those applicants who have been convicted of drug-related offenses. There are anti-discrimination regulations in about a dozen states, along with some reasonable accommodation provisions, that do not exclude an offer of employment just because a positive test comes back. On December 2, 2014, the 11th U. The folks who might grow a little pot on their own, at no cost, lose too. With welfare testing, the cold reality is that the costs and barriers of following through on the policy trump the benefits. How ironic that I who for many years lived a charmed life with my children only to find myself subjected to scrutiny of what others think my children do or do not deserve. If they are required to be tested to get paid, so should those who are receiving assistance money as well.
Understanding both the pros and the cons of it means that there is no black and white answer when it comes to the best solution. Such a program, albeit noble, is likely to cause some adverse consequences for the individuals. Utah passed requiring individuals applying for cash assistance to complete a written questionnaire screening for illegal drug use. Individuals who are struggling with addiction are not always ready to admit that they are dealing with this issue. Tax payers are the working class. States have proposed drug testing of applicants and recipients of public welfare benefits since federal welfare reform in 1996.
The cost involved in drug testing would cost taxpayers even more money, including the employees to monitor the drug test and not to mention the cost of the drug test. Forcing people into a scenario where they must offer this information in exchange for help with basic supplies makes it so that drug users are less willing to disclose, which keeps them from connecting to treatment programs. Florida was the first state to mandate the law in 2011 and thereafter twenty four other states in the last year have also passed this law in our own state of Oklahoma being one of them. The way people spend welfare money should be watched, because you should not be allowed to just do anything with the money the program gives. They can lie on their questionnaires about previous drug use, for example.
If so, the applicant's request for benefits shall be denied. In 2009, over 20 states proposed legislation that would require drug testing as a condition of eligibility for public assistance programs. The drug testing will be a way for the state to possibly cut back funding for the welfare program. Instead we should get abusers back on track and prepare to get them jobs and get off assistance. Drug testing is often part of the pre-employment process when someone starts a new job. In some states, the ruling has come back that these mandatory drug tests are unconstitutional. Tax payers are obviously working to earn their money, so why should they have to work to pay off the habits of the people who are too lazy to get up and work for it themselves? If the individual tests positive or refuses to take the test, they are ineligible for benefits for three years unless they enter and complete a substance abuse treatment program, in which case they can reapply in six months.