Welfare Drug Testing

[stebo0728]

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/poli ... M:POLITICS

Ok so I figured I'd strike up the debate on this one. Personally I like the idea, if working people are subject to random drug testing, why not people on welfare too? The one draw back I do see here that probably needs to be ironed out, is the welfare recipient is responsible for the up front cost of the test, which they would recoup if they pass. That sounds fair and is probably the best way to do it, but I can see that being a point of contention. So thoughts?

[Amays U G37S]

Yes, Yes, Yes. All Section 8 housing is full of drugs and drug dealers. I think everyone on Welfare, Unemployment, and some cases of disability should be screened for drug testing.

No matter what the case is.

[stebo0728]

Well another thing I can see, if we are going to have welfare, especially food stamps and TANF, people need to eat, and if an assistance is in place to make sure people in poverty can eat, do we want to say that they dont deserve to eat if they are on drugs? But to that I can say back, if they can afford drugs, they should be able to afford food right? But maybe they are stealing for drug money, or dealing on the side, are they going to do that kind of activity to buy food when they can get assistance for food?

But here's another wrinkle we could add, if we say 2 consecutive, or 3 total fails = mandatory rehab. They would be fed in rehab. Kids go to temporary foster homes while the parents clean up, they aren't rotting in jail. We're still paying, but in a better more effective way I'd say.

Those are just some random thoughts, and subject to change at any moment.

[IBCoupe]

Fourth Amendment. No.

Make the police enforce drug laws, not DHHS.

[stebo0728]

Fourth Amendment. No.

Make the police enforce drug laws, not DHHS.

Just as we dont raid a home to see if the mattress is full of money before giving food stamps? Thats maybe a good enough argument against. Still I dont know if a drug test, whose results would be used to help assess need, could be fairly labeled "unreasonable search and seizure". Perhaps, and that would come down to the SCOTUS i suppose to decide.

[IBCoupe]

Fourth Amendment. No.

Make the police enforce drug laws, not DHHS.

Just as we dont raid a home to see if the mattress is full of money before giving food stamps? Thats maybe a good enough argument against. Still I dont know if a drug test, whose results would be used to help assess need, could be fairly labeled "unreasonable search and seizure". Perhaps, and that would come down to the SCOTUS i suppose to decide.

What currently determines need? What's the metric? Low per-head household income? Why have any other measure?

[stebo0728]

Yes but people are supposed to declare any other forms of income, even if they are "under the table" incomes. Laugh if you like, we all know no one claims those, but still they are SUPPOSED to. So if they have an expensive drug habit, somethings not being reported maybe? And dont get me wrong, lets not pick on drugs when we're talking this way. What about welfare recipients with 72" TV's and lavish cars, and other amenities that they could probably do with out and buy their own food. But when all you have are a few worksheets, that overworked people review on friday afternoon, while dreaming of a margarita, mayhaps a bit too much is slipping through?

[IBCoupe]

Chances are, if they have an expensive drug habit, that's why they're on welfare. Who do you think these people are?

[mattblancarte]

Can the Fourth Amendment really be applied in this scenario? Honest question, and not meaning to sound ignorant.

I am in favor of drug testing welfare recipients, purely because I think it's fair to loosely control the end-use of welfare capital.

When someone (not on disability) receives welfare it should be implied that they are required to get their act together. One idea to equip the recipient for some sort of success is to inhibit their ability to drown in drug use.

I realize it's not that simple and the issue requires much more detailed thought, but in general, I support the idea.

[IBCoupe]

You'd be punishing them for their drug use, and you'd be finding out that they're using drugs without a warrant. That's pretty much what the Fourth Amendment exists to prevent.

[mattblancarte]

Perhaps a reasonable solution would be to allow some kind of grace period. Upon application for welfare, the timer would start. When the welfare applicant submits the application, it should contractually obligate them to undergo mandatory drug testing after one month.

I see what you're saying regarding denial based on testing positive for illegal drugs and the fact that it's a search without warrant. I guess it's also discriminatory to some extent, to deny someone welfare based on personal habits.

Tricky scenario, indeed.

[IBCoupe]

I'm not sure that there's anything that stops a DHHS employee from calling the police if they are concerned about the possibility of drug use on the part of the recipient. That seems far less intrusive, and doesn't raise any Constitutional concerns. At that point, it's up to local police to deal with the problem, if they think it's one.

[stebo0728]

Great interchange going on here, insightful to say the least. I do understand your concerns IB, and they do make alot of sense. I like Matt's idea to, to contractually obligate them on inception to be subject to random tests, then its just as if they are an employee, contractually bound by an employer, and the Fourth Amendment perhaps becomes moot? Your employer doesnt get a warrant to have you tested for employment, you do it of your own accord in order to be considered for the job, it would be the same for welfare, you could always say no by your free will, but then that would negate your eligibility status.

And dont make the mistake of considering withholding aid to be the same as "punishment". I understand what you're saying regarding the drug use possibly being the reason they are on welfare, but do people really have a "right" to recieve public funds to support their habit? Make no mistake, people have ways of turning aid into cash, even with the newer EBT cards, they still manage. The only thing that concerns me in this scenario is the children involved, and being sure either they are being cared for by the parent, or being removed if not.

[IBCoupe]

I think you guys are misunderstanding welfare. An employer hires somebody because the employer gets something out of it. The government gives welfare because people need it.

A more apt comparison would be: "What if the City of Hartford decided to perform random drug checks on people getting on their city buses?"

[stebo0728]

Meh, a bit, but public transportation helps the city as much as it helps the passengers. It keeps traffic down, I dont know that it provides any revenue, as I would imagine most public transportation operates at at least somewhat of a loss. Mainly I have been exploring this idea for a while, and wanted to see what the consensus might be. In the grand scheme of things, I dont look at it as being an actual drug use issue, as Im for decriminalization anyway, but I look at it more like an expense on the individual that should not be covered by welfare. Similarly I've considered discounting eligibility for cell phone owners, but thats a lot less likely now that cell phones have become many people's ONLY phone, me included. But all of those techno-babble sorts of amenities are hard to prove, whereas a drug test is pretty conclusive. But I suppose if you were to look at it that way, why pick on drugs if you cant rule out other expenditures as well? Still not decided completely here, and I see both sides of it, but I cant say as I fault anyone who decided to proceed down this road, especially in times of economic distress, when many welfare programs cant afford to keep the level of aid they have now.

[R/T Hemi]

Fourth Amendment. No.

Make the police enforce drug laws, not DHHS.

Absolutely. Why suspend the constitution as a condition of receiving assistance? On the other hand, convict them of drug related crimes, and they can kiss their welfare good bye.

[stebo0728]

Fourth Amendment. No.

Make the police enforce drug laws, not DHHS.

Absolutely. Why suspend the constitution as a condition of receiving assistance? On the other hand, convict them of drug related crimes, and they can kiss their welfare good bye.

Very well, that makes sense. Now what about in the future if drug related crimes aren't crimes anymore, but we still want to weed drug habits out of the welfare system. Thats the point I'm making. And I'll reiterate, its not the fact of the drugs themselves, but more of the expenditure of the individual by some means of income thats unreported, hence, the taxpayer is getting screwed in the end.

[R/T Hemi]

Typically, people receiving welfare aren't living the high life. They are struggling to buy food and keep the lights on. I doubt they have much disposable income for things like alcohol or drugs. If they are out there committing crimes, they'll eventually get caught.

[AZhitman]

You'd be punishing them for their drug use, and you'd be finding out that they're using drugs without a warrant. That's pretty much what the Fourth Amendment exists to prevent.

What if there was no prosecution?

As I understand it (admittedly, I can be way off here), the 4th isn't an issue if one's not subjected to legal sanctions for the ill-obtained dirt. If I get pulled over and an unlawful search is performed, the cop puts my baggie of coke neatly back into my console and sends me on my way with just a speeding ticket, do i have a 4th Amendment case?

[AZhitman]

Fourth Amendment. No.

Make the police enforce drug laws, not DHHS.

Absolutely. Why suspend the constitution as a condition of receiving assistance? On the other hand, convict them of drug related crimes, and they can kiss their welfare good bye.

I think that's a compromise that could almost make me "let go" of the thought that drug testing for public assistance is a great idea.

As much as it "feels" like a no-brainer, Issac and R/T have a point. Dammit.

BTW, to touch on something stebo brought up: You can't buy alcohol or cigarettes (or some prepared foods) with food stamps. I'm all for those types of restrictions. No, I'm not all about making it harder on welfare recipients, but a little "tough love" can go a long way. I've witnessed far too many clients misusing their sole means of sustenance, which I see as a giant "F.U." to the taxpayers who fund it. Perhaps demanding a little more programmatic accountability (and maybe some community service) would go a long way towards appeasing the "drug testing supporter" camp somewhat.... just thinking out loud here...

EDIT: another side note - I don't give a damn about under-the-table income. If someone can get a leg up in the world, I'm all for it. If Miss Welfare-Singlemom wants to pull an extra $50 a week on the side cleaning someone's house, then I wish her well. Every hour she's cleaning, she's not making more babies, hooking on the corner, or laying around on the sofa watching cable tv.

[IBCoupe]

You'd be punishing them for their drug use, and you'd be finding out that they're using drugs without a warrant. That's pretty much what the Fourth Amendment exists to prevent.

What if there was no prosecution?

As I understand it (admittedly, I can be way off here), the 4th isn't an issue if one's not subjected to legal sanctions for the ill-obtained dirt. If I get pulled over and an unlawful search is performed, the cop puts my baggie of coke neatly back into my console and sends me on my way with just a speeding ticket, do i have a 4th Amendment case?

Well, I think we have to distinguish between a legal defense against a punishment, versus the Constitutionality of a particular law.

For example, one of the arguments against laws that ban abortion is that there'd be no constitutional means of enforcement: a cop would necessarily have to perform an unreasonable search in order to determine whether one had occurred. That's not what I'm saying makes this unconstitutional.

What makes this unconstitutional, in my opinion, is that this is more akin to a law that would require pedestrians on public sidewalks to open their backpacks/purses/what have you upon encountering a uniformed police officer. That, to me, seems to be a de facto violation of the Fourth Amendment, regardless of whether any of those pedestrians are ever prosecuted for anything.

Similarly, I am very suspicious of NYC's stop-and-frisk laws, not just because there's been a lot of abuse of it, but because I don't believe it adequately limits the discretion of the individual police officers to breach the Fourth Amendment.

[AZhitman]

^ Agreed.

As such, this will just have to be one of those seemingly "good ideas" that'll have to be sacrificed on the altar of true liberty.

Thank God for you pointy-headed types protecting us from ourselves.