Drug Testing and TANF
01 Jun 2011 5 Comments
in political laboratory Tags: government services, personal research
So, a politician has actually stuck by one of his campaign promises!
I will give you a moment to pick yourself up off the floor 
But in all seriousness, Gov. of Florida Rick Scott signed legislation today that will begin drug testing TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families – Cash Welfare) recipients. There are articles about it all over, but if you are too lazy to google then you can click here. This was a hot topic of conversation at my workplace today, and I assume throughout the rest of the internet.
Basically, the Governor is seeking to test TANF applicants (at their cost) before they will receive welfare benefits. There are also measures to implement random sampling every 6 months. So recipients will never know when they will be tested. The costs of the tests are said to range from $10 – $25 and the fees will be refunded to the TANF recipient after they test clean. I have to be honest and say I do not outright disagree with the basic idea of the legislation. If you are testing positive for drugs on the TANF application, chances are you won’t be able to pass a drug test when it comes time to apply for the job. Therefore, how will you be able to get out and become self-sufficient? A lot of people argue that this is an invasion of privacy, illegal search/seizure…etc. And I’m torn. Will implementing mandatory drug tests take away the last bit of dignity an impoverished person has? People who apply for food stamps or TANF already must bear their financial souls to their case worker. Will peeing in a cup be the final straw?
Honestly, I am not sure. I think the part that I am most upset with is not the invasion of privacy, but the fact that Michigan already tried to pass such legislation and it was reversed by Federal Courts under the clause that it violated the Fourth Amendment. Upon further research, it seems to appear that Michigan is allowed to drug test welfare recipients if there is suspicion that they are using illegal drugs. So, what irritates me most about Florida’s legislation is the fact that it seems fiscally wasteful, and done only to pay lip service to the public. I wonder what will happen when people find out that everyone on TANF doesn’t use drugs and the number of individuals on welfare doesn’t drop to 0, and now we have paid extra for all those tests.
Which brings me to my final concern over Gov. Scott’s legislation. Exactly who is going to be conducting these drug tests? One of Gov. Scott’s cronies who just happened to buy a lab a few months back? If my skepticism is too much for you just Google “Governor Scott Medicare Fraud” and you will know why I feel the way I do.
So, is drug testing going to alleviate the US’ drug problem, or only further criminalize and punish people for being poor…
Jun 01, 2011 @ 21:10:28
I have to say I agree with the basic idea of the drug tests for welfare recipients. Personally I am for government provisions of financial assistance via tax dollars. Lord know my family has been on Welfare before and we needed it.
I cant’ say that I see this Legislation as an invasion of privacy or protected against by the 4th amendment. If someone wants my tax dollars to help them buy whatever life’s essentials they need then I want to rest assured that they are in fact buying those essentials. If they want the government check they are going to have to jump through the correct hoops to get it.
I also recognize your point about creating a cycle for addicts not being able to get the financial help they need, but speaking from experience, once an addict is abusing the welfare system, they have much bigger, physical and psychological problems that need to be addressed first. which is why there needs to be a better system for addicts to get clean with other that N.A. or A.A. It’s far too easy to fall off the wagon when you are voluntarily going to a free meeting. I know you are going to say something like “but they have to want to get better?” or “how can they get effective help if they can’t get any money?” these are psychological and social issues that need more attention. I don’t have any answers, just observations.
I certainly want the welfare recipients who are going to use that money to get themselves into a better place in life more so than the junkie who is abusing the system. I would like to see our country get to a place where less people need to go on financial assistance, but I don’t think the people who are backing the legislation are so naive as to think that the welfare recipients will drop to zero.
I think you are 100% correct in being skeptical over the governors reasons for backing the legislation. I think it is our responsibility as citizens to be skeptical of our elected officials and call them to account when we feel that they are fucking up or being sneaky or unethical.
One final note, the only thing that will alleviate the U.S.’s drug problem (self-imposed, self-created, and self-perpetuated I might add) is to decriminalize all of them at the very least, or; legalize all of them, control quality and constancy cat the most and tax the fuck out of them and use the money for social services, schools, education, the military and infrastructure.
I realize that you are talking about Florida legislation and it doesn’t really affect me up here in Minnesota, but it could and in all honesty it probably should. So, forgive my glibness.
Jun 02, 2011 @ 18:18:59
I definitely think that decriminalization/legalization (of weaker drugs such as marijuana) is a route that the US needs to seriously consider. It would not only bring in tax revenue but also ease the burden on our overpopulated prisons. But that’s a story for another day
I guess when I was thinking of the legislation I didn’t immediately think of addicts who are using hard drugs while on welfare. My mind immediately went to a casual smoker of marijuana who took a puff at a party 3 months back and then lost their job and fails a TANF drug test. But thinking about how it will filter out those who use and abuse prescription drugs, or even crack cocaine … my support of the law gets a bit stronger.
It’s tricky.
Jul 17, 2011 @ 15:06:33
i used to be a welfare recipient here in canada. it has been my experience that most people don’t object too much to their tax dollars being used to help someone truly in need. they DO object to their money being wasted on drugs and alcohol. instead of thinking of this as something that further strips poor people of their dignity, look at it as a way for poor people to dispel the myths. the majority is NOT made up of addicts and bums, it is made up of people stuck in a bad situation. i have always said that i would happily submit to a drug test provided that a) it tested only for illegal drugs, not prescription drugs with the potential of being abused OR allowed for the maximum therapeutic levels of those drugs, b) the requirements to pass the test are clearly laid out, and c) the results be strictly kept confidential and used solely for the purpose of determining eligibility, rather than shared with other programs for any reason.
i also support the legalization and heavy taxation of cannabis, in my view it is no worse than tobacco and alcohol.
i think statistics should be shared with the public if those statistics could help lessen the stigma of being a “welfare bum”. i was lucky enough that most people minded their business or thought a single mom with an infant was a worthy recipient, i got very little in terms of backlash. unfortunately there ARE people who abuse the system, use money for drugs, or otherwise piss taxpayers off when it comes to welfare. there’s an opportunity here to prove that the “welfare bums” are a minority. and by testing everyone across the board (which, yes, is a waste of money), you’re not discriminating against anyone. cause you know some idiot would otherwise test more visible minorities or other target groups whether they want to admit it or not.
Aug 14, 2011 @ 13:47:40
I think that you raise some good points Myk. I hope that they do publish the results of the tests as far as saying… “of the new applicants tested 99% passed” or something to that effect. Thank you for finding the positive in a situation I thought was pretty negative.