Drug testing recipients of welfare has been a topic of conversation over the past several years. The first place that I ever saw the idea was on a social networking website as a poll that was being passed around and voted on. When I last saw the poll it had an overwhelming number of votes in the "FOR" category. I'm not sure if enough people voting or talking about it is what originally started the legal ball rolling, I'm just glad it got rolling in the first place.
That's right, big surprise, I'm one of the people that voted "FOR" people being drug tested if they were to receive any sort of government benefits. I feel like Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst really summarized well when he said, "We owe it to Texas taxpayers to structure our welfare and unemployment programs in a way that guarantees recipients are serious about getting back to work." The biggest argument that we have in our corner is the fact that drug tests are required when you start a new job. I am required to be clean and drug free when I WANT to get out there are work for my money and not just be given a handout. So why has it been okay for so many years for people to be helped out by our government and not have to give the same proof?
It seems that Texas has now (finally!) joined the ranks with other states such as Oklahoma, Georgia, Tennessee, and Utah. It seems as though our votes have been worthwhile, leaving me to ponder the idea if social media is the future key for our government.
9 comments:
I would have to agree with this post. I would be FOR drug testing to receive any welfare or benefits from the government.
I know it's not the case for everyone, but there are too many cases where people are just abusing the system and taking what they can take from the government as long as the government will keep giving, and they have no intention of ever getting a job. This preventative action would help weed out some of those cases and really narrow it down to the people who really need the help and who are actually going to do something with it.
This also might help the government cut back on some unnecessary expenses that are being wasted on people who are going to stay in the system and not go anywhere. It would allow some extra funds to be able to help others and maybe free up some money that can go into other areas of the state budget, such as education.
To add to this though, it might be nice if there was a partner charity foundation that could team up with citizens who need welfare assistance but who can't pass a drug test. This would be reserved for people who really do want to get clean and be able to get some assistance from the government to get back on their feet. This might be a good alternative to just shutting the doors on some of these people and sending them back out into the world if they actually want the help to get back on their feet.
The assumption is that unemployed people do drugs. It is demeaning to assume that the unemployed automatically do drugs and that they need to prove their purity. Yes, you must pass a drug test in order to work, however, there are many who are relapsing on their drug habits who may never fully kick the drug habit. I've been in situations to know about people who are crack addicts, meth addicts, heroin, cocaine and it's never a matter of if you relapse; It is a matter of when you relapse. By halting those who have serious addiction issues from getting jobs you directly impede the drug addicts' ability to work a job by simply screening them. If we were to allow those who have addiction problems to get a job even though they have addictions to speed, crack cocaine, heroin, etc. this will open up an entire new workforce that will help the economy, put drug addicts back to work and as they are busy working, they may not have so much time and pain to do drugs to escape. This will put them in a more powerful position in their life to inspire them to work harder (because now they can work without the fear of a drug test to pass. As I said, it's not a matter of IF you relapse, it's a matter of WHEN). Not only is this the logical, and best economical action to take, it is the morally just way to take action. Instead of punishing them for something that is not entirely in their control, reward them for their efforts to get a job with a job. This will give them more of a hold on their life, so that they will have a job to wake up to and work hard. They make money, they invest in products, and this stimulates the economy. People make mistakes and take wrong decisions, yes, you must live with your decisions, however you don't have a choice as to what situation you were brought up in, whether you were born into a lucrid family or a poverty stricken ghetto.
One assumption most don't know about, is that it is not a matter of if you relapse it is a matter of when. If you were born in a poverty stricken neighborhood where drugs are dealt and this was your way of escaping a world of violent gang shootings, in which a dear friend was shot to death, you might just buy a dime of marijuana to ease your nerves from the drive-by shootings outside your house. If you were to live in a neighborhood where your only solid deal for a meal was to go to the public school, and so you go to school solely for the meal as a young child why wouldn't you buy marijuana to de-stress? If you have never been educated about the effects of drugs in your life, because you are too young and ignorant, why wouldn't you partake in meth, cocaine, heroin? These situations do occur! This happens every day in the most degenerate neighborhoods. If you have nothing, no money to your name, no job, no food, no shelter, and the only way to rise out of it would be to get a job, and yet you can't kick a drug habit (it's very difficult, I knew people in hospitals de-toxing off heroin and they all said it felt like dieing! Also many who are addicted to heroin would literally kill for more.) You can't kick a drug habit and the only thing stopping you from taking a job is a drug test, where does that leave you? Without a job, without a means to support yourself, back in hopeless poverty and back in dealing illegal drugs which could land you in jail for decades. If this is the situation you grow into adulthood in, how would you know to act differently to not sell drugs on the street corner, or to not take heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, meth?
Another assumption is that unemployed people aren't serious about getting back to work. This assumes that citizens are lazy, that they don't want to work to lift themselves out of poverty. People that are in tough situations fight and strive to rise above and work to their goals. This is the human condition for many people. They want a better situation for their lives and their children and grandchildren. How good could you feel about yourself if you don't even have the money to ensure a good college education for your children? If you want something better than a life in squalor? People are very serious about getting back to work to make money to help their kids and improve their own life and maybe that of a sweet significant other. Citizens wish to work, to improve their lives by making money.
There are unemployed people that do drugs recreationally however it is known that many people who are richer and have more resources are just as likely to do drugs as those who are unemployed. Especially since the affluent have more money to spend on hard drugs, such as cocaine. This puts an unfair advantage upon them, as they have had the good luck in this economy to have a job, and as such do not need a drug test.
To Test or Not to Test? is the title and question my classmate is presenting on her blog, Kidnapped and Dragged to Texas. I agree with my classmate that people receiving welfare may be tested for illegal drug use. On November 13th, Governor Rick Perry and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst endorsed Texas Senator Craig Estes in his bill to require drug screenings for welfare recipients. The potential welfare recipients that may be tested are those who are applying for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Unemployment Insurance (UI). I would like to explore multiple perspectives on this issue for sake of debate, first from a legal standpoint of what the constitution declares which will be against testing and secondly from my opinion as a tax payer which will be for testing.
The fourth amendment of the United States constitution states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
This is also known as the search and seizure amendment. Submitting a urine sample, piece of hair, or saliva can be classified as a search. Being a applicant or receiver of social service benefits does not serve as probable cause for a search. Some would say such requirement is an invasion of privacy. Florida recently had a law in place to test welfare recipients. Only after four months of the law being in effect, it was deemed unconstitutional by a lower court in Florida. The lower court cited the fourth amendment in their verdict. The lower court's decision is now being appealed at the U.S. 11th Circuit of Court Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia.
Now from my opinion as a tax payer, i would like to be certain that these welfare benefits are going to those who need them the most and not to those who may be using illegal drugs rather than attempting to gain employment. A law requiring welfare recipients to be tested would encourage many to stop using illegal drugs and be motivated to find work. In many cases being drug-free is a necessary factor to gain employment. Individuals against testing welfare recipients may cite that during the four months Florida tested for illegal drug use only 108 out of 4,086 people tested positive or 2.6%. Statistics show that testing is not financially prudent. However, I encourage people to think about how many individuals stopped using and possibly remained sober without illegal drugs in order to apply and receive benefits. Regardless of the cost of the program I believe it is more important to be sure our tax dollars are ending up into the right hands, those who are trying to honestly provide for themselves and their families.
Drug testing of welfare recipients is an issue that isn’t always first to be brought up but I still feel is important to discuss. This was the same idea that one of my classmates had, and I’m glad that she chose to write about it. I, too, support drug testing for welfare recipients. Having worked for HUD (Housing and Urban Development aka low-income housing assistance) myself, I feel that I can offer a first-person account of what it feels like to help someone receive government assistance while knowing that they are using drugs. Because a drug test is not a requirement, there was little that could be done. My classmate’s quote from Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst supports that feeling that taxpayers are owed the courtesy of knowing that their taxes are going to those who truly need and deserve them. In an ideal world, these recipients would also be actively searching for a job, but anyone with a mental health problem or a shady past who is trying to turn their life around knows that this can be an almost impossible feat. Either way, knowing that not just the employees assisting clients but the clients themselves are drug-free sounds much better to me.
My biggest critique of this posting is that my classmate didn’t really support her opinion. There are no sources cited and just a couple of references mentioned. It would have been a much stronger argument with these factors added in.
Post a Comment