In analyzing the current welfare structures in this country, some lawmakers in the past few years have proposed mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. Many states, like Missouri and Oklahoma, have adopted this practice as law. However, these proposals, meant to exclude certain segments of the population from receiving welfare services, have been proven to be controversial. They have received a great deal of negative press in recent years. On the surface, it may seem that by screening out drug abusers from welfare services, the welfare system might be better directed toward funding those who are not drug-addicted. However, when one studies the issue in greater depth, one finds that these efforts at targeting welfare recipient drug abusers are misguided, invasive, and unconstitutional. The three reasons why welfare recipients should not be subject to drug testing are the high cost of setting up drug-testing systems, the unconstitutionality of the testing, and the statistics that show that welfare recipients are no more likely to abuse drugs than any other segment of the population.
To begin with, the cost of setting up mandatory drug-testing systems for welfare recipients would far outweigh the savings from excluding those individuals from service. According to research, there are astronomical costs associated with even basic systems of urinalysis testing, ones that make policies of drug-testing welfare recipients cost more than they would save. For example, in 2011, Missouri adopted a law to screen welfare recipients through testing. This law cost the state $336,297 of taxpayer money in one fiscal year, though only 48 out of the 38,970 potential recipients tested positive, or .01%. Additionally, data from the drug-screening policies in place in Oklahoma in 2013 also back up the statistics from Missouri. Oklahoma spent $385,872 in the fiscal year on drug-testing, though only 297 of the 3,342 individuals tested positive, or 8% (Covert and Israel, N.p.). With only .01% to 8% of the welfare population testing positive for drug abuse, targeting this specific population is not an effective use of funding, especially when the drug tests cost the taxpayer. Moreover, drug-testing these welfare recipients cost the states far more than they saved, so clearly these types of laws are ineffective at their prime outcome, i.e., to preserve funding.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Welfare Recipients Should Not Be Drug Tested: Argumentative Essay".
Next, welfare recipients should also not be drug-tested because of the unconstitutionality of these invasive systems of testing. Lawsuits are currently being enacted to protect individuals’ rights, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, to receive state benefits without being subject to prior drug screening policies. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has recently been involved in lawsuits against the state for imposing such screening policies against its citizens. In its defense, the ACLU has cited a 2000 federal court decision ruling that “Drug testing of individuals … [is] permissible only where public safety is concerned” (CQ Researcher Editors 316). Since there is no realistically present threat to public safety for welfare recipients who test positive for drug abuse, this type of testing should be viewed as violating individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights. Moreover, this type of testing has not been proven to be fair across the board, regarding other public assistance programming. College students, for example, are not subject to drug-testing to gain state educational funds, and state employees are not drug-tested when they receive their monthly pension. This practice is unconstitutional and unequal across the breath of state funding.
Finally, testing welfare recipients prior to providing services should not be allowed because of the statistics that prove that welfare recipients are no more likely to abuse drugs than anyone other segment of the population. In fact, recent studies have shown that welfare recipients consistently test below the national average percentages for drug abuse in this country. A 2013 study conducted by the National Institute of Health found that 9.4 percent of the American population used drugs in the month prior to the study; concurrently, data released by those states, like Missouri and Oklahoma, who had enacted drug screening for welfare recipients reported positives ranging from only .002% to 8.3% of the population (Beyer 1). This data proves that welfare recipients test positive for drug abuse at a rate less than the national average. Therefore, targeting welfare recipients as a specific portion of the population and stigmatizing them as drug abusers does not make much sense, especially considering these statistics. The initiatives being undertaken to target those receiving welfare benefits unfairly imply that these individuals are more likely to use state funding on drugs and other illicit practices. However, as shown by the data, this clearly does not prove to be the case, and it is just another example of the marginalization efforts of lawmakers who target groups of the American population to perpetuate stereotypes that promote inequality.
In conclusion, welfare recipients should not be drug tested. Policies that support this testing have been proven to be ineffective. There are three primary reason for this claim: drug-testing systems end up costing far more than they potentially save, the drug testing itself is in violation of individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights, and data shows that welfare recipients are no more likely to abuse drugs than any other portion of the population. On the surface, it may seem that states could save money by limiting welfare funding to those who test negative for drug abuse. However, this practice in untenable, invasive, and ultimately ineffective. Lawmakers should be less focused on limiting welfare to state recipients. They should focus more on helping promote the economy so that individuals can find better-paying jobs that enable them to get off public assistance and gain a better quality of life.
- Beyer, Michael. “OPINION: Drug Testing Welfare Recipients is Shameful.” University Wire, 14 Oct 2015. Social Science Premium Collection.
- Covert, Bryce, and Josh Israel. “What 7 states discovered after spending more than $1 million drug testing welfare recipients. What a waste.” ThinkProgress, 26 Feb. 2015, https://thinkprogress.org/what-7-states-discovered-after-spending-more-than-1-million-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-c346e0b4305d/.
- CQ Researcher Editors. “States to Welfare Seekers: Drug Test Comes First.” Urban Issues, 6th Edition. Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 2012, pp: 316.
