Should Welfare Recipients Be Required to Pass a Drug Test?
78© by Jennifer McLeod writing as jenjen0703, all rights reserved.
Drug testing is a mandatory action for most people seeking employment. According to The Ledger.com, 84% of employers are drug testing their employees, despite the costs. Some companies only perform drug tests on new employees and for work-related injuries. Other companies require random and regular drug testing of their employees.
So, if we working Americans have to pass drug tests to work and pay taxes to support the unemployed, then why aren't those people required to pass drug tests in order to receive government assistance?
Why Are We Drug Tested?
Drug testing is a safety issue for most companies, as well as a cost-effective option. According to Pre-Employment Drug Screening.com, drug use can contribute to tardiness, high turnover rates, absenteeism, attitude problems, stealing, less productivity, crime, and violence.
Do some of these drug-related issues involve those who do not work and receive any type of supplemental income or financial assistance from their state in which they reside? Absolutely! Actually, I would think that the crime rates would be higher for unemployed Americans who are using illegal drugs versus employed Americans. Social Security benefits do not pay well, and supporting a family off that amount is next to impossible.
Do you think people receiving government assistance should be required to pass a drug test?
See results without voting | Amazon Price: $30.25 List Price: $46.07 |
 | Amazon Price: $69.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $9.99 |
Interesting Facts
In 2001-2003, I was self-employed as a medical transcriptionist. One particular doctor that I worked for was a psychiatrist who performed psychiatric evaluations on clients who were in the process of applying for Social Security benefits.
I do not want to quote statistics, as I do not have an actual count before me, and specific information is confidential regarding patients. However, I will say that I was moderately surprised when I discovered how many Social Security applicants had previous issues with alcoholism and drug addiction.
I also discovered that many of these applicants also had previous issues regarding their children being removed from the home because the parents had gotten into trouble for illicit drug use. So, we have drug-addicted parents, who through no fault but their own, messed up their lives and lost their children, yet still expect the government to support them while they sit home using illicit drugs.
This is discouraging for many folks, such as myself. I work extremely hard at my job, and to know that people can draw free money for doing nothing bothers me. Maybe some of us employed folks who are paying for your income would like a break for awhile, too.
The previous comment does not apply to those disabled and retired folks who truly do need the money. There are many individuals who are in desperate need of financial assistance, through no fault of their own. Should they be given minimal assistance because of the rest of the beneficiaries who are abusing the Social Security system?
Who's Jumping On Board?
In 2011, according to the N.Y. Times, policy makers from three dozen states proposed law changes that would implement drug testing for those individuals who applied for food assistance, unemployment benefits, welfare, job training, and public housing.
To prevent abuse and misuse of the Social Security Administration, states such as Arizona, Indiana, and Missouri have already implemented mandatory drug testing for applicants of government assistance.
In Florida, the state requires the applicants to pay for their own drug tests, causing enrollment to shrink to its "lowest levels since the start of the recession" (N.Y. Times, October 10, 2011).
 | Amazon Price: $6.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $11.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $10.98 List Price: $19.99 |
Could You Be Next?
Right now, there are thousands of people probably laughing at this article because they have managed to obtain their Medical Marijuana Card. Those who have their medical card are allowed to smoke cannabis without risking legal charges or interference from state Child Protective Services when it comes to their children.
However, it is also a fact that federal law does not support the Medical Marijuana Card, and employers can still terminate your employment if you were to fail a drug test, even if you have your medical card.
In Grand Rapids, Michigan, a Walmart employee was fired for cannabis usage, despite the fact that he had his medical card. John Casias had his medical card because of sinus caner and an inoperable brain tumor. Traditional painkillers, alone, did not ease his pain.
If you have your medical card and fail an employment-related drug test, your employer can still terminate your employment.
Other Articles of Interest
This story addresses management issues in the interviewing, hiring, and firing process of employment and will provide useful tips to help you be successful on your "job hunt".
Is a Drug Test in Your Immediate Future?
I am sharing this story for a fellow hubber.
CommentsLoading...
The problem is what do you do with them if they fail these tests? If they drink, they can get welfare; if they smoke likewise. They should be required to partake of drug programs regularly before benefits are withdrawn.
Welfare is an emotive subject polarising society here and in the US. The money is finite and I agree deserving families should come first, but we can't just abandon sick people who are hooked on a drug dependency. No easy way out
Bob
I agree with both of you, American Romance and Bob. If the government would cut off benefits to those who can't pass a drug test and complete a rehabilitation program, could you imagine how much money that could save the government? It would force some of these people back into the working class.
How interesting!
I also live in a country where the benefits are many to the wrong people for all the wrong reasons. I assure you ENDLESS numbers of people here sit under trees drinking, drugs etc while the hard working people pay taxes to uphold their habits. NOT ME!
Having said this, I lived in South Africa where the government benfits are few to none which sounds harsh but everyone knows where they stand, work or else and save at the same time for retirement days. (a small pension is granted)
Here in Australia there is a shortage of fruit pickers and the farmers actually bring people in from the islands to do the work as they are only too glad to have the funds to send home to family.
I realise I have gone off the subject but I have appreciated having my say on the above.
Of course it is wrong for those on benefits not to be drug tested!
This has been a terrific topic!
Thank you, LadyLyell. I know many people who abuse the government's assistance, and it makes me sick. There are people out there that truly need that money and are having to go without while others just take it to take it.
I have not given it much thought, JenJen, but my initial response is yes. Why should the taxpayer pay for someone else's street drugs. Street drugs initiate and fund an enormous amount of crime, and the taxpayer does not want to promote that either. If their money is used to buy illegal drugs then this is essentially what happens.
I kinda agree with Bob. And although it's good to look at this problem, I wonder if we should also look at the problem of people who deliberately lie about their income or their household income and their assets in order to receive government payments. To me, those are just as bad as the drug users, if not worse. It's a tough subject. For now, I voted No to the question. Still thinking on it, though. Good discussion here.
I agree about having to pass a drug test.
Thanks Caleb DRC, don't misunderstand, I'm not quoting statistics. I just know there is a good portion of them that are addicts or alcoholics.
I agree with you 100% Brenda. I am low-income, and am off work due to work injury. I do not even qualify for food stamps because, as a college student, I must be employed 20 hours a week. However, if I quit school, I can get food stamps. Thank God I don't need them, but that is the law now in Michigan.
Thanks LoriSaord. The government would save money if they went that route, and I agreed with Bob earlier. He mentioned rehabilitation programs, too.
I agree, in addition to that they should require them to provide evidence that they are at least applying for jobs every month. Why should they be allowed to sit back and be allowed to do nothing and get paid for it? At least they could do is show that they are attempting to find employment. Maybe they do, never had to rely on the system but if not they certainly should!
If those claiming benefits are required to take a drugs test then senators and congresspersons should be required to take a test each day before starting work.
As for sitting and doing nothing: I understand the number of unemployed is much greater than the number of jobs available.
Better to make drugs legal and tax them heavily?
And if everyone who is getting payments from the government they should not get stopped, the government would not redistribute the excess so gained to those in need, they would simply reduce the total budget by that excess then a bit more to allow for reduced admin costs. And they would sack a lot of people working in the relevant government offices.
I think those that think drug testing for employment or unemployment should be forced to take an I.Q. test. Only in America would we not only put up with but buy into drug testing while the medical industrial complex makes up medical conditions so they can sell you more of their drugs. I suggest testing politicians and wall street money mongers, not that that would do any good either. While they have what's left of the middle class worrying about benefits for the poor they are all robbing the country blind. I hear Michigan Gov't. is now in the business of stealing it's own cities from the poor. Let's wake up and worry about freedom because whether you see it or not you're losing it. Don't believe the hype! Peace!! Tom
Tom. Has nothing to do with freedom, its about safety and productivity in the work place. Sorry but I wouldn't want someone high on Meth with the freedom to do so be allowed to operate heavy machinery like forklifts and tractor trailers. But that's just my opinion.
I agree ShawnB2011, I know several people who are like that. I'm qualified to receive it, but I choose not to. I'm still capable of working, despite the things that are wrong with me, not to mention, it's not enough money to live.
Thanks for reading AlexK2009. I wish they would make all government officials take drug tests. Oh yeah, why don't they take a pay cut while they are at it? it is crazy how much money they make. Our government is definitely not turning out the way our forefathers planned it, that's for sure.
Shawn: How many people on welfare benefits operate heavy machinery?
I knew a woman, once, that had no issues working under the influence of marijuana, and actually, her bosses were shocked to find out because she was one of the best workers she ever had. They still fired her. I agree, our freedoms are being robbed, I worry about what it will be like when my children become older.
Honestly, there are jobs out there that addicts are capable of doing, without operating heavy machinery. Being an addict does not necessarily make that person a bad worker. Is it any different for an active alcohol who is drinking at home? You know he is probably still under the influence the next day when he jumps on a forklift. It's a lose-lose game for Americans and a win-win, save money, game for corporations. Control. Power.
Alex, if you read my reply to another comment you Will understand my comment.
Jen, I also knew someone who busted a sprinkler head while operating a forklift while high on pot. Caused $30k in product damage. Goes both ways I guess.
You have a good point, Shawn.
Good point Alex and I might add how many people on meth have jobs anyway. Shawn, it's totally about freedom, why do you think only middle class and poor folks have to do it? JenJen what does the word addict mean to you? Everybody has an addiction to something. Some folks that receive public benefits are fat because of food addiction so does that mean they shouldn't get food stamps. You also think Gov't officials should take a pay cut but most of the wealth they have is not from what they make from taxpayers, it comes from the corporations that control them and the rest of us and yes it is about greed and power.
My first inclination would be to say, "Yes, they should have to be tested for "illegal" substances....but I must say that this could create such a beaurocratic nightmare. What I have always felt is far more important is establishing a "work for welfare" program within the system. This would be beneficial in numerous ways....don't you think?
Justom, I am aware we all have addictions of some type. When I refer to addicts, I am referring to drug addicts and alcoholics. I just think if we have to pass drug tests to make the money, people should have to do the same to get it given to them.
I agree. Where I live in Michigan, they expect applicants to attend the Work First program, which requires them to apply for a certain number of jobs a week. This is for people trying to receive cash benefits from DHS, not Social Security.
Applying for a certain number of jobs a week:
If you don't want to work it is easy to try for jobs you wont get.
If you do get to an interview it is easy to fail it while looking keen
Shawn, I'd like to suggest to you it works not only both ways but in a third that maybe you're overlooking. Accidents happen for any number of reasons and the majority of the time no drugs are involved. The biggest cause of accidents in the workplace is employers pressuring workers to work faster which lends itself to accidents. fpherj48, good point and I think the idea of those on wall street making big $ for doing NO work and paying less taxes needs to be stopped.
Justom, I agree with you on that statement 100%. I just was illegally fired from my job because of a work injury resulting from the same reason. We had too much work and not enough people to cover it. Ultimately, it cost the company a small fortune in a lawsuit, so it worked out. And it was not because I was on drugs.
It does happen, unfortunately, we do have some people who do not want to work. Do you know what is sad? They don't want to help the people who help themselves. I am in college, and unable to work. I cannot even get food stamps because I am a student. The system is backwards.
Well that's a given Tom. Obviously accidents happen high or not. But if someone's high on whatever the chances of it happening go up. Businesses pay huge money for those accidents whether it be for property damage or workman's comp. They have every right to try and reduce those accidents from druggies as much as possible. Plus having high employees isn't exactly great customer service is it? Back to the point though, absolutely they should get tested before receiving any benefits!
Thanks, ShawnB2011. This sure did bring out a variety opinions from everyone.
JenJen...Hi...I should have been more specific. I'm sorry. I know there are States that require welfare recipients to "apply for jobs." What I am referring to is actually setting recipients up with Community odd jobs that they are physically capable of doing. For instance, a single Mom may have 30 hours of time when her children are in school. To earn her support (food stamps, medicaid, etc) from Social Services, she could do some cleaning work at the Town Hall, act as a monitor on school buses, read stories to children in a Day Care. These small responsibilities would be money-saving to the municiplaity as well as contributing to the benfits she receives. This is what I meant.
fpherj48: Do you not see a possibility of abuse by the municipality in this proposal?
In fact she would in effect be employed by the municipality and therefore lose entitlement.
In the UK welfare claimants are allowed to do up to 16 hours voluntary work a week without losing entitlement. I think they ca also do 16 hour paid work but it is clawed back from their payments at a rate of 97p in the pound which usually means they lose money paying to travel to work. Various governments have tried and failed to tackle this poverty trap.
You make an excellent point. Volunteer work is good for anyone to do, and it is a good way for corporations to save some money, too. Maybe a standard could be applied to those who are capable of working some.
Thanks for the information, sounds much different than the way the welfare system works in Michigan, where I live. Thanks for reading the story, AlexK2009.
I worked for the "welfare" department in my county for 15 years. You would be shocked at the number of people that "sell" or "trade" their benefits for drugs or the money to buy their drugs! I absolutely believe that anyone who is receiving government benefits should have to pass a drug test. Each situation is going to vary and the decision to cut off their benefits should be done on a one by one basis. However, the fact should be known if they are using drugs or not. Very good hub! Thank you for sharing your thoughts! :)
You wrote
"Volunteer work is good for anyone to do, and it is a good way for corporations to save some money, too."
There are too many corporations already mining the unemployed for cheap workers.
In the UK there are schemes where the unemployed word for a company for 12 weeks for no salary, but not losing any benefits.
After that the company is expected to take them on permanently.
In practice larger employers routinely find ways to avoid taking them on permanently, especially of they are disabled, and take on a new bunch of free workers.
There was a recent article on this in the UK involving a large supermarket chain. I cannot recall which one.
I agree! I know people who sell their food stamps and barely feed their kids to buy drugs and pay their bills. This is unfortunate for the people who really need the help but cannot get it because of these issues.
We live in an age where equal opportunity applies to those who are disabled, and they have no luck finding jobs because of their disabilities. It is beneficial for companies to hire disabled workers, but they are afraid of the liabilities involved, I believe.
![Drug Testing Welfare Recipients in Florida, Fair or Not? Pros and Cons (Updated 5-8-2012) [54*-87]](http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5110947_50.jpg "Drug Testing Welfare Recipients in Florida, Fair or Not? Pros and Cons (Updated 5-8-2012) [54*-87]")
American Romance Level 7 Commenter 4 months ago
Not only should they pass drug test, but they should NOT be allowed to vote! Why would anyone taking from the working class get the opportunity to vote in those that would self serve them! Once they are employed and paying taxes again then give them their voters card back!