Some of you may have gotten this mass email that’s going around:
I know, I know… you can be pretty sure the person who originated this owns a copy of Going Rogue by Sarah Palin, honestly believes the average welfare recipient is a black woman with 13 illegitimate children all of whom smoke reefer and vandalize cars when they’re not buying T-bones with food stamps (an archaic term but still used), and that said author probably knows somebody who knows somebody who “I swear to God saw this homeless guy who begs change all day downtown drive off in brand spanking new Mercedes!”. He or she also has 100% conviction that he or she will NEVER be on public assistance and the biblical passages on selling all you have to give to the poor could well be among the few biblical passages they don’t believe are literal.
But that said, would you have a problem requesting that welfare/public assistance recipients be required to pass random drug screening as a condition of continuing to receive public assistance? (Assume obviously that the testing screens only for illegal substances or medications for which they do not have a prescription.) Why or why not?
Yes, I would oppose it. It would be an unnecessary humiliation and violation. Why should the poor be treated as having fewer civil rights? It would be destructive - what exactly do you think cutting them off from assistance will do? Since when has the drug war actually accomplished anything useful?
A bad idea; an example of our self destructive war against drugs, and of our hatred of the poor.
I do not believe that drug tests should be allowed for anyone. I’ll happily carve out an exception in the interests of public safety: if there is reason to believe that a pilot, bus driver, that sort of thing, is impaired on the job then they should be drug tested right on the spot. Otherwise, it is none of my business or anyone else’s business what people do in their own time.
First they came for the Moslem urine, but since I wasn’t Moslem I said nothing. Then they came for the Jewish urine, and still I said nothing. Now they want mine, and I’m a dope smoker. (It’s part of my religion of course.)
The key difference, of course, is that the urine test he is talking about takes place in the private sphere. The government does not require all employers to give drug tests to their employees.
I don’t have a problem with it in theory. Drugs are illegal, and people on public assistance shouldn’t be doing illegal things (well, nobody should be doing illegal things, but if you’re getting money from the government, they should be able to make sure you’re not spending it on illegal things). In practice, though, it seems like it would be expensive and a hassle, both for the people on public assistance and the government employees who have to run the tests.
This is the right answer, I think. People getting public assistance have no business spending a penny on illegal drugs. If they could be identified with a wave of the magic wand, I’d support cutting off assistance to them.
But there is no magic wand. And the reality of drug testing is that we’d spend more to punish these folks than we’d save.
monstro’s question is on the money. I’ve had students in my class whose moms almost certainly received AFDC funds and almost certainly did drugs. Are you proposing that such children should be kicked onto the street? that your magic wand will cure drug addiction? that we massively expand the foster parent network to accommodate all such kids?
The last option is pretty tempting, honestly, but we’re talking major tax dollars, I think, to put it in place.
Well, at this point, they’re not drug testing anybody. But, I don’t have a problem, in theory, with drug testing Medicare recipients or farmers who get government subsidies, either. But, again, too expensive and too much of a hassle.
Sure, let’s make passing a drug test a condition for getting government assistance. That way, everyone on welfare who currently uses drugs is going to say to themselves, “Hey, I’d better stop using drugs so that I may continue to receive government assistance.” Not only will their lives be better for not being on drugs, but they can take the money they save on drugs and spend it on wholesome food, clothing, and shelter. Win-win! How could there possibly be a downside?
Sorry, not sufficient. Someone might give you a drag on their joint at a party. You might test positive for being exposed to someone else’s dope smoke at a party (I’m not sure if that’s possible, chemically speaking, but it wouldn’t surprise me.) Someone might give you a little weed to get you through hard times – unemployment, for example. Maybe you have some money in savings, that you didn’t get from the government, that you use to buy weed. Or you bought it before you got on the dole, but you haven’t used it until now.
It’s not legitimate to assume you use public money for drugs even if you test positive. They have to link the public money to the drugs. If they can do that, THEN I wouln’t have a problem cutting off the public money.
