Drug welfairness and its unfairness

There has recently been a picture circulating around Facebook of a urine sample for a drug test with the caption, “Shouldn’t you have to pass a urine test to collect a welfare check, since I have to pass one to earn it for you?”

To many people, especially conservatives, this picture poses a rather logical question.

For most jobs, employees must pass a drug screening to gain employment and make a living, so why shouldn’t welfare recipients do the same thing?

In reality, this notion makes perfect sense. 

Why should the government fund or subsidize someone who is breaking the law and using drugs?

This idea has gained so much momentum that several states have instituted such programs or are working to institute them.

One of the first states to start a program like this was Florida.

Florida’s program tested all welfare applicants and reimbursed those who passed the test.

Florida found that only 2 percent of applicants tested positive, and 2 percent did not complete the process.

Doing the math shows the program would end up costing the state about $180 million and would only save $40,000-$60,000 from people who failed the drug test.

After seeing the Florida program fail and run into constitutional problems, states such as Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania are working to adopt an adjusted program.

These states are proposing or implementing programs that randomly test welfare applicants who have a previous drug-related conviction, are on probation for drug-related offenses or missed requirements for the welfare process. 

These programs should be implemented by every state and even on a federal level.

Unlike the Florida program, these proposals bypass testing thousands of applicants.

“They’re poor” is not a sufficient reason to believe people might be using drugs.

These programs target people when there is a concrete reason to believe they might take drugs.

If potential welfare recipients are using, there is no reason they should receive assistance from the government.

While there will always be a debate about how much the government should assist the less fortunate, there should be no debate about whether it should assist drug users. 

Cost wise, these programs are massively more efficient.

While there are likely to be targeted applicants who pass their tests, and they will have to be reimbursed, this is money more efficiently spent than the “blanket” testing program in Florida.

The proposed testing would discourage users from applying and encourage them to break their habits in order to receive the assistance they need. 

Such a program discourages drug use and reduces exploitation of the welfare system.

Additionally, it is a direct response to taxpayers who feel their hard-earned money is being more responsibly distributed to those who need and deserve assistance.

Welfare supporters argue the assistance is fair to the less fortunate but implementing targeted drug testing programs makes the system fair to the people who pay for it as well.

­— wfgryna@indiana.edu