Drug Testing of Public Assistance Recipients as a Condition of Eligibility

[onthefence]

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

      Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.[16]
    *

      At the time Michigan’s drug testing scheme was struck down, the 49 other states had rejected such a program for a variety of fiscal and practical reasons: at least 21 states concluded that such a program “may be unlawful”; 17 states cited cost concerns; 11 states had not considered drug testing at all; and 11 gave a variety of practical/operational reasons.[17]
    *

      In halting the implementation of Michigan’s drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients “could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.”[18] Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well.

[Sumanadevii]

Go back to the system from the 1950's.  Give food through stations.  Pick up your box of food.  It included rice, flour, cheese, butter, powered milk, oatmeal, etc.  Pay an allowance toward housing directly to housing.  Stop handing checks out.  Period.

[brice1967]

I was going to say, long time-no see but your post explains that perfectly.  I'm glad you're still amongst us.

As for the tests.... you know, I personally don't have a problem with them taking my blood in an event like yours.  A toxicology report rules out the possibility of drugs and alcohol and then I could not be held accountable on those "causes".  And to me, that is a big deal!  Rumors can say anything about your wreck... "he was wasted on pain pills and Jack Daniels" .  The toxicology report puts all rumors to sleep... the proof is in the pudding.

The rumor/generalization could be said that, "all welfare recipients are drunken, crack-heads".  Hmmmm, a toxicology report would disspell that rumor in a second.  So for me, take my blood and whiz and lets get that crap out of the way.  I don't need that rumor going around while I am trying to recover from a horrible accident like the one you're pulling through.

[el_em_en_oh]

~raises hand~

I'll take the 'Whiz-Quiz'!!!

~passes with flying colors~

I was in an accident several weeks ago, and was rushed to the hospital in a helicopter. I have absolutely NO memory of the accident nor the minutes leading up to it, the trip to the hospital, nor the following 3 days. Apparently I was lucid and talking, and was able to have conversations, but I have no memory of any of it. I was given several 'whiz-quizes', and they took blood on several occasions, all of which came back clean-as-a-whistle.

So was it unconstitutional for "them" to subject me to those tests? Just curious what the group thinks.

BTW: the doctors STILL have no explanation of why I have no memory of the events before & after, and only say that the mind/brain blanks certain things out that are too traumatic for the mind/brain to handle, so in my case... whammo. The memory has been abolished from my brain.

It was a pretty horrendous wreck and I'm lucky to be alive.

[brice1967]

My dorm situation would fit the need for caring for the children as well.  They too would receive meals, a roof over their head and a clean safe place to shower and sleep.  They could still be with their parents and there could be some outside structure there.... but again, now youre adding to cost again.  Sterilizing adults so they can't continue to procreate???  Good, I am with ya on that.  We do not need to breed any more people into welfare.

I too am all of rehabilitation, but in order for rehab to work, the addict has to want help.  Now, how many times do you put an addict through rehab before it takes?  Will it ever take? When do you cut the money off now, as rehab is no cheap fix.... and it also no guarantee!  This situation is one of those money pits.... You can keep throwing money at it, but it will never fill, it will never heal itself.  Now, this addicts kids are addicts.... so weve just increased the amount of spending and who knows how much... how many stints in rehab?

I think it is as simple as saying.... here is the rules.  They've been amended, and they are strict. If you sign on the line for assistance, you will need to follow the rules.  If you cannot, you will be sent to a transitionary dorm.  You may be able to live in the dorm for an undetermined amount of time, but the above mentioned rules apply here as well.  If you break the terms of the contract, you will be on your own.  (At some point prison may be an option, but that often is for addicts anyhow.  They commit crimes in order to support their habit)

Now with that being said, change prisons too.  Make them less hospitable.  They should be some rehab programs there.... but some arent eligible.  (Those incarcerated for life for instance receive no rehabilitation.... people on death row.... clean it out.)  Prisons are as big of a problem as welfare and immigration if you ask me.....

[LosingMyMindInGA]

In that kind of situation there needs to be measures in place that allow for the care of the children without the opportunity for the parents to misuse the welfare money.  Things like vouchers for childrens clothes ONLY, requiring the families to submit receipts of how their welfare benefits were spent to their case worker for review.  In extreme cases, removing the children fromt he home (in many cases this should be done anyway becuase of the home life situation)

Personally I believe in sterlization of people who are "repeat offenders".  If you have several kids taken away for the same reasons, you shouldn't be allowed to continue to procreate.  Poverty GENERALLY breeds poverty.  Foster care does have some serious issues...that's a whole different subject, but that area needs some serious revamping as well as the welfare system.  


There are unfortunately numerous families who have fuond ways around the time limits on benefits and the work requirements.  

[ILADVOCATE]

   "Since 1996 the Social Security Act states that an individual may not be found eligible for SSD or SSI benefits if drug and/or alcohol addiction or abuse (DAA) is a "material factor" causing the disability. What this means, in everyday words, is that benefits will not be paid to a claimant whose disability is mainly caused by DAA. However, if the claimant has a disabling medical condition in addition to DAA, benefits can still be awarded. A simple example of this is that a blind person is still eligible for benefits even if they have DAA, because their vision deficit prevents them from working, regardless of DAA."
   Public Assistance is different in that its not based on a person's disability and since it is not a long term form of assistance if a disability is the reason the person is unable to work then they are at that point told to apply for SSI after the Welfare to Work program ("workfare") was created. I have always supported any program that transitioned people back to work as creating dependence is not only not beneficial to society but also unhealthy to the people involved. The reforms in P.A. and Social Security as per eligibility from 1996 could realistically be further amended but it was a good start.

[ILADVOCATE]

   In a situation like that what happens to the kids though? People whose actions that are irresponsible can be dealt with easily but when they have children its more of concern. Up until the 70's people who received P.A. could be required not to have children but this was a left over from when eugenics was considered acceptable and so it was ruled unconstitutional. As well there are situations where C.P.S. has to separate children from their families but this occurs less so because of the abuses that can occur in the foster care system in some situations. If there are children involved I'd rather require mandatory rehabilitation then discontinue services that would effect them as well and if a person is able to work there is no reason they should not be required to but sometimes some form of transitional help is needed which is what P.A. was intended for to begin with. Vocational programs should be encouraged with the goal of full time work by the end.
   The culture of dependency does have to be addressed which occurred in 1996 but perhaps has further to go. Thankfully with the 5 year time limit there are no longer generations of families on P.A. or other abuses like that and it can be kept in check.

[brice1967]

I actually have a plan in regards to the drug addicts you are speaking about.  It won't be popular, but it will give them their basic needs for a far better cost than what were doing now.

Dorms.... their social security checks go straight to the dorm.  The dorm provides shelter, 3 hots and a cot, and the necessary facilities for day to day hygiene.  Nothing more....  It's exactly like some nursing homes... the check goes to the dorm, the client receives a small cash allowance for hygiene needs and perhaps cigarettes.  But that is it.... keep them monitored and working around the dorm.  

It is meant to be a deterrent and I'd bet it would get a bunch of them off of the government teat, so to speak.  Like I said, it isn't popular.  Nobody in government wants to make a tuff decision, they'd rather throw money at floundering systems that arent working....

[LosingMyMindInGA]

AFter working as a property manager for 3 years, dealing with numerous people on welfare and section 8.  I couldn't even begin to count the number that I have seen high as a kite, had drug paraphenalia in their homes or spent their money on expensive stereos, cars and clothes while their kids wore rags and looked like they were starving.  I would be all for drug testing of welfare recipients.  If you have nothing to hide and are doing nothing wrong then you have no reason to object.  In many areas of the country there are more welfare recipients that are just lazy and drug addicted than there are people who actually need the help.  Perhaps drug testing is one way we can help to weed out those who don't really deserve a helping hand and can pass those benefits along to someone who really DOES need them.

[brice1967]

The simple fact of the matter is, as long as there are hurdles there will be someone trying to figure out a way around them.  Drug testing is a perfect case.  I have been required to take urine tests and have been told that they will be required in the very near future.... obviously random tests will be performed.

I have absolutely nothing to hide and will gladly be the first in line to whiz every single time.  False positives aside.... a blood test will clarify the results, and I have a lot of veins too.

[onthefence]

False positives are very common in urine drug testing, the common lay person doesn't even know how these tests are performed, they are very basic and if the litte peice of paper turns a certain color then they are sent on to the lab,. but even then there is a percentage of false positives.
Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry GC-MS has been widely heralded as a "gold standard" for forensic substance identification because it is used to perform a specific test. A specific test positively identifies the actual presence of a particular substance in a given sample. A non-specific test merely indicates that a substance falls into a category of substances. Although a non-specific test could statistically suggest the identity of the substance, this could lead to false positive identification.
That is another reason I think drug testing is a joke, and is not fair in the least, and is to easy to beat for the ones that put the energy into learning how to beat them,.
I actually know ppl that use synthetic pee for job drug tests and they don't even do any type of drugs but feel it is an invasion of their privacy, and are afraid of false positives.

I am confused about somthing though that has to do with what you said about disability, I have known some who have collected SSI for being diagnosed under the DSM IV for chronic drug addiction and alchoholism in active stage, now I know a few years ago there was some changes to this, but still know ppl in active addiction reciving there housing and checks each month,
Now how would that work since they would pee dirty anyway, and thats why they get their subsidy.I also want you to know that i am neutral on those ppl as if they didn't have that they would literally have nothing and i am not without compassion.
I am just confused,and dissappointed at how it works and know what i have seen throughout my life.

[ILADVOCATE]

   Medicaid and Public Assistance are often together as one form of benefit a person is eligible for. I do not receive P.A. but I do receive Medicaid through the Medicaid Buy in for Working People with Disabilities and I would be concerned if drug testing were mandated specifically because tests can show a false positive. They have to address that issue first. Right after the time I left school there was a court challenge to requiring drug testing of students and mandatory drug tests can be of concern. It should be noted that when I have helped people with psychiatric disabilities apply for supported housing if they had a history of substance abuse they did have to attend rehabilitation in order to be eligible. Social Security has specific laws that make a person ineligible if they are an active drug user and if they were they have to have been shown to attend rehabilitation for a specified period of time and not have used drugs during this time frame. Requiring mandatory rehabilitation when this is noted is a reasonable idea and at rehab programs they do drug tests of course to make sure a person is following up.