Shelley Anglin Professor Dursema English 1010 12 Dec.

2013 IEP Draft Revision There has been controversy concerning the welfare system throughout history. Up until the Great Depression, state and local governments took care of some of the responsibility. However, most of it was provided by church and volunteer organizations. When millions of people found themselves out of work during the economic depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stepped in. New programs were implemented providing benefits such as medical care, public housing and foodstamps (Welfare). Although these programs have helped countless families over the years, there are still critics arguing all sides of the programs. One of the big arguments today is concerning who is eligible. Many states have or are trying to implement mandatory drug tests for anyone applying for assistance. The purpose of this paper is to look at both sides of this issue and decide whether this program is successful at deciding who is eligible or if it goes against the rights of the people for whom the program was designed. One of the main arguments given in favor of mandatory drug testing is that it will protect children. Officials dont want to simply deny a family of benefits. The idea is

that if a drug result comes back positive for drug use, the individual will be encouraged to complete a drug treatment program. During this time another adult, who successfully passes a drug test, can be designated to administer welfare benefits to the applicant who failed the testing. So children will be protected during this process because the welfare benefits will still be there, and hopefully the parents will enter a treatment program. Ideally, this would create a happier, healthier, safer lifestyle for these children (Durso). Steven Yaccino, of the New York Times, stated that, Supporters feel the tests are needed to protect welfare and unemployment compensation funds as the nation emerges from the recession (Yaccino). However, research has proved otherwise. The New York Times recently released a summary of what Florida has spent since implementing mandatory drug testing. During the first four months, 108 of 4,086 applications failed a drug test. And an additional 40 people canceled tests without taking them. The cost to the state was $118,140. This amount was more than what would have been paid out to welfare recipients. As a result, testing cost the government $45,780 (Alvarez). Derek Newton, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida was quoted as saying, Not only is it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, but it doesnt save money, as was proposed (Alvarez). Newtons comments bring up the next issue, which is whether or not drug testing goes against constitutional rights of the people or is discriminatory. Floridas laws went into effect for just four months before a lawsuit halted the practice. Many other states have implemented their own versions of the program as well. Michigan, for instance,

approved a measure to withhold from people who fail drug testing as part of job interviews. But Ed Rubin, a professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University, has testified that businesses and certain jobs can require mandatory drug tests because public safety can be at stake. But there is no plausible public safety argument concerning this issue. The American Civil Liberties Union believes that the practice of drug testing in order to receive welfare benefits is discriminatory. They feel that it is an unfair attack on Americas most vulnerable and that the poor are no more likely to use drugs than anyone else (Yaccino). The ACLU offered a statement saying, These bills are introduced by legislature based on the wrong belief that people who receive public assistance use drugs at a higher rate. This kind of drug testing is unconstitutional, scientifically unsound, fiscally irresponsible and one more way the war on drugs is an unfair war on Americas most vulnerable populations (Drug-testing). In addition, further research showed no proof that people who qualified for welfare assistance were at a higher risk of drug use than any other economic class. Susan Weiss, scientific advisor to the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, was quoted as saying, There are a variety of factors that can contribute to drug abuse, socioeconomic status being one of them, along with family support, peers/siblings that use drugs, genetics and school problems. Being poor doesnt necessarily put you at risk, nor does being rich protect you from risk (Deshotel).

The ACLU has often referred to the fourth amendment when considering mandatory drug testing. Concern has been raised as to whether a persons rights are being violated when they are forced to submit to mandatory drug testing. The fourth amendment states that individuals are protected in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches. In order for a person to be

searched, there must be sufficient evidence, and then that evidence is placed before a judge, who will make the official decision. With mandatory drug testing there are many issues to take into consideration. Protecting children is a noble cause. And if a positive drug test could, indeed influence people to attend treatment programs then there is no doubt that it could help children in the long run. But there are too many other factors working against this issue. The money saved in payouts to those who do not pass a drug test is very small compared to the overall expense to implement the program. And just because a person is poor, does not mean that they are more at risk than any other economic class. They should not be singled out. They should be innocent until proven guilty.

Works Cited Alvarez, Lizette. No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests. Nytimes.com. The New York Times. April 2012. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Deshotel, Joseph. A Beaumont Legislator. Politfact.com. Austin American Statesman. Nov. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. Drug-Testing Welfare Recipients. Aclu.org. American Civil Liberties Union. April 2013. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Durso, Joe. The Best Reason to Drug-Test Welfare Applicants: Children. Orlandosentinel.com. Orlando Sentinel. Nov. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Rubin, Ed. Tenns Drug Testing Plan for Welfare Recipients Faces Constitutional Hurdles. Wbir.com. The Tennessean. May 2012. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Welfare. Encyclopedia.com. Wests Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Yaccino, Steven. Drug Tests Falter as Way for States to Deny Public Aid. Nytimes.com. The New York Times. Oct. 2013. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.