Pennsylvania officials are wading into the controversial territory of drug-testing welfare recipients, testing out a new program Republicans say is meant to prevent beneficiaries from getting a "free ride."
After a federal judge blocked a much broader drug-test rule in Florida, Pennsylvania is taking a more careful approach. Instead of mandating drug tests for all welfare recipients, Pennsylvania plans to randomly test only those with a felony drug conviction within the past five years and those on probation for such offenses.
Officials are taking it slow. A pilot program has started in Pennsylvania's Schuylkill County, which could pave the way for a statewide program this summer if it proves cost effective.
State Sen. David Argall said in a statement last month that the program is "overdue," as officials try to cut costs in the state's most expensive division -- the Department of Public Welfare.
"This initiative seeks to stop the abuse within our welfare system," he said, adding that government benefits should only go to those "who genuinely deserve state assistance."
Proponents have argued it's not unreasonable for the government to require drug tests in exchange for payment, just as some employers do.
But the proposals, in Pennsylvania and across the country, have come under challenge. A federal judge in Florida temporarily blocked a bill backed by Republican Gov. Rick Scott last year, saying the law could represent an invasion of privacy and questioning whether it complies with the Fourth Amendment barring unreasonable searches. Scott's administration has appealed the decision.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least three dozen states proposed bills pertaining to drug tests for welfare and food stamp recipients. Arizona and Missouri have joined Florida in passing drug-test bills, though theirs were more narrowly tailored.
As Pennsylvania tests its approach, other states are moving forward. Indiana's House recently approved a drug-test bill for welfare recipients, as did a Virginia House committee.
Opponents claim the proposals are unfair and not cost effective. A Feb. 3 brief by the Center for Law and Social Policy, a low-income advocacy nonprofit, cited a 1996 study that found the proportion of welfare recipients with a substance abuse problem is consistent with the proportion of nonwelfare recipients with the same.
The group said the tests cost between $35 and $76 each to administer, and described them as an "inefficient use of taxpayer money."
"Since few substance abusers are identified in tests, but many are tested, the cost of catching a drug abuser may run between $20,000 and $77,000 per person," the group claimed.
The cost-benefit aspect is one Pennsylvania officials will examine in the pilot program. The Pennsylvania program stems from a bill passed last year.
Seems like this is an attempt to satisfy anger, and not a true attempt to rectify anything. Luckily it's only a test pilot in a portion of the state. I'm interested in seeing the results. What's the expectation? That the drug tests will deter welfare recipients from using drugs, and instead use the money for productive causes and become contributors to society? Yeah sure. I don't know which is less likely...that it would work that way, or if supporters of this law actually believe it. It's nothing more than a misguided knee-jerk reaction from a bunch of miserable a$$holes who need to kick people while they are down. Drug use isn't about having fun and partying. It's about suffering. It's what most of us do to deal with the pressures of life. But since they aren't working (like I have to, wah wah wah), then they can't have that luxury to self-medicate. That anger-blame-punish mentality has lead to a reaction that will cause way more harm than any good (not even mentioning the tax dollars going towards this). And the downward spiral continues!
[Edited on 7/15/2016 by BoytonBrother]
Is Arizona Wasting Taxpayer Money When Drug Testing Welfare Recipients?
In 2009, Arizona became the first state to impose a drug-test rule for Welfare recipients (when there is a reasonable cause that is, which according to USA Today "reasonable cause" means you confess you've used drugs in the past 30 days.). Since then, about 87,000 people have been tested, and guess how many came out positive for drug use...
One during the first three years of the program, and a grand total of three from 2009 to 2014.
It's the intrusiveness into the lives of people that is offensive. They are targeting one group of people, the poor and jobless people and persecuting them. Accusing them, demanding they prove that they are NOT guilty. It makes more sense that if any of the recipients are arrested for drugs law enforcement could then make a referral to DSS and then random testing could be done; but the whole thing just seems like persecution.
I am against employers demanding drug tests also. (with the exception of those who have public safety as part of their jobs, police officers, firefighters, bus and transit drivers, Dr.'s, nurses etc). This past March, here in NYS Dr.'s can no longer give you ANY prescriptions, it all has to be done electronically where they send it to the pharmacy directly and the state monitors any narcotic scripts. Somebody told me the Dr.'s are not even allowed to give you more than a seven day supply of narcotics. They can get around that by saying that you need your meds 4x per day and/or giving you larger dosage amounts. I don't think the state should be in the pain management business, pain is personal between one patient and their Dr. as their specific need and body requirements may differ from someone else. One size does NOT fit all.
I am just opposed to the surveillance state. Let Dr.'s be Dr.'s and just leave people run and manage their own lives. Stop accusing people and making them defend themselves when they haven't even done anything.
It's the intrusiveness into the lives of people that is offensive. They are targeting one group of people, the poor and jobless people and persecuting them. Accusing them, demanding they prove that they are NOT guilty. It makes more sense that if any of the recipients are arrested for drugs law enforcement could then make a referral to DSS and then random testing could be done; but the whole thing just seems like persecution.
I am against employers demanding drug tests also. (with the exception of those who have public safety as part of their jobs, police officers, firefighters, bus and transit drivers, Dr.'s, nurses etc). This past March, here in NYS Dr.'s can no longer give you ANY prescriptions, it all has to be done electronically where they send it to the pharmacy directly and the state monitors any narcotic scripts. Somebody told me the Dr.'s are not even allowed to give you more than a seven day supply of narcotics. They can get around that by saying that you need your meds 4x per day and/or giving you larger dosage amounts. I don't think the state should be in the pain management business, pain is personal between one patient and their Dr. as their specific need and body requirements may differ from someone else. One size does NOT fit all.
I am just opposed to the surveillance state. Let Dr.'s be Dr.'s and just leave people run and manage their own lives. Stop accusing people and making them defend themselves when they haven't even done anything.
Well said. Good points.
