Is Testing Welfare Recipients for Drugs a Good Idea?
Taxpayers Shouldn’t Subsidize Drug Addiction!
In 2011, on the assumption that there were a lot of people on the welfare rolls who were using drugs, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a bill into law requiring anyone who applied for welfare to submit to a drug test. What’s more, under the new law, the welfare applicant was responsible for the cost of the drug test, which would be reimbursed if the test came back negative. Conservatives hailed the new law, saying that “We don’t want to waste tax dollars [on drug users]. And also, we want to give people an incentive not to use drugs.” Nobody could really argue against this.* Who wants to give money to people who will just spend it on drugs?
The idea was that the drug tests would catch drug users, allowing the state to remove them from the welfare rolls. No doubt this would save the state a lot of money, because “everyone knows” that there are a lot of addicts on welfare, right? Well….
*Well, yes, we could. See the sidebar.
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble; it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Turns out, during the time that the mandatory testing law was in effect, only a little more than two percent of welfare applicants, or 108 people, tested positive for drugs. About 40 people bailed on the test (and disqualified themselves from receiving assistance). The rest (a little more than 97%) tested negative. The State of Florida was able to save the money which would otherwise have been paid out in welfare benefits to drug users. Of course, the state also had to reimburse the applicants who tested negative. That’s where it starts to look like a bad deal for the taxpayers.
Florida saved $72,360 by not giving welfare checks to drug users. But it also spent $118,140 to reimburse the applicants who tested negative, which means that this savings initiative cost Florida’s taxpayers an additional $45,780.
The Constitutional Case
The courts have enjoined the State of Florida from enforcing its mandatory drug test for welfare law on the grounds that a drug test counts as a search under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore requires reasonable suspicion. Since not having a job is not probable cause for suspicion, it’s not reasonable to suspect a welfare applicant of being a drug user merely because he is applying for welfare.
Of course, many people respond to this with something like the following: “If I have to take a drug test to get or keep a job where I earn money, why shouldn’t someone with no job have to take a drug test before they get free money?” Well, that seems to make sense, but really it doesn’t.
First, your employer is not your government. Your employer is also not requiring you to either take a drug test or starve (which is in effect what a welfare drug test does). Rather, they’re requiring you to take a drug test or not work for them.
Second, this is really the wrong question to ask yourself. What you should be asking is this: “When did I become so tame that I would accept being treated like a criminal as a condition of employment?”
There is also the argument that if one has done nothing wrong, then one has nothing to fear from a search. That, of course, is the defense of tyrants.
But How is this Possible When Everyone Knows People on Welfare are Drug Users?
There are a few possible explanations. One possibility is that most of the drug users simply didn’t apply for welfare while the drug testing law was in effect. It seems plausible, because why would someone who uses drugs risk being revealed as a drug user? But an internal TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) document says that “We saw no dampening effect on the caseload.” So there’s no reason to conclude that the low percentage is due to drug users avoiding the test.
Another possibility might be that all the drug users bought one of those “clean your system; pass the drug test” kits that you can order online or though certain magazines. An acquaintance of mine actually made this argument: there's no way so many of Florida's welfare recipients passed their drug test without using a detox kit. But if you think about it for more than a couple seconds, you'll realize that this is pretty unlikely, since those kits cost more than the drug test itself. Consider: you’re feeding, clothing, and housing your kids on welfare payments of about $240/month, and you're also, somehow, buying drugs with some* of that money. Now suddenly you're being required to tie up about thirty of those dollars for a week to prove you're not on drugs, where are you going to find an extra $40 to spend on herbs that supposedly make it look like you aren't using different herbs, but don't get you high in the process?
A third possibility might be that the drug tests themselves are flawed—that they came back with a disproportional number of false negatives. This is possible but improbable, especially when you consider that according to the Mythbusters, false positives are more likely. But if the drug tests are flawed (whether in the direction of false positives or false negatives), it's not a good tool to use for any purpose, let alone to decide whether a family gets to eat this month or not.
The final possibility is the simplest one: that in reality, there are a lot fewer drug users on welfare than we thought there were.
*About $145/oz for "low-quality" weed, according to priceofweed.com.
False Positives Do Happen
What do We Know for Sure?
We know for sure that between July and October, 2011, the State of Florida tested all welfare applicants for drugs. We know that of those tested, a little over 2% tested positive for drugs, and that a little over 97% tested negative. We know that there was no drop in the welfare caseload while the mandatory testing law was in effect. We know that the testing program cost the State of Florida more than it saved. We do not know why.
The reason could be that the tests were somehow flawed, that drug users were able to somehow fool the tests, or that there aren't as may drug users on welfare as we thought.
What Can We Conclude?
Well, the only firm conclusion we can draw from the facts is that mandatory drug testing for welfare applicants costs more than it saves, regardless of the reason why.
We can further argue (and this is a bit speculative, but bear with me) that those who continue to argue in favor of mandatory drug testing for welfare applicants are doing so for ideological, rather than pragmatic, reasons.
If the data are a faithful representation of reality (that is to say, it’s a fact that only about 2% of welfare recipients use drugs), then the very premise of the law is false and the law should be scrapped.
If it’s true many welfare recipients are drug users, but that most of them used some kind of “toxin purge” to thwart the drug test, then clearly it’s useless to test for drugs: the drug users can fool the test! Not only does the law not prevent drug users from receiving taxpayer dollars, it also costs the taxpayers extra money for no good result. Therefore, the law is ineffective.
If it’s true that the drug tests themselves are flawed in the direction of false negatives, then it’s still possible that very few welfare recipients use drugs; a test that skews to the negative will still come back negative for a non-drug user. But it’s also possible that a test that skews negative will return many false negatives. Either way, we can’t use a flawed drug test to reliably tell if someone is a drug user or not. Therefore, if the tests are flawed, the law is ineffective.
Given all the above, there is no pragmatic reason to support this law. It does not catch drug users (for whatever reason). It does not save taxpayer dollars (in fact, it costs the taxpayers more money). It does, however, let politicians scapegoat the poor, and it does give a lot of extra business to drug testing companies....
How Do We Tell?
To be able to tell if the problem lies with the drug test, we would need to conduct a double-blind research study on several research groups. Some of the test subjects in the study will have to be known drug users, some will have to be known non-drug users, and some of the test subjects will have to be people who may or may not use drugs, but whose drug use is not known to the research team. Of course, illegal drugs are, well, illegal. They remain illegal even if you want to use them for scientific purposes. This raises the question of whether a given drug test has been rigorously and scientifically tested....
Interestingly, to determine if the “toxin purge” products really work, we’d need to do a similar study (double-blind, with one study group made up of known illegal drug users, which will be hard to find) and we’ll need to test for drugs with a drug test that we know to be reliable (see above).
To determine if the number of drug users on welfare is really a tiny minority, again, we'd need to be certain that the drug test we're using is reliable or not.
When it comes down to results, however, we don’t really need to know why the law doesn't work. We simply need to know that the law doesn’t do what it says on the tin: it doesn’t catch a lot of drug users, and it not only doesn’t save taxpayer dollars, it costs extra. Therefore, the drug-testing law should be scrapped. If we can figure out why the law doesn't work, perhaps then we can craft a better law that will actually do some good in the world, without trampling on the rights of people whose lives are already difficult enough.
More by this Author
“Political Correctness” has become something of a dirty word in America. It’s been condemned as thought control, repression of independent thought, reverse discrimination, and so forth. But really,...
There’s an analogy about the nation’s tax structure that involves several people who make different amounts of money splitting the check at a restaurant. The analogy purports to explain why a progressive tax...
The English language is full of words that sound alike but are written differently, or are spelled alike but pronounced differently, and which make you look silly when you mix them up. This article discusses why we...