Why is it considered unconstitutional to drug test welfare recipients?

1. 92

   peeplesposted 12 years ago

   Why is it considered unconstitutional to drug test welfare recipients?
   
   With all the talk in the media they make it sound like it is a "Right" to do drugs. What part of doing drugs is in the constitution?

   replyreport
2. 68

   Clive Donegalposted 12 years ago

   I don't see how constitutionality enters into the question. It is neither a question of self-incrimination nor illegal search and seizure. Rather it is a matter of the state making an offer based on verification of the requirement that those who would accept the offer are not using illegal drugs. More specifically, it is the state offering financial support, in return for which it asks for evidence that that support is not being used for illegal or harmful purposes.

   replyreport
3. 60

   Josakposted 12 years ago

   There is some debate about this, personally I don't think it is constitutionally covered nonetheless I believe that the drug testing is #1 way too costly to be beneficial #2 a violation of privacy.  Obviously people do not have the right to commit a crime but the constitution and the law grant privileges to allow you to potentially hide the fact that you committed a crime i.e. warrant law, your house cannot be searched unless the police have reasonable grounds to believe it is involved in criminal activity or it's owner is involved in criminal activity, I think the same should apply to welfare recipients or anyone else pertaining to drug tests, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is guilty of drug use they should have the right to refuse testing and get their welfare, to suggest that being on welfare provides reasonable grounds is disgusting. So unconstitutional? I don't believe so, Invasive, offensive, financially stupid and immoral? Yeah definitely.

   replyreport
4. 76

   handymanbillposted 12 years ago

   Why should tax payers have to support someones Habit. Or I guess they consider it an illness? No it is a choice. I used to smoke and chose to quit. Smoking is a habit a drug,and an addiction. Same thing. If you want or have to get welfare then we as tax payer should not have to pay for your choice.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      DalyWorksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/08/ … ernor.html

      replyreport
5. 57

   DalyWorksposted 12 years ago

   The answer lies not in what is explicitly forbidden in the Constitution, but what powers are granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution and even in looking at it that way, it all depends upon how you interpret the document itself.  The government has no authority over your body, over your privacy, and what you ingest unless it threatens the welfare and safety of others.
   
   Not only is it unconstitutional to test the recipients of welfare it is a waste of money and I think we should be testing lawmakers more than welfare recipients.  I wanna know how many congressmen and women are enjoying some perks on side.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Welfare is issued by the STATE not the Fed. States have the right to test under the 10th admendant to the Federal Constitution.

      replyreport
6. 73

   pagesvoiceposted 12 years ago

   I personally don't believe this is a constitutional issue regarding drug testing welfare recipients. Instead, whether people who are on public assistance get drug tested is a State issue. My question would be whether this would just be a feel good law or would it really be a savings to the taxpayers. Obviously someone has to pay for the drug screening. Living in New York State, the one thing that gets my goat is seeing those on welfare smoking cigarettes when they cost over $9.00 per pack. I just wonder if their kids have been fed and clothed before they fed their own habit.

   replyreport
7. 60

   EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years ago

   I don't think this is a question of it being constitutionally sound.
   
   I do agree with the decision though. You have to have a drug test for most Jobs now days anyway. Looking for work (actually applying and going to offered interviews) is part of the agreement you sign for receiving welfare. All they are doing if this passes, is ensuring that if you are on the governments time and money, that you are suitable to receive work in the first place.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      DalyWorksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So, we should drug test senators, congressmen, and the millions of federal workers as well.  I agree

      replyreport
8. 61

   nightwork4posted 12 years ago

   to me if you are on welfare, not only should you have to be tested for drugs but you should have to do at least 15 hours of volunteer work a week. the biggest problem with these people is they are rarely forced to do anything and it sucks. make people work for what they get and be responsible and they will learn the value of getting off their butts and doing something with their lives.

   replyreport
9. 0

   Starmom41posted 12 years ago

   I don't know whether it's unconstitutional or not, but it's like penalizing them for being poor. 
   While I'm 100% anti-drug, and certainly dislike the thought of my tax-dollars covering somebody's drug habit, I don't think it's right to embarrass people for needing help.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think it's right for someone to live off the tax payers just so they can deal and/or do drugs. That's like saying that drug testing all together should be gotten rid of.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Starmom41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @ the person who commented on my comment:  one important point that it seems you and some others don't realize is plenty of people who receive FS ARE taxpayers-  employed people.

      replyreport
10. 92

    peeplesposted 12 years ago

    My opinion on the subject is that it is a waste of money to not drug test. I mean tons of people are wanting to know how we will afford it, but a standard pee on a stick drug test is .32 cent online. I'm guessing the state could get them cheaper than that. I have known of a lot of people who were on drugs and collecting $300 and more a month in government assistance. I think the drug testing would not only pay for itself  but I'm guessing we would have enough to cover fixing some horrible roads and bridges left over. I do agree though that all government officials should be drug tested often too. Speaking as someone who has been poor before, and needed assistance, I would have peed on a stick anytime to know I wasn't going to be starving. If someone chooses to do drugs it is none of my business until I have to start paying their bills.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       EinderDarkwolfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Very well stated!

       replyreport
11. 59

    T. R. Brownposted 12 years ago

    It is interesting that very few would challenge the right of an employer to test for drugs.  After all, it is a voluntary contract in which does not force compliance on the individual.  The potential employee can simply walk away if they don't wish to be tested.  How exactly is the different from government assistance.  If you are unwilling to follow the terms of the contract, don't take the assistance.  The notion that this is somehow too expensive is simply a fallacy.  A few years ago my state began asking welfare recipients to begin moving from assistance trhough an education requirement.  All fees and child are we recovered so the program was quite expensive.  However, the welfare roles dropped by almost 30% immediately.  As it turned out, many of those taking the assistance actually had other forms of household income, and rather than take the free education provided by the program, they simply stopped accepting the assistance.  I the end, it was a great investment for both the state, and those who actually did want to move off of welfare.  Drug testing would have a similar impact at far less cost.
    
    Drug testing those who choose to accept government assistance (ie. subsidies paid by the working population) is no more burdensome than drivers licenses for those who choose to drive.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Starmom41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       my 'beef' on the topic is people who get SSDI because of drug/alcohol problems-  why aren't THEY tested?

       replyreport
12. 87

    Georgie Loweryposted 12 years ago

    I'm not sure if it even could be considered a violation of someone's rights to test them for drugs when they apply for welfare. If I want to work, most jobs are going to test me and I'll also be subjected to random drug screenings. It's only fair that people wanting to use the tax payers money to support their families be subjected to the same.
    
    In my opinion, people who are breaking the law have no right to assume that the government will still help them. They should be using the money that they spend on drugs to feed their families.
    
    In the end, it is the children who suffer, though. They shouldn't have to go without because their parents can't get it together. There's no real easy solution.

    replyreport