By Jamie Parker | News Editor
Food stamps, “free” healthcare, subsidized housing, and other government funded programs that all count as welfare programs. According to the Census Bureau, at the end 2012, about 34% of US citizens rely on one welfare program or another. That’s about 109,631,000 people. That’s a lot of people, and a lot of tax dollars.
Now one argument you have probably heard is that we should drug test all welfare recipients, to ensure that our hard-earned tax dollars are going to people who are “doing the right thing.” But in states like Florida, and Tennessee, these tests have been proven to cost more than they save. On top of that, these proposed laws are being challenged on whether they are even constitutional.
Now don’t get me wrong, I understand the argument. As a hardworking taxpayer, I don’t particularly favor the idea of people – especially those addicted to drugs – taking advantage of government systems that were created to help the needy. However, most people who are for drug testing welfare recipients use the argument that the testing would save the taxpayers an incredible amount of money. I wish it would be that easy to fix the system. But the reality is, that where this strategy has been tested, it has proven costly, and in turn, unnecessary.
Tennessee has tried this strategy back in July of 2014. Now during that month, 800 people applied for welfare, all of which had to pass the new mandatory drug test. Of all those people. One person tested positive for drugs. In the first month of Florida’s implementation of this strategy, only 2% of applicants ended up testing positive. So right off the bat, mandatory drug testing hasn’t delivered the results that advocates were hoping for.
On a legal standpoint, mandatory drug testing may not be 100% constitutional. According to the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation…” The key words I this statement are, “probable cause.” Being poor is not probable cause for drug testing. Needing help is not probable cause for drug testing. People have right to privacy of persons. As an American citizen, you are allowed a certain amount of personal freedoms that the government cannot infringe on.
Now let’s get to the actual cost of this endeavor. Per a national survey, approximately 9% of Americans (about 32.5 million people) reported to be drug users. For arguments sake, let us assume that all 32.5 million of those Americans were applying for welfare. If we strip all benefits from those people, that would still leave 71,120,000 people eligible for welfare. Each drug test costs $30. If we reimbursed every person who tested negative, that would cost the American taxpayers about, $2,133,600,00. Again, that is assuming that every single one of the people who reported using drugs was a welfare recipient. So, my question is, is it really worth it? Are there no other solutions to help the taxpayers save money?
Comments are closed.