A little blurry but you get the idea.
First I would like to point out that the idea of drug testing people on welfare should be more of a preventative measure. If you know you will lose your benefits if you're hopped up on cocaine then you have to choose between doing cocaine or being on welfare (or figure out how to cheat the test).
Personally, I'm in favor of drug legalization in general which would make this a moot point, but even if drugs were legal I wouldn't allow someone to use government money to get them (and we all know I'm not talking about medication).There are two particular sides to this that I would like to point out (besides the fact that it is a preventative measure which I threw in there for free).
1) Drug testing for a job is perfectly legal and in some fields mandatory. Welfare is a source of income and I'm perfectly fine with the government taking some provisions to ensure that it is used as intended.
2) Welfare should be a hand up not a hand out program. That is what FDR intended through the predecessors of the modern welfare system, though it is rarely used in this capacity today. It stands to reason that the small percentage of addicts who can function "normally" are more often than not in a position to not need welfare. However, the majority of addicts, who cannot function normally and are just looking for their next fix, would love the idea of free government money to spend on their habit. If you are just looking for your next high then the welfare system will not be the leg up it is intended as. There are other programs they may qualify for but they need to get clean, or be in the process of getting clean, before they receive welfare funds.
That being said, I don't think the law is perfect. Here is how I feel the program should be run:
Phase 1) People apply to welfare. If their application looks legit they are assigned a caseworker who actually has the time, effort, and energy to do a real home evaluation and sit down for a meeting with the person or family. At this time, if drugs are suspected, the caseworker should be able to make drug testing a prerequisite to starting benefits, but the testing should not be required for all people because that's just wasting money on the people who are obviously legit. If they fail the drug test they can reapply in 6-12 months but for the next application the drug test is mandatory. They should also be pointed in the direction of programs/resources to help them get and stay clean in the meantime.
Phase 2) Once benefits are approved the caseworker should help guide the person/family towards better housing, employment, education, etc. to improve their circumstances. This may require several visits over the course of the first 3-6 months during which an action plan should be created and agreed to. The caseworker should also assist in bringing resources to the person/family to help them start achieving goals and not just hand over a check each month. Once they are one their way the caseworker should check in and evaluate the situation at least once every 6 months and should be available to the person/family as needed as their circumstances change. If, at any time during this process, the caseworker suspects drug activity they should have the authority to mandate drug testing. A failed test will result in the removal of all benefits, something that should be made clear from the beginning.
Phase 3) The family/person will hopefully begin moving along their action plan to establish better circumstances for themselves and benefits will no longer be needed and discontinued.
I'm way too much of an idealist at times.
I'll start off by saying I am against across the board drug testing.
ReplyDeleteApart from it being costly, it seems rather insulting to people of low income. Across the board drug testing for welfare (of whatever kind, be it cash benefits, or food stamps) clearly targets those people of lower income status.
You'd never see something like this for non low income folks (I don't know how that would come about, but you get the idea).
Now to address the idea of home visits.
While It's a nice idea, it would not fly.You'd have to hire more people, this would cost money, and the folks whom tend to be against social welfare, aren't going to want to shell out money to do this.
I'll give you credit for not being for across the board drug testing. I kinda have issues with the idea of drug testing for benefits in general, although I can see reasons why one might be for it.
I understand that tax dollars go to cash benefits welfare, but I don't feel conferrable with the government putting restrictions on how you use cash benefits. We also have existing laws regarding not buying things that are not legal. Do we really need more rules on the books?
I too think drugs should be legal by the way (as a side note)
-Ler
I agree with you that across to board drug testing is wrong. Statistically those of low income are more often drug users (cause and effect here being debatable) but that doesn't give the government the right to single out those of low income with the implied assumption that "you probably use drugs".
ReplyDeleteI don't know how the cash benefit side of wealfare works, that being said I had an idea.
DeleteYou mentioned education. I think encouraging education is not a bad thing. What could be done to encourage this is, make it so your welfare does not count as income in determining something like financial aid. Now this might be the case currently,if so then good.
One worry I have about making some sort of education mandatory is that often financial aid wont cover everything, and it would not be fair to make somebody go into debt just to try and better themselves and get off welfare. Now I know you were not suggesting anything mandatory in terms of education, but I think ya get the idea.
-Ler
That's why I said the plan should be decided on between the person/family and the case worker. While education is great it's not right for everyone and I'm sure there are some people with great education nowadays that are finding themselves in need of welfare because of circumstances beyond their control.
DeleteAlso, not all education is college ed. There are technical schools, and even skill building workshops that can cost little to nothing with the right set up.