Debate Club

Should Welfare Recipients Be Tested for Drugs? >

Only Winners Are Companies Making the Drug Tests

Suggesting welfare recipients are worthy of suspicion unfairly singles the group out for disdain

December 15, 2011

About Joy Moses:

Joy Moses is a senior policy analyst with the Poverty and Prosperity program at the Center for American Progress. Prior to joining American Progress, she was a children and youth staff attorney at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.

Drug-testing participants in government benefits programs is bad policy.

Stereotypes are often attached to families who need temporary help from government benefits programs. But suggesting that they are drug users or otherwise worthy of suspicion unfairly singles the group out for disdain. And it opens the door to cutting funds that provide basic subsistence to vulnerable children and their mothers.

[Democrats, Republicans Switch Roles.]

This treatment is all the more absurd when one considers all the other people who receive government funds but aren't required to submit to drug testing. There are also stereotypes about Wall Street drug use, but Congress didn't ask those folks to pee in a cup before bailing them out.

There is no justification for drug testing social service beneficiaries. There hasn't been enough research and different studies have produced different results. In Florida, the most recent state trying a drug testing requirement, it was shown that Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF (the former AFDC or welfare program), applicants were actually less likely than the general population to abuse drugs.

Drug testing also costs money. During this period of elevated poverty, governments at all levels are slashing the budgets of vital services that help low-income families weather temporary setbacks. And yet conservatives who complain about spending on the poor want to devote more resources to new efforts? These new expenditures would not be directed at helping low-income people, but at policing them (or harassing them, depending on how you look at it). The only winners in that scenario are the companies manufacturing the drug tests.

[Who Will Struggle in 2012?]

Many of these policy proposals are aimed at suspending or ending the participation of mothers who test positive. There are far better policy options available. We could invest in social workers to diagnose and treat the underlying causes of unemployment. Maybe it's more education, child care, or—for a much smaller group of mothers—drug or alcohol rehabilitation that's needed. Helping mothers is far better for their innocent children than simply drug testing them—and then kicking families that fail to the curb without concern for whether they will be able to do basic things like eat or have shelter.

Tags:
economy,
unemployment,
drugs,
Congress,
taxes,
social security,
Republican Party
Other Arguments
#1

Yes — We ought to provide aid on the basis of reciprocal obligation

ROBERT RECTOR, Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy at the Heritage Foundation

#2
#3
#4

Yes — Require drug testing only of welfare applicants with a history of substance abuse

LAWRENCE M. MEAD, Professor of Politics and Public Policy at New York University and Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

#5

No — Drug testing welfare recipients is an intrusion into private lives not consistent with U.S. values

PETER CAPPELLI, George W. Taylor Professor of Management at the Wharton School and Director of Wharton's Center for Human Resources

#6

No — Welfare recipients are no more likely to have drug problems than anyone else

MATTHEW BODIE, Professor and Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development at Saint Louis University School of Law

#7
#9

No — Drug testing perpetuates myths and scapegoats the unemployed

CHRISTINE L. OWENS, Executive Director of the National Employment Law Project

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.

Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.

You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

Advertisement