By Diana Hernandez—
“I’m fucked!” shouts a mother of one as she takes a big puff off her rolled joint. Celia Lecea has just heard the news about a bill that might pass for welfare recipients to be drug tested. It has begun to take place in the U.S. for applicants on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and many taxpayers are happy with that change. At least 28 states put forth proposals requiring drug testing for public assistance applicants or recipients in 2012. Four states, Utah, Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma passed legislation.
Although, this is still an ongoing debate because many feel it violates the Constitution. And who is to say that people on welfare do more drugs then people who do not need government assistance? If this law were to pass it could be a rode the government will later regret. It opens the door to other means such as college students eventually being drug tested to receive financial aid. This would cost the government or should I say taxpayers more dollars.
Part of taxpayers’ money goes to the many people that need assistance. So of course they are concerned knowing that some of their money goes to drugs. But is that a reason to drug test everyone on welfare? If they are worried about saving money then they are in for a wake up call. It would cost much more to get everyone drug tested, a paid rehab facility and to continue giving them assistance.
The purpose of the bill is to better the people on welfare for employment purposes. But like everything in life there are pros and cons to situations. The pros of course would be that we would find out who is wasting taxpayers money. Drug testing would help people stay clean making them employable. It could even minimize the purchase of drugs, which would make safer communities. The cons of the bill are that it is unconstitutional, stereotypical and it would cost taxpayers more money. Worst of all if people do not pass the drug test they are not allowed to receive assistance and it would ultimately affect the children. So do the pros outweigh the cons? What do you think?
See other stories by Diana Hernandez “Women on Welfare”
Steve • Feb 7, 2014 at 1:03 am
“How about the people who just smoke marijuana? Should they have their benefits taken away?”
I think so. Again, they’re getting these “benefits” by saying they don’t have money to feed themselves/their family. Then that money, your and my tax dollars, are being spent for marijuana. I agree people have problems with drugs. Here is their incentive to stop doing them, IMO.
Diana • Jan 16, 2014 at 4:29 pm
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate the feedback.
When I say it will affect the children I was referring to the many children put in foster care. I have witnessed this myself it does not make it any better for them. I am not saying that living in a drug environment is any better, but jumping from foster home to foster home really does have a huge impact on children especially teenagers. How about the people who just smoke marijuana? Should they have their benefits taken away? How about the children who are not taken away from their parents, but now have nothing to eat because benefits were taken away? I know what most of you will say, “well then the parent should stop doing drugs.” Well if it were that easy America would be a drug free country, but unfortunately it is not. There are many people suffering with drug addiction and I believe getting people some help would be more beneficial than putting them in a perdicament where they might go out and do something they will regret.
If welfare recipients were to start getting drug tested then that would cost taxpayers more money and I am sure many people would not be happy about that.
Lianna • Aug 12, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Diana,
You made an interesting point, “Worst of all if people do not pass the drug test they are not allowed to receive assistance and it would ultimately affect the children.” Do you honestly believe that an individual, who is tested positive for drugs, should even bear the responsibility of taking care of a child? Is that the environment in which we wish to raise our children? In essence, isn’t the drug and poverty-ridden environment simply a cycle in which we expect our children from these families to repeat? By testing these individuals for drugs, we can prevent those individuals who test positive, from instilling the same type of behavior and routine in our youth. Most of who, end up following the same footsteps as their parents or guardians. My personal sentiment? The government should make it mandatory.
Kim • Jul 21, 2013 at 11:19 am
I agree wih Steve, I was tested for my employment ( choice I made was I wanted a job) So if the people currently receiving benefits want to continue then why not? A drug test is a sure way to know if the tax payer dollars are going where they should go! To their families! To say the families will be affected in a negative way if they are using that money to purchase drugs who’s to say the “children” or “family” are being taken care of anyway!
Steve • May 25, 2013 at 2:25 am
Diana, you’re not factoring in the huge savings taxpayers would receive if the taxpayer money is no longer used to purchase drugs. Constitutional rights don’t come into play when you are obtaining a benefit. I.E. I was drug tested, as many others, when being hired for my job.