Recently the New York Times posted this article on their website that some states including Arizona and Missouri have passed laws requiring people who want social welfare benefits to pass a drug test (in the form of a urine sample). The benefits they need screening for include assistance with public housing and food stamps.
Those supporting these laws argue that drug tests are common in job application processes now anyway, and working people would be unhappy knowing that their money supports illegal activities. Opponents to the drug-testing laws believe that such requirements vilify people who seek out social welfare, and the fact that they exist imply that low-income people use drugs.
Many of our clients at the Suitcase Clinic receive some form of public assistance. How do you feel about laws like these? Any comments?
Denying assistance to those who may be struggling with an addiction simply reinforces the link between homelessness and substance abuse/mental health. There is extensive research that shows the “housing first method” can be the best way for someone to recover from substance abuse. Denying public housing and food stamps just continues the cycle and does not lead to anything productive. As Josh mentions above, the cost is not only to the individual in question but also the federal/state/local government.
What this legislation fails to account for is the fact that many individuals are afflicted with a dual diagnosis. If someone was diagnosed with a mental health disorder, they are at higher risk to also have a drug abuse diagnosis as well. The two conditions feed off each other and the individual suffers greatly. Welfare benefits need to be accessible to those with a dual diagnosis in order to facilitate recovery.
How is someone with a dual diagnosis suppose to receive help if they are denied access to that help precisely because of their condition? It’s akin to someone who is struggling with obesity getting denied a gym membership because they can’t pass a fitness test.
This line of thinking is faulty and counterproductive. Proponents of this type of legislation cite savings in public money, but they fail to realize that if people who are severely in need of help are denied benefits, they will likely end up costing the public even more money when they are forced to go to the ER for uncompensated care.
Drug test is a good idea – however requirement that one must “pass” the test initially is not. The testing can help health/mental health providers and help others assess population risk, etc. I’m in favor, but not to be used to deny needed care. Continued failure of test could require programs or ultimate denial, however.
This proposal to tack on a new requirement to the long list already in effect in order to qualify for and maintain public assistance is totally absurd. Pushing the drug issue to the side for a second, I’d like to rant a bit about the sorry state that the US welfare system is in. Only a small number of people (and no undocumented immigrants) that are in need of aid can actually get it. IF they’ve managed to gather all of the proper application materials and IF they are approved, they must enroll in welfare-to-work programs and fulfill many other requirements to stay on the rolls. If they start making some money through a job, their assistance will be cut off, even if their wages are less than what their government checks provided. Since the welfare system is structured in such a way that makes its recipients decide between getting a job or staying on the rolls (and choosing the job may mean not being able to make ends meet or being unable to care for a child), then remaining on welfare is the obvious choice.
People are therefore dependent on welfare through no fault of their own, but through flawed government structures that have made welfare such a stigmatized and complex institution. It is no wonder then that many of the poor turn to alternate ways of providing for themselves, either through engaging in illicit activities or turning to drugs to dampen the feelings of hopelessness. Rather than blaming the victim, the welfare system should be blamed and reformed. Like Josh said in the reply above, requiring drug-testing is counterproductive and will only further deprive the underserved of much-needed monetary relief, furthering their mistrust of the government, which leads to less political involvement, leading to further cuts to welfare, leading to more withdrawal, etc. This is a structural issue, not a personal problem.