SSI and Welfare Recipients Versus Mandatory Drug Testing

A few states are currently on board with randomly testing their welfare recipients, but is it enough to discourage the abuse of the welfare and economic system? While many states are arguing the cost effectiveness of implementing such programs, institutes like the ACLU are arguing that to impose such requirements is a violation of the fourth amendment, whereas it is being interpreted as an illegal or unreasonable search. It should be viewed as a reasonable misunderstanding how the government can question the use of illegal drugs versus the cost effectiveness of performing such tests. After all, the drafts of the US Constitution was written on Hemp paper until the final draft was written on the existing parchment paper. What? You didn't think that was tobacco in our fore fathers pipes did you?

Despite what the government is stating about their concerns in their fiscal responsibilities, the American people have made it very clear that they support the concept of mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients. According to the results of a 1999 poll conducted by FOX News, 68% of American citizens support the testing, while 27% say no way, leaving 5% remaining undecisive. One could speculate that the remaining 5% could be our conspiracy theory folks. Paranoid, delusional and not too many brain cells remaining from their personal drug use. Regardless of their motivations, the American people have spoken and despite each states desire to impose new requirements for qualification of TANF, these states are running scared.

In one state they currently offer welfare to more than 217,000 residents with the average TANF user receiving approximately $1200 per month in services. With a drug test averaging $50 per test, it should seem plausible if these tests found just 10% to be using illegal drugs. This would free up over $20 million in funds to be applied to other state funded functions. Sadly enough it cannot go unstated that the drug industry can be very profitable to not only the distributors but to the government as well. In one state, a first time offender in possession of marijuana could be fined from $300 up to $3000, depending upon how much they have in their possession.

When considering the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of Social Security benefit recipients, it is normally assumed that because of the rigorous process they must follow to be awarded any benefits that once they are awarded it is a done deal. Yet there are a large number of recipients that have been convicted of various drug related charges that continue to receive SSI Disability benefits. Benefits that the American taxpayers are paying to assist a convicted offender in continuing their illegal trends.

One argument by the taxpayers could be to suspend any support to households for a period of time that a convicted offender resides in. If a welfare recipient or any of its household members are suspected of drug use by arrest then the benefits will be suspended until either a conviction or reprieve. In the event of a reprieve, then any lost support would be backdated to the time of arrest with proper court documentation. In the event of an conviction, if the offender is not imprisoned, then there should be a time period that the household does not receive support until it is proven that the offender is no longer residing in the household. A different argument is that if there is one person in the home either dealing or doing drugs then normally there is somebody else in the house is participating or at least aware of it. If one party is guilty then the whole house should be held accountable. The retaliatory argument is, "What about the children?". This is a very responsible reaction because if it were not for the children, then the support would not be a necessity. This writers response is simple. If our government is capable of writing a 1200 page health care bill proposal, then they should be capable of taking action to protect our hard earned tax dollars and ensuring that SSI benefits are there for us when it comes time for us to retire. If these drug users and distributors using the welfare system to fund their illicit activities wish to dance with the devil, then this writer declares, "Let them eat cake!" And when they are busted, propose much stiffer fines and penalties by making them accountable for the support of their entire family by banning them from further governmental assistance and support, including unemployment. Don't just slap them on the wrist anymore. Slap them on the back, wish them luck and throw them to the wolves. I'm just sayin'...