Drug Testing For Welfare

There is a new movement in state government today that has some people "up in arms" - that all people who are welfare recipients would be tested for drugs. Some are concerned with the human rights side of the issue, claiming the move would be unconstitutional. Others argue from an economical standpoint, that such a move would save tax payers by hampering the misuses of the welfare system. This news reports give an overview of the issue:

There are concerns on both sides of this issue, and some have suggested that anyone receiving any kind of government aid should also be tested for drugs, including college students. One man railing against such a rule seemed absolutely appalled that those being tested would have to pay for their own test. If they fail they are denied welfare for a year before they are eligible to take the test again. An article on time.com argues that this rule will be more expensive than the monthly welfare pay-out and the backing behind such a rule is the desire to stigmatize the poor and needy. There are others who argue that some parents' drug usage does not hamper their ability to be good parents and this mandatory testing might put the children in such families in a more difficult situation, like foster care. This argument is a plea to consider the unintended consequences of the testing.

One such person who argues against these unintended consequences is Luis Lebron, a Navy veteran in Florida. With the help of the ACLU Lebron is taking this new testing law to task according to a New York Times article. The representative for the ACLU says that such a test rests on unfair stereotypes of welfare recipients and Lebron says, "No one should have to give up their rights to provide for their children." Furthermore, blogger Michael de Dora says on the Rationally Speaking weblog: "There are many ways to improve the current welfare program.... Considering welfare recipients lazy, government money-hoarding second-class citizens is not one of them. Those in poverty are often born into poverty, with little support from either the government or society, and lead terribly challenging lives that many of us cannot even fathom. Why we would want to further punish them is beyond me. Instead, we should consider supporting them even more, which might help these people escape the circumstances that lead to higher drug use."

According to another video, an ABC news report poll finds that 91% of people are in favor of this stipulation being placed on the welfare system. A frontrunner for the new rule, Florida's Governor Rick Scott, stands by this test, claiming it's an aid to tax payers that ultimate protects the children by requiring recipients to be tested. He says in response to questions about the new rule, “It’s not right for taxpayer money to be paying for somebody’s drug addiction. … On top of that, this is going to increase personal responsibility, personal accountability. We shouldn’t be subsidizing people’s addiction.” CBS News reports "Applicants will have to pay for the tests themselves and will be reimbursed if they pass." But is this enough to stem the tide of negative press toward such an initiative?

I feel the need to weigh in on this debate because, in one way or another, it does filter down to you and me as tax payers. Welfare programs in every state are funded by those citizens that pay their taxes to the government, each month and during income tax season. We must ask the question, "What am I willing to pay for?"

Homeless man with cardboard sign.

I do apologize for the language on the sign, but it brings up a very good point: if you saw someone on the street, standing there with kids, obviously in dire straights, and holding a sign like this, I for would not be giving them any money. In fact, I would likely give them a tongue lashing and see what I could do to get authorities involved to get their kids and, if possible, them into a more hospitable living arrangement. I would hope that many of you would do the same. Would money really help? I would also do what I could to set them up with the means and direction to leave the streets and be able to provide for themselves. Then, and only then, would I feel comfortable knowing that children under their charge are at least seeing their caregiver taking steps to provide a better life for them. In truth, this is the intended design of the welfare system.


Though I understand the concerns those against this test raise, I respectfully disagree with them and believe that, ultimately, their attitudes of concern are hindrances to another's aid. If those who truly need welfare are applying and must take a drug test to complete their application process, there is only a couple reasons I can think of for people to take offense at this regulation: they have something to hide or they feel entitled to a handout. If you don't do drugs and have to pay out of your very limited resources for the test, you can be assured that you will get that money back. No harm, no foul. If you have been pursuing work and have not been able to find any, your need for welfare is not the answer you've been looking for but a means to an end (the end being work that provides for your basic needs). Your genuine need provides the strength to do what you need to do to provide for yourself and your loved ones.

On the other hand, if you happen to do drugs, then this rule could be a significant game-changer for you. Looking at such a person's situation from a purely pragmatic position, without making any judgments about them, they stand to lose a source of income that could be used to support their addiction. There is significant reason, therefore, to argue against such a ruling but - like the cardboard sign above - one must practice a good deal more discretion regarding their reasons for objection. To say, "I won't be able to afford my drugs" or "I'll have to get a job" or "how am I supposed to just change from benefiting from the system to paying into it" would be horribly difficult. They would have to face the deceit they live by and the consequences of their actions up to that point. 

My Christianity is not a detached belief, a faith inconsequentially connected to me in the same way my clothes are worn and taken off, so I must see this issue in light of my worldview. There are many people who argue for the poor and needy, those people on welfare who are broken by a system that affords them little effort to rise above the poverty-stricken quagmire. And my heart of hearts says, "No, they shouldn't be made to suffer more than they already do!" But we must define what we mean by 'suffering' or run the risk of enabling self-destructive behaviors and tendencies. For example, suffering can both be brought on by ourselves or by others, be unfair or just. 

I hear people arguing about the infringement on the rights of the poor this rule would create, but I go back to scripture as my guiding light and source of principled thought. Those who do wrong all have reason to fear authority and the law (Rom 13:1-4) because it's designed to keep the unlawful in check, while those who use the law lawfully are not rebellious against the law (1 Tim 1:6-9) and thus have nothing to fear. Again, if you have something to hide - either with regards to illegal activities or general laziness - this test rule could be a painful step in your growth. I don't contest that. Talking over this issue with a friend, he mentioned how ridiculous it is that some would use the law to 'win' the right to do what is unlawful! The law, then, defends those who willfully break the law, and the reason seems to be the importance of one's individual rights. 

We have somewhere convoluted the meaning of 'rights' and so given license to the lazy, negligent, dishonest, and criminal. The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Uniform living with regard to economic status and welfare are not rights, they are graces bestowed on some while others are left out. This isn't so much unfair as it is an opportunity for the Church of Jesus to extend the grace only He can give and the love that fills, and overflows from, us. I say this not as a middle-class person of means but as one who lives humbly but still feels blessed, who has spent some time homeless and relying on the generosity of others without abusing that grace. We are created equal but this does not mean that we are all entitled to the same blessings in life. If this were not so, I would want to know who I should gripe to for not having the wisdom of writers, actors, directors, and professors I admire - where's what I deserve?!

Likewise, the United States Constitution says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." First, "the general welfare" doesn't refer to the system of welfare but to the pursuit of well-being for all. Second, "promote" speaks of the work done to encourage general well-being, not of hand-outs or entitlements for any and all people. So though I believe people need to be given opportunities to survive and thrive in society - whether they are well-off or not - I do not believe such opportunities necessitate foolish use of funds to support those who cannot handle the responsibility. We are to offer grace and love to our neighbors, but we are not to allow our neighbors to define grace and love as license to do wrong or be positively rewarded despite their wrong.

Sometimes sentimentality and fever-pitch emotions can bear the appearance of wisdom - even righteousness - but their end is in accordance with their deeds (2 Cor. 11:14-15). I'm not calling them evil, or Satan-worshipers, but I am saying that the abuses to the welfare system have shown that the altruism has been taken advantage of by dishonest men and women who even go so far as to refer to their drug addictions as diseases. The devastating nature of drug abuse, while pitiable, should never be confused with diseases that people have no control over. Children born with addictions because of the sins of their parents are not to be used as patsy's for their parents. The temptation of drugs is no doubt a formidable opponent, but God provides the way out and gives us the strength to endure until we're free (1 Cor. 10:13). Yes, it's easier to say when you've never gone down that road. But does my personal ignorance of experience mean I should then be okay with funding another's problematic habit? I don't think so.

Yes, we should graciously help others, but not if our version of 'help' actually continues behavior that is not profitable for the individual or the greater community. Let each seek the good of their neighbor - who Jesus describes as everyone - and not his or her own (1 Cor. 10:23-24). So why would anyone who was honestly using their governmental aid for its intended use have a problem with this extra measure of safety for the system being implemented. It actually does help them out. It also forces those who are wrongly appropriating the grace of welfare to shape up or suffer the consequences. When we bless enemies of America's generosity and usurpers of gracious citizens by giving what they need instead of what they want (as this rule is out to do), it has a purifying effect and evil is overcome by what is good - otherwise, evil will continue to rule (Rom.12:21) and we will be left with the responsibility of cleaning up the mess. We're not talking about judging or stigmatizing the needy, because the Lord is Master over all (Rom. 14:4).  We are talking about being wise stewards of the blessings God has poured out on America. The genuine needs have no need to fear this rule.

Those who would rather ride the gravy train as long as possible, on the other hand, are and probably should be upset. Sometimes the greatest grace and love we can offer are the purifying coals of consequences.