No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

[EpyonXero]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us...rug-tests.html

April 17, 2012
No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
MIAMI — Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.

“Many states are considering following Florida’s example, and the new data from the state shows they shouldn’t,” said Derek Newton, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state last year to stop the testing and recently obtained the documents. “Not only is it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, but it doesn’t save money, as was proposed.”

This week, Georgia instituted a nearly identical law, with supporters saying it would foster greater personal responsibility and save money. As in Florida, the law is expected to draw a legal challenge. The Southern Center for Human Rights, based in Atlanta, said it expected to file a lawsuit once the law takes effect in the next several months. A number of other states are considering similar bills.

The Florida civil liberties group sued the state last year, arguing that the law constituted an “unreasonable search” by the government, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In issuing a temporary injunction in October, Judge Mary S. Scriven of Federal District Court scolded lawmakers and said the law “appears likely to be deemed a constitutional infringement.”

From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload,” the document said.

But supporters of the law said four months of numbers did little to discredit an effort they said was based on common sense. Drug users, no matter their numbers, should not be allowed to use taxpayer money, they said.

“We had to stop allowing tax dollars for anybody to buy drugs with,” said State Representative Jimmie T. Smith, a Republican who sponsored the bill last year. Taxpayer savings also come in deterring those drug users who would otherwise apply for cash assistance but now think twice because of the law, some argued.

Chris Cinquemani, the vice president of the Foundation for Government Accountability, a Florida-based public policy group that advocates drug testing and recently made a presentation in Georgia, said more than saving money was at stake.

“The drug testing law was really meant to make sure that kids were protected,” he said, “that our money wasn’t going to addicts, that taxpayer generosity was being used on diapers and Wheaties and food and clothing.”

Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, who supported the measure last year, agreed.

“Governor Scott maintains his position that TANF dollars must be spent on TANF’s purposes — protecting children and getting people back to work,” said Jackie Schutz, the governor’s deputy press secretary.

Last month, Mr. Scott signed into law another drug testing measure, this one permitting state agencies to randomly test up to 10 percent of their employees. The tests can be conducted every 90 days and agencies can fire or discipline employees if they test positive for drugs.

The law, which the civil liberties group said it believes is unconstitutional, takes effect in July. The courts have largely upheld drug testing for workers with public safety jobs.

[pauldun170]

I don't want my money wasted on government programs unless it directly benefits me or it blows up shit.

I'm willing to spend more money to make sure my money isn't being used on this big fancy boogeyman I created.

Summary - I want my tax dollars spent making sure boogeymen don't get my tax dollars...even if it cost me more money in the process.

[derf]

How about a felony drug conviction equals no welfare? hat would have the same effect and cost a little bit less

[EpyonXero]

Originally Posted by derf

How about a felony drug conviction equals no welfare? hat would have the same effect and cost a little bit less

Thats reasonable and shouldnt cost much. Of course, a felon without a job and no welfare would probably be more likely to commit another crime.

[nhgunnut]

Ok I am well into being a Curmudgeon , but I don't care if there is a a savings or not. Nothing annoys me more than watching someone Use Public assistance of any kind to buy 45 dollars worth of Groceries while in the same purchase buying $70 worth of beer and cigarettes. The Public shouldn't be backstopping you so you can buy recreational drugs. Personally I have no issue with recreational drugs they are your business but it is parasitic to to expect the tax payer to buy you food so you can save your income to buy drugs

[derf]

Depending on the state it is illegal to use welfare to buy that stuff.

IMHO, for welfare, the gov should give you a credit card with a preloaded amount, and it only works in approved stores, like a supermarket or walmart, and if that store gets caught selling stuff to people who use that credit card and pay with it, then the store looses the contract.

Its not hard. My government travel card wont work in any place that is classified as primarily selling alchaol

[EpyonXero]

Originally Posted by derf

Depending on the state it is illegal to use welfare to buy that stuff.

IMHO, for welfare, the gov should give you a credit card with a preloaded amount, and it only works in approved stores, like a supermarket or walmart, and if that store gets caught selling stuff to people who use that credit card and pay with it, then the store looses the contract.

Its not hard. My government travel card wont work in any place that is classified as primarily selling alchaol

I also have a government travel card which I can use at ATM machines for cash advances and use the cash for all the hookers and blow I want.

[nhgunnut]

Originally Posted by derf

Depending on the state it is illegal to use welfare to buy that stuff.

I am aware that the wic or ebt card can't be used to make the purchase of Tobacco or Alcohol but when they use the card then pull twice as much cash out to buy their recreational drugs it annoys the crap out of me

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by nhgunnut

Ok I am well into being a Curmudgeon , but I don't care if there is a a savings or not. Nothing annoys me more than watching someone Use Public assistance of any kind to buy 45 dollars worth of Groceries while in the same purchase buying $70 worth of beer and cigarettes. The Public shouldn't be backstopping you so you can buy recreational drugs. Personally I have no issue with recreational drugs they are your business but it is parasitic to to expect the tax payer to buy you food so you can save your income to buy drugs

So, you're OK with wasting money, as long as it's the government that's doing it.

Originally Posted by EpyonXero

I also have a government travel card which I can use at ATM machines for cash advances and use the cash for all the hookers and blow I want.

I hear the Secret Service is hiring.

JC

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by nhgunnut

Ok I am well into being a Curmudgeon , but I don't care if there is a a savings or not. Nothing annoys me more than watching someone Use Public assistance of any kind to buy 45 dollars worth of Groceries while in the same purchase buying $70 worth of beer and cigarettes. The Public shouldn't be backstopping you so you can buy recreational drugs. Personally I have no issue with recreational drugs they are your business but it is parasitic to to expect the tax payer to buy you food so you can save your income to buy drugs

Agreed.

And all that article said was that it didn't save money.....It didn't say that it wasted more money. So keep doing it, IMO.