We are bombarded with opinions on Government spending. Some side with, and some against, which is the essence of democracy at work. Is mandatory testing a breach of the Constitution or the next step in curbing government waste while fighting an opioid epidemic? The research speaks for itself. The mandatory drug testing approach is a clear violation of Fourth Amendment rights and should not be continued. Molding the issues of the opiate epidemic around assistance programs may contribute to the confusion those on the outside feel. Demanding drug testing is not the answer to either of these issues as society will come to recognize.
If one were to research the origins of federal assistance, they would find that it was never intended to be a way of life. The Welfare Act of 1935 was a direct response to the Great Depression and paved the way for further government assistance programs. In light of this, and the tremendous regulatory efforts imposed since then, welfare assistance has become a way of life for many. Massive amounts of taxpayer money go into this system every year. Along with the opiate crisis that is increasingly rampant in low-income neighborhoods, should there be stipulations on receiving taxpayer money as a form of assistance? Is mandating an individual to be “clean” a necessary and fair requirement for free money? Some say it is a violation of our 4th Amendment rights.
There are generally two sides to most arguments, and the same is true in societies perception of drugs and welfare. When confronted with the question of mandatory testing, some may claim this is only keeping those receiving taxpayer money accountable and preventing the subsidizing of drug addiction. States such as Florida led the way in 2011, as Governor Rick Scott signed a bill mandating testing for adults applying for assistance. The legality of such laws have opponents exerting the Fourth Amendment and the right of every American to be protected from unlawful search and seizure. Still more expound on the racial bias attached to such laws and the negative connotation surrounding them.
Opponents and proponents of drug testing give voice to the fear of too little or too much and if there is ever going to be a balance. Emphasis should be focused on whether there are social biases created by legislation of this type and then utilizes ethical and logical questions to resolve these. There is a significant focus by society today to embrace individual feelings, and while both race and social influences are important, the focus is being lost, and the real reason for the needed change is becoming blurred.
The American Journal Of Law & Medicine tackled the heart of the legal issues surrounding mandatory testing in the article “ Public assistance, drug testing, and the law: the limits of population-based legal analysis.” The report looks at the questions surrounding constitutional difficulties when states or the Federal Government make receiving welfare conditional on being drug-free and passing a drug test. Is drug testing ethical and does it infringe on Constitutional freedom? Again, the issue of unlawful search and seizure became the principal focus of this paper and was covered very well by the author Candice Player. There is nothing more concrete to base an argument on than the Constitution of the United States. Player does an admirable job bringing the focus directly to the breach of Fourth Amendment protections.
Focusing specifically on the issue of tax dollars and blaming it for funding the drug crisis is speculative at best. Breaching the debate by focusing on race and color is not for the weak of heart. Opposition to drug testing is a potential rally cry for any likely politician who understands the implication of this type of mandatory requirement. Walker Newell provided his research by penning the article “tax dollars earmarked for drugs? the policy and constitutionality of drug testing welfare recipients.” There is an emphasis on the constitutionality of requiring recipients to take a drug test before the receiving of benefits. The Fourth Amendment is the focus of Walkers argument, and by highlighting the probable violation of specific rights, he appeals to everyday individuals, not merely those affected through testing. Does the requirement of drug testing supersede the protections provided to the American people by the Fourth Amendment? Fourth Amendment protections again prove that this solution is not the answer.
The debate over mandatory testing is controversial as previously discussed, but proper implementation of this step is where the dialog becomes muddy. The government has already weighed in on the controversy of employer mandated drug testing. Employee testing is not a breach of Fourth Amendment rights as one may conclude from previous discussions. The overall safety of employees removes the single element that is necessary for violating a person’s freedoms. Companies are requiring program administrators to track testing use and the employee responses to such requirements. The focus of this testing is a direct response to the overall safety of not only the employee but all those who interact with them. In this instance, the employer is responsible for the wellbeing and security of each employee, and the insistence of mandatory drug testing does not violate an individuals Fourth Amendment rights.
Research on how drug testing effects persons of different race and ethnicities can be used in many different ways and for many various reasons.
In 2018, Chris Ledford, along with the Policy Studies Journal, published an analysis report of welfare legislation from 2008 to 2014. Titled “ Symbolic Racism, Institutional Bias, and Welfare Drug Testing Legislation: Racial Biases Matter,” this article focuses entirely on the development and test expectations which derive from research on welfare attitudes, social construction theory, and policy design to form credible data. The study covered every state and all regulation having to do with welfare and drug testing. Throughout the article, the importance of how policymaking is influenced at the proposal stages form a trail of how these inescapably trickle down to those affected by the law. A comprehensive and well-organized study, Chris goes the extra mile by including all states regardless of minority levels or race disparities. Although research is vital in forming the overall view, this article bombards a reader with data, and in doing so, forces the emphasis away from the actual issue.
Policy making can be a thankless job but is a necessary evil in protecting society at every level. With a title is designed to capture a specific audience, Dennis Grantham, the editor in chief of the Institute for Behavioral Health and Advancement, accomplished this with the title “Cracking down on taxpayer-subsidized drug abuse.” The title in itself leaps out at those in favor of stricter drug laws simply by the included language. Perhaps the most influential voice in the “pro” testing argument, Grantham evaluates the policies enacted by Florida and the positives drug testing has brought to the state. Answering the questions of public opinion and legality of the requirement from a real-world perspective, Grantham makes taxpayer money center stage in this article. There are points of accountability which resonate with many people who have voiced frustrations over apparently wasteful government spending. Grantham avoids the Fourth Amendment argument entirely by rerouting the focus to failures in government bureaucracy.
There is a sea of emotion attached in any policy which tries to alleviate the decades-long issue of proper government spending. Passion increases as people in all levels of society try to voice their opinions and make them heard.
In the end we have social arguments on implementation, legality and a dose of public opinion on display, with each offering a conclusion of his or her own. If one were to break the parts down and dissect the arguments to their respective elements, which would hold the most sway? Opinions are convincing and even may construe public perception to a certain point, but are unreliable at best. Statistics are often a writer’s best friend and can enable a logical conclusion to be deduced often without being stated. To find the perfect marriage, a writer must incorporate a balance of both. Throughout this literary expedition, logic, ethics, and emotion have found a voice. However, only one author has found a way to use it convincingly. Both Walker Newell and Candice Player use the Constitution in their arguments against mandatory drug testing. In the end, Player is able to reach past the legalities of the Fourth Amendment and focus the reader not only on the protection of their individual rights but the issue at heart.
After mulling over this information, you may agree or strongly disagree. Many may desire accountability, both from themselves and from those around them. The first thought is likely to want to drug test everyone who receives tax dollars. On the surface, it appears grossly unfair that those receiving assistance should, not only profit but continuously does so on the backs of taxpayers. It is not unreasonable to ask them to be accountable for one area of their life, but mandatory drug testing is not the fix for this.
Two women live on the same street, in the same town, and in the same drug infested neighborhood. Marie is a single mother struggling to raise three young children on her own. She works 60 hours a week, and with much of that going to child care and groceries, she fights to keep her head above water. Her employer requires random drug testing from employees, which has helped her maintain six years of sobriety, something of which she is extremely proud. Kara, on the other hand, finds narcotics the answer to raising children on her own. Kara is also a single mother with three young children. She is a stay at home mother explaining that it is easier to collect the money welfare hands out than to pay for childcare. Plus if she worked, she would actually get less than if she stayed home. Much of her government assistance traded out on the next opiate high, leaving little to care for her three children. Kara finds herself sliding back into a lifestyle of repetition, loneliness, and the search to feel alive. She refuses to look for work, claiming the premise of drug testing by employers is unconstitutional. These two women live similar yet completely different lives. One has embraced the need to provide and gain a footing in life with government assistance providing the means to an end. The other is merely existing, mired in a world of poverty and drug abuse. Taxpayers are paying for both of these women to a certain extent and more importantly, providing for the wellbeing of these six children. Advocates of drug testing could see this scenario as their battle cry for mandatory testing. It is perceptions such as this which form poorly based positions and muddy political waters.
In the end, it boils down to this. As much as people desire responsibility from society, they cannot trade personal freedoms to obtain it. The freedoms guaranteed to Americans under the Fourth Amendment are far too important to sacrifice. If we seek the end to drug addiction or desire personal responsibility from those around us, another avenue must be explored. Mandatory drug testing is not the answer.
References
Amundson, K., Zajicek, A. M., & Kerr, B. (2015). A social metamorphosis: Constructing drug addicts from the poor. Sociological Spectrum, 35(5), 442–464. https://doi-org.tu.opal-libraries.org/10.1080/02732173.2015.1064799
Cracking down on taxpayer-subsidized drug abuse. (2011). Behavioral Healthcare, (5), 5. Retrieved from https://login.tu.opal-libraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsggo&AN=edsgcl.265023709&site=eds-live&scope=site
Klingner, D. E., & And Others. (1990). Drug Testing in Public Agencies: Are Personnel Directors Doing Things Right? Public Personnel Management, 19(4), 391–97. Retrieved from https://login.tu.opal-libraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ420838&site=eds-live&scope=site
Ledford, C. (2018). Symbolic Racism, Institutional Bias, and Welfare Drug Testing Legislation: Racial Biases Matter. Policy Studies Journal, 46(3), 510–530. https://doi-org.tu.opal-libraries.org/10.1111/psj.12192
Newell, W. (2011). Tax Dollars Earmarked for Drugs? The Policy and Constitutionality of Drug Testing Welfare Recipients. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 43(1), 215–254. Retrieved from https://login.tu.opal-libraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=p4h&AN=70457632&site=eds-live&scope=site
Player, C. T. (2014). Public assistance, drug testing, and the law: the limits of population-based legal analysis. American Journal Of Law & Medicine, 40(1), 26–84. Retrieved from https://login.tu.opal-libraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=24844042&site=eds-live&scope=sitE
Drug Testing and Taxpayer Dollars 