Here’s the latest fail in the Republicans’ ongoing mission to demonize poverty: In a year-long experiment to see just how many welfare-moochers are using state funds to feed their drug addiction, Michigan discovered that the answer is… zero.
A History Of Failure
Between October 1, 2015 and September 30, 2016, three counties in Michigan screened applicants to see if they were at risk for illegal drug use. Of the 443 people screened, none of them tested positive for drug use.
Michigan isn’t the first state to try drug testing people applying for public assistance. 15 states have passed laws requiring agencies to screen or test applicants for drug use.
- Alabama
- Arkansas
- Arizona
- Florida
- Georgia
- Kansas
- Michigan
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- North Carolina
- Oklahoma
- Tennessee
- Utah
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
The idea is that denying benefits to people suffering from drug addiction, or even occasional drug use, will free up tons of money in state budgets. It sounds nice in theory, and many members of the public are on board with the idea.
Sean Drug testing would save this country billions in welfare, food Stamps( that are traded for drugs, and child welfare).
— RockyJacques (@ProSports0neGP) November 22, 2016
Drug testing welfare recipients starts Monday https://t.co/ic3dutGgTL GOOD, you on illegal drugs, NO WELFARE CHECK OR FOOD STAMPS.
— Ellie Tweets (@FreedomNowRings) November 15, 2016
People have money for drugs but need food stamps? I wonder where our system is flawed? Gov't needs to stop enabling people that don't care.
— Michael Alexander (@Mtalexander97) November 14, 2016
https://twitter.com/AlluraEldridge/status/800570601710620672
All the people rioting against trump are just pissed off because they won't be receiving welfare checks anymore once the drug testing begins
— Zamora⚜️ (@_zamo93) November 17, 2016
There’s just one problem: So few people test positive for drug use that the programs actually cost people money. That’s right, not only are they not making back the cost of the drug tests, they’re throwing money away in the process. Let’s take a look what happened in a few of the states that require drug testing.
- Missouri: 38,970 welfare applicants. 48 positive drug tests. Cost to the state: $339,297.
- Utah: 9,552 welfare applicants. 29 positive drug tests. Cost to the state: $64,566.
- Kansas: 2,783 welfare applicants. 11 positive drug tests. Cost to the state: $40,000.
Shattered Stereotypes
In the four months that a Florida law was in place requiring TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) applicants to provide a urine sample for drug testing, 2.9 percent of the applicants tested positive. To put that in perspective, the federal government estimates that more than eight percent of Florida residents over the age of 12 years use illegal drugs.
Not only are these programs failing and costing states hundreds of thousands of dollars, they’re also proving that the incidence of drug use among welfare recipients is LOWER than in the general population. So much for the stereotypes.
So who’s really out there abusing illegal drugs? Let’s take a look.
- Senator Trey Radel (R-Fla.) voted to have welfare applicants drug tested before receiving benefits. In November 2013, he plead guilty to cocaine possession. He blamed his drug bust on an alcohol addiction.
- In 2015, a staffer for Senator Ted Cothran (R-Miss.) was busted for possession of methamphetamine. Officials stated that Fred Pagan, Cothran’s personal assistant, planned to trade the drugs for sexual favors.
- On August 26, 2016, Senator Gilbert Baker (R-Ark.) was arrested for DUI and tested positive for methamphetamine.
In The Interest Of Fairness
This year, Shawn Fluharty, a West Virginia Delegate, introduced a bill that would require drug testing for all state legislators. His proposal comes after a bill was introduced requiring drug testing for welfare recipients:
“I think the public expects us to adhere to the rules that we try to legislate… We have 134 people down here and we should be on their dime living within the standards that we implement. There’s no reason we shouldn’t do it. It’s not going to cost the taxpayers any more money because we’re going to pay for it ourselves.
There’s no reason why state legislators should get a pass, simply because we wear suits.”
Based on the evidence, that seems like a damn good idea.
Featured Image by wonderlandforever via Flickr/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
