Bill would add potential drug test for welfare

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - A measure modeled on a new Utah law would add a potential drug testing requirement to those seeking family welfare benefits in Washington state, but would allow them to continue receiving money while seeking treatment as long as they stay drug-free.
The bill will have its first public hearing before a Senate committee Thursday. It would require applicants whom case workers have determined have a drug problem to undergo a drug test and participate in a treatment program to receive the monthly cash grant that is part of the state's temporary assistance for needy families program, known as TANF.
"I think taxpayers want to make darn sure the money is going for groceries for the kids and not for dope," said Sen. Don Benton, a Republican from Vancouver who is sponsoring the Senate bill. "I think the taxpayers have a right to confirm that."
Though the numbers vary year by year, as of June, between 121,000 and 134,000 people received an average monthly payment of $373 through TANF. To be eligible, applicants must either have a child or be pregnant and meet certain income requirements. For example, a family of three that has earnings of less than $955 each month would be eligible for cash assistance from TANF.
Washington is among nearly two dozen states that have introduced bills this year to require some form of drug testing for public assistance recipients, according to Rochelle Finzel with the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Seven states have such laws on the books, but some that have passed blanket welfare drug-testing laws have faced legal challenges amid constitutional concerns.
Florida passed a welfare drug-testing program in 2011, but it's on hold after a challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing the case. The implementation of a law passed by Georgia last year also is on hold, with officials there saying they're awaiting the outcome of the Florida case.
In 1999, a drug-testing program in Michigan was halted after five weeks and eventually ended with an appeals court ruling it was unconstitutional.
Additional states require individuals with felony drug convictions to comply with drug-testing requirements to be eligible for assistance. Others, including Washington state, have an interview screening process that does not include a drug test, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Republican Rep. Jan Angel of Port Orchard has introduced a companion bill to the Senate measure in the House. She said that because of the constitutional issues raised in other states, she modeled her bill on the measure approved last year in Utah, which requires only those shown through a questionnaire to have a "reasonable likelihood" that they're using drugs to take a drug test.
As in the Washington state measure, applicants in Utah who fail the drug test can continue receiving benefits while seeking treatment. Utah's law took effect in August.
"I look at this as two sides of a coin," Angel said. "Help the family be able to meet their needs and feed their children, and get help to the person who needs it because of the drug addiction."
Currently, the state Department of Social and Health Services determines during a face-to-face interview whether an applicant has a drug problem. If so, the applicant is given a referral they must attend where a determination on treatment is decided, said Babs Roberts, director of the DSHS community services division.
If the applicant fails to follow up with the referral or treatment plan, they receive reduced benefits for up to four months, during which time case managers continue to work with them. If they still don't comply after four months, their benefits are terminated.
Roberts said some clients are drug-tested if they're in a treatment program where testing is part of that plan.
Angel said that because there's no state requirement for an initial drug test, "people can fall through the cracks."
Under her measure, the Department of Social and Health Services must create a drug-testing program that would be paid for by the state.
If the applicant is assessed as having a drug problem and refuses to take the test, they are put on a probationary status and receive only a portion of their benefit for four months. After that, if they still refuse to take the drug test and receive treatment, benefits are ended and they can't reapply for 28 days.
Applicants who agree to take the initial test and treatment would be subject to subsequent drug tests and face the same probationary period and possible termination of benefits if they fail or refuse to take the test.
Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee opposes the measure, as does the state ACLU.
Alison Holcomb, drug policy director for the ACLU of Washington, said the bill is unclear on exactly what triggers the drug testing requirement, which she says raises questions about adequate due process.
Rep. Ruth Kagi, a Democrat from Shoreline who is chairwoman of the House Early Learning and Human Services Committee, wrote in a House Democratic blog post that the measure was a "solution looking for a problem."
"Our state can and does cut people off assistance if they have a substance abuse problem and do not get treatment," she wrote. "Adding an actual drug test would only add cost and bureaucracy - neither of which is in the taxpayers' best interests."
Because Angel said her bill would not receive a hearing in the Democratic-controlled House, Benton said he offered to introduce it in the Senate, which is controlled by a Republican-leaning majority coalition that includes two Democrats.
___
The drug testing measures are Senate Bill 5585 and House Bill 1190.
The bill will have its first public hearing before a Senate committee Thursday. It would require applicants whom case workers have determined have a drug problem to undergo a drug test and participate in a treatment program to receive the monthly cash grant that is part of the state's temporary assistance for needy families program, known as TANF.
"I think taxpayers want to make darn sure the money is going for groceries for the kids and not for dope," said Sen. Don Benton, a Republican from Vancouver who is sponsoring the Senate bill. "I think the taxpayers have a right to confirm that."
Though the numbers vary year by year, as of June, between 121,000 and 134,000 people received an average monthly payment of $373 through TANF. To be eligible, applicants must either have a child or be pregnant and meet certain income requirements. For example, a family of three that has earnings of less than $955 each month would be eligible for cash assistance from TANF.
Washington is among nearly two dozen states that have introduced bills this year to require some form of drug testing for public assistance recipients, according to Rochelle Finzel with the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Seven states have such laws on the books, but some that have passed blanket welfare drug-testing laws have faced legal challenges amid constitutional concerns.
Florida passed a welfare drug-testing program in 2011, but it's on hold after a challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing the case. The implementation of a law passed by Georgia last year also is on hold, with officials there saying they're awaiting the outcome of the Florida case.
In 1999, a drug-testing program in Michigan was halted after five weeks and eventually ended with an appeals court ruling it was unconstitutional.
Additional states require individuals with felony drug convictions to comply with drug-testing requirements to be eligible for assistance. Others, including Washington state, have an interview screening process that does not include a drug test, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Republican Rep. Jan Angel of Port Orchard has introduced a companion bill to the Senate measure in the House. She said that because of the constitutional issues raised in other states, she modeled her bill on the measure approved last year in Utah, which requires only those shown through a questionnaire to have a "reasonable likelihood" that they're using drugs to take a drug test.
As in the Washington state measure, applicants in Utah who fail the drug test can continue receiving benefits while seeking treatment. Utah's law took effect in August.
"I look at this as two sides of a coin," Angel said. "Help the family be able to meet their needs and feed their children, and get help to the person who needs it because of the drug addiction."
Currently, the state Department of Social and Health Services determines during a face-to-face interview whether an applicant has a drug problem. If so, the applicant is given a referral they must attend where a determination on treatment is decided, said Babs Roberts, director of the DSHS community services division.
If the applicant fails to follow up with the referral or treatment plan, they receive reduced benefits for up to four months, during which time case managers continue to work with them. If they still don't comply after four months, their benefits are terminated.
Roberts said some clients are drug-tested if they're in a treatment program where testing is part of that plan.
Angel said that because there's no state requirement for an initial drug test, "people can fall through the cracks."
Under her measure, the Department of Social and Health Services must create a drug-testing program that would be paid for by the state.
If the applicant is assessed as having a drug problem and refuses to take the test, they are put on a probationary status and receive only a portion of their benefit for four months. After that, if they still refuse to take the drug test and receive treatment, benefits are ended and they can't reapply for 28 days.
Applicants who agree to take the initial test and treatment would be subject to subsequent drug tests and face the same probationary period and possible termination of benefits if they fail or refuse to take the test.
Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee opposes the measure, as does the state ACLU.
Alison Holcomb, drug policy director for the ACLU of Washington, said the bill is unclear on exactly what triggers the drug testing requirement, which she says raises questions about adequate due process.
Rep. Ruth Kagi, a Democrat from Shoreline who is chairwoman of the House Early Learning and Human Services Committee, wrote in a House Democratic blog post that the measure was a "solution looking for a problem."
"Our state can and does cut people off assistance if they have a substance abuse problem and do not get treatment," she wrote. "Adding an actual drug test would only add cost and bureaucracy - neither of which is in the taxpayers' best interests."
Because Angel said her bill would not receive a hearing in the Democratic-controlled House, Benton said he offered to introduce it in the Senate, which is controlled by a Republican-leaning majority coalition that includes two Democrats.
___
The drug testing measures are Senate Bill 5585 and House Bill 1190.
Bravo, Senator Benton and all the other legislaturers brave enough to take this on. I have to be drug tested to work (and have no qualms about it) ergo all those that don't work should also be tested.  This is no little matter, folks! After 35 years in healthcare, I am exhausted by all the lies from drug seekers and 4th generation welfare patients who leech off of society. Time to find out who really deserves our hard earned money that funds welfare! ps: Drug testing is already a fully functioning system through labs - no need to reinvent the wheel on this one. Protocols are in place along with chain of custody etc etc. Those that protest have something perhaps to hide....
Oh another thought what happens if somoene cleans themselves up do we then let them back on assistance? What if they were just better at hiding it this time and get caught next time? It is just an endless circle that will never save money. There are many other things that could be done, but wont due to corporate interests to solve this problem.
While I like the over all idea of this, I think we have to consider a few things.
1) What is the cost per drug test?
2) Who administers the drug test?
3) How often is the drug test administered?
4) What kind of lead time are people going to have before coming in for a test?
Once we have that it should give us an accurate cost to see if it is worth it. My other concern is that with all the products on the market (along with the vast conventional ways) to clean urine will the cost be worth it. How long does it take for THC to get out of the system?
I believe the costs will greatly out weigh the benefit.
Another thought along those same lines.
Should other luxury items such as tobacco and booze be monitored as well? Those are in as much need as drugs, ie not, and could be argued to have a wider adoption rate.
The people I have known that have been on welfare were not there by choice. They saw it as a temporary safety net. Anyone who is guilty of abusing the system needs to be dealt with.
Okay, so we are going to test the assistance receivers that drugs are a problem. But what about funding those treatment programs? And if a person that has kids does test positive for whatever drug is the most hated of the week. Do we toss those kids in the system even deeper or just cut them off from all assistance. I really believe before you make this kind of law about testing that you strengthen the safety net under that system to catch all the ones that are going to be affected. This bull of putting the cart before the horse seems rather senseless.
I would like to say that i approve of it. Â i personally work in a field where drug testing for employment is normal, but have worked in several fields in the past where it was not. Â I did time in the military, and i've also lived a life of drugs and alcohol as well. Â I'd like to think my personal experiences in life justify my opinion on the matter, but I understand that others may disagree. Â I'm a hard working, single father in a professional field that I had to truly fight for a position in. Â I have a mortgage, child support, daycare, all the regular bills that many of us have in life. Â I'm honestly just barely making it anymore. Â But, I am making it, which is more than some can say. Â That being said, I get 1/3 of my paycheck taken for taxes. Â Where's my break? Â It's upsetting to me knowing that I can barely afford to pay my bills, my car is 20 years old, i don't have fancy shoes, fancy cel phone, nice wheels on my car, i couldn't afford to drink even if i wanted to, but it's ok to continue to raise my taxes. Â For the first time in my life this year I OWE the IRS instead of getting a tax return, and my claim of dependents hasn't changed at all. Â Go figure, huh? Â But I continue to take it in stride, because my father and my grandfather taught me to keep my nose to the grindstone and keep working. Â So for me the idea of lessening the burden on us taxpayers to support other's bad habits just makes sense. Â And I really don't feel it is unconstitutional. Â The only one who would have the nerve to say it is obviously has something to lose. Â Furthermore, there are many jobs out there that only drug test after an incident happens. Â To me, that means that as long as your recreations don't spill over into your professional life, than there should be no problem. Â In a perfect world, if we as humans had the ability to be responsible with our actions then i don't think it would matter if they chose to use drugs in their own time, but if your children are suffering, if you cannot pay your bills, if you are committing unlawful acts, then obviously it has reached that point. Â And if you are collecting financial assistance, and you are of able body or mind to work, then there is no excuse for not being able to pass a drug test. Â Some say it's to separate us, to point fingers, etc. but I feel it's to keep us all on the same page and hold ourselves to a higher standard. Â and yes, by all means some just simply do not want to work. Â But why should they be allowed to piss away all my hard earned money? Â Tell that to my son who can't get everything he wants because i'm busy paying for someone else's children who won't. Â
welfare exists and was intended for a hand up not a handout.  it has become a way of life for many.  if regular employees test for drugs then why  shouldn't  welfare recipients be forced to test for their money.  i put on my boots every day and go to work even if it is only for an hour.  i bust my butt for a shot at the dream.  if someone needs a hand up i am good with that..  but i should not have to pay for someone to sit on welfare and be able to drink smoke do drugs and continue to have babies with out reprisal on my dime without pulling on their boots , ever!  consider, if you take criminals (drug addicts) off of welfare how much money can be redirected to those single parents who have fallen on hard times at no fault  of their own.  its about the children isn't it?
I don't think welfare could handle another law they can't seem to keep up with what's on their plates now
This is definitely not a solution looking for a problem. The problem exists and the taxpayers are paying for this. This would also sort out families where the children are being exposed to drug abuse and therefore being abused. Almost every person applying for a job must take a drug test. The same should be true of those who want to live off the taxpayers.
cut off welfare for anyone who isn't injured, has birth defects, or is aged. All able bodied people have to at least feed themselves....oh yeah,,,, and anyone who is freakin' illegal!
So say unemployment is at 8% . Are you giving up your job to make room?
You  don't want the government to interfere unless of course you want the government to interfere.  Make up your mind.
@keri555 I'd actually the government NOT interfere and just stop welfare altogether. Â
Sure test the welfare recipients. After all, they are guilty of being out of work, some being so because of disability, and some because of simply no jobs around for them. And don't forget, that many employers have publicly stated that they will "not" hire the long term unemployed. But I would suggest that they also drug test, randomly of course, all the politicians, and the Wall Streeters who were involved in the financial collapse. This does not support the few who are actually simply lazy and drug abusers anyway.
@WSims007 I know plenty of people who have milked the system and live in public housing, use food stamps, and collect welfare. That should NEVER be allowed to happen. Whats the incentive to ever try for yourself? It may not be a glamorous lifestyle, but its a free lifestyle.
And whats wrong with making sure people who are collecting my money aren't using drugs?
@Dredd57Â @WSims007 And in the sum total, how many nationally are "milking the system"? And how many CEO's are milking the consumers, the government, etc.? We have many figures of authority, police, politicians, etc., what's would be wrong in having them take drug tests? And now, what about our "Fourth Amendment"? Has it been repealed, or are they just going to totally ignore that and say, even if "randomly", you will submit?
@Dredd57Â @WSims007Â Â
Buying from corporations has nothing to do with this. With exception for those who used unethical/illegal processes in concern to mortgage loans. As for those who you claim already are under "random testing", good, but t6his is not what is being proposed. When, you provide the proof, have the elected officials been subject to random tests?Â
The Fourth Amendment DOES apply. The welfare folks have committed no crime, and as such need not prove themselves innocent of that. For the drug test to be administered, one needs to either sign off on acceptance, or have been caught in a crime. They are neither.
@WSims007 @Dredd57 Nobody forces you to buy products from a corporation. For instance, I think Apple is a rip-off, therefore, I do not buy Apple products. Simple right?
 Nearly every public servant DOES take a drug test. I know many police departments have random drug screenings that also include steroids.
 Fourth Amendment does not apply here because you aren't forced to apply for welfare. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
@Dredd57Â @WSims007Â What stops people from cheating on their taxes?
@Seattleisaslew Its better than nothing isn't it? Â
Under this plan they can continue for life as long as they pass a pee test. Not much of a fix is it?
@Seattleisaslew @Dredd57 @WSims007 lol, leave them alone? deadbeats are being handed my money and I'm supposed to be just fine with that? You can't be serious.
@Dredd57 @Seattleisaslew @WSims007 Then leave them alone. Maybe your fix should be better and more often  audits but then that's more money. Sure beats spending it upon unconstitutional bandaids though.
@Seattleisaslew @Dredd57 @WSims007 Turn them in for what? Legally they aren't breaking any laws. Leeching is not a crime. Its a flaw in the system. That's why I'm for completely dismantling welfare or only allowing short-term use of it.
@Dredd57 @Seattleisaslew @WSims007 Turn them in. Otherwise you just sound jealous.
@Seattleisaslew @Dredd57 @WSims007 Oh please, I've never heard of anyone getting kicked off of welfare except for one couple living in a mansion.
 I know a family who's been leaching for nearly 20 years. The only way they'd ever get booted is if they started working and filed tax returns showing they made too much money.
@Dredd57 @Seattleisaslew @WSims007 Bingo. Which is what they do to welfare recipients as we speak. Audits and the threat of jail time.
@Seattleisaslew @Dredd57 @WSims007 Nothing physically stops a person from cheating on his/her taxes. The threat of an audit and/or jail time psychologically may stop someone. What is your point?
4th Amendment rights insure the right to unlawful search and seizure. Â If they have evidence you are a drug user, they have the right to drug test you, if they don't have evidence it's against the law. Â Drug testing everyone is against the law. Â Figure out if you are for the constitution or not because if you upheld the constitution of the United States of America you would never suggest this EVER.
@keri555 It isn't a 4th Am violation to set requirements for eligibility, such as a drug test, in order for you to obtain a *gift* given to you from your neighbors.
@keri555 4th Amendment doesn't apply in this case because applying for welfare is voluntary. Jesus.
@Dredd57Â @keri555Â So if you are voluntary applying for a business license they have the right to drug test you?
@keri555 @Dredd57 If by "we" you mean the taxpayers, then yes. If you are referring to the welfare recipients, then NO, they don't pay for it. It really is free for them.
@Dredd57Â Â Welfare is not free we pay for it.
@keri555Â @Dredd57 Is the city giving me free money for applying for a business license?
@keri555 What don't you understand about voluntary? No one is drug testing at random here. People are applying for Welfare and should volunteer to a drug test. If they do not - no Welfare. This is not rocket science folks. This is accountability.
I would really like to see them get some of these people working and off the welfare rolls. Anyone who has been on welfare for 10 or 15 years needs to at least work part time if nothing else. People down on their luck need a handup not a lifetime handout. Living on welfare shouldn't be a lifetime right of anyone.
Unless they are also going to have a drug treatment option for those who test positive, then it will only make things worse. An addict that loses welfare benefits for testing positive is an addict who will rob and steal to make up for what was lost from the denial of welfare.
@Superman_1967 Don't drug treatment options already exist for those who cannot afford it? I would expect there is... but again, I don't have a drug problem. So by your logic... just continue to give the $$ away as to prevent crime - brilliant! I don't have a problem with a hand up. I have a problem with a hand out. Welfare should never become a lifestyle. Along with it.. there should be stipulations and accountability. It's about time that this be considered before Welfare is extended.Â
Out GD Standing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Watch the millions you save when all the Wellfare freaks test positive and you take thier benefits away. Another question, what happens when they test positiver for Mary Jane?
If they test positive for MJ, they had better have a legitmate RX from a Dr. and a condition that warrants the treatment.
@GimmaPam True, but what about Washing ton State making it legal for everyone, but the Feds at this time says no.
@dkgiovenco If you're on Welfare, or any public assistance program, you should not be spending your money on drugs, you should be taking care of your kids and working to get off public assistance.
@domino While I agree, but for over 30 years I have seen just that. Welfare, and public assistance programs are great to use on a short term basis as needed. BUT there are professional welfare, and public assistance program users, they use drugs like there is no tomorrow. They test positive, they are done.
Hey, great use of state resources! This puts Washington right up there with Georgia, Florida and other red states. Better idea: Drug test lawmakers voting for this.
The last thing this state needs is to model ANYTHING this state does after Utah.
Leave it to a "fiscal Conservative" to come up with a plan to cost the State more money. Wow. not much though went in to that. Â
Congress needs a drug test.
@IslandAtheist Something we can somewhat agree on...or at least a major flushing!
Finally something that makes sense.Â
For those who are already fretting this, well, tough luck