We have already used a sampling strategy to demonstrate that this isn't a problem. This is just a play on people's incorrect impressions of what types of people are out of work and a favor to the drug testing industry.

I am much more concerned about drug use among legislators at the local, state, and federal level than I am about welfare recipients' drug use.

It's been shown in several states that this is a waste of state taxpayer money which could be used to better effect in other programs.

People born into and stuck in the cycle of poverty are inherently more susceptible to falling victim to drug abuse. Instead of punishing them as criminals, we need to see them as victims who need help getting out of the cycle of drug abuse. Instead, you want to kick them while they're down? Spend a week in the shoes of someone stuck in a seemingly endless cycle of despair due to poverty, illness and under-privilege, then tell me it's fair to spend taxpayer dollars to punish the victimized portion of the US populace.

Drug test wall street too. They get corporate welfare. Stop picking on the poor.

drug test billionaires first

Results show that screening welfare recipients is a waste of money!

Florida tried this and it was struck down as unconstitutional as unlawful search and seizure. It netted less than 1% of applicants and punishes the children.

This is an absolute waste of money for people already complaining that the costs of welfare are too high.

Testing people who are on unemployment benefits is a huge waste of time and money in addition to being insulting and humiliating to people who are already down on their luck.

Studies show testing welfare recipients is a waste of money. Very few welfare recipients use drugs. This program is used to profit testing corporations who get tax payer money and results in higher costs, because the vast majority of tests are negative.

Where this has already been done, it's established that the rate of drug use is LOWER than in the general population; the stereotype of the unemployed being deserving of suspicion is indefensible. I don't see anyone pushing for testing college students who receive federal financial aid to ensure that they are not using drugs or consuming alcohol under age. Why the difference in treatment, if we're so worried about our dollars going to someone who might be breaking the law?

This is a proven waste of money and is immoral.

So, if people who receive money from the government are going to be required to be drug tested then wouldn't our House and Senate members who also receive government issued heath care and paychecks need to be drug tested as well?

This is an expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist. States that have done this have spent a lot of money to find almost no drug users. It's a distraction, and a costly one at that.

Where is the probable cause to support such an unreasonable search?

What data is there to suggest that there is a higher rate of drug use with welfare receivers than there is with non-welfare receivers?