Is Welfare Drug Testing Legal?

By now, most Americans are aware of the controversial Florida legislation that would require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing as a condition of receiving benefits.

Detractors, such as the ACLU and Navy veteran, Luis Lebron, filed suit against the state of Florida. Lebron and the ACLU pose the argument that “pissing” welfare recipients constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment – more specifically-- the issue of “unlawful search and seizure.”

Shortly after filing suit, U.S. Federal District Judge Mary Scriven imposed a temporary injunction against the practice.

From a constitutional aspect, Welfare assistance is not a constitutional right, but rather a collection of voluntary programs, regulated by Federal and state authorities. Despite a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court (Dandridge v. Williams), Judge Scriven appears to question the already affirmed – the state and Federal authorities are granted the latitude to impose regulations concerning such programs.

This latitude is expressed each and every time a welfare recipient or applicant is asked to provide private banking statements, job history reports, pay stubs, utility bills, proof of assets, etc.

What is purpose of collecting all of this personal information?

Certainly the government doesn't collect your personal documents and history for recreational light reading purposes, or to “abuse,” let alone “discriminate” against you.

Understandably, this common type of “intrusion” is designed to prevent dishonest persons from abusing the system. The government, as well as the taxpayers, want the funds to be used effectively and properly.

Based on principle, which is worse? Having the government know your shopping habits, via banking statements, or letting them examine a cup of pee?

Neither sound like a palatable proposition in this writer's opinion.

However, these are the consequences associated with trading your liberty for a sense of security. When it comes to seeking extended or temporary help from big government, or even a family member, persons on the receiving end are subject to some level of vetting and/or conditions.

Why is that?

Because Grandma wants to help; not enable bad behavior—with the bad behavior being you using the received help for things that it wasn't intended for.

In keeping with Grandma's wisdom, a growing number of tax payers desire more layers of accountability from welfare recipients.

Because welfare programs are voluntary, recipients have the right not to take a urine test or provide such personal information on demand at the request of the government.

The catch is -- you will have to rely on the well-meaning and direct help from your family, as well as those in your community, that will hold you to a higher and more personal standard of accountability; instead of being subjected to government rules and regulation.

The bright side is that Grandma knows that you're basically a good person that's just going through a hard time. I'm sure she won't ask you to tally the value of the contents in your apartment, or ask you submit bodily waste samples to prove what she personally already knows.

However, the tax payers, like Grandma, are understandably a little more skeptical of persons they are not able to meet or know face-to-face.