Let's Kick 'em While They're Down

The idea of a policy which mandates welfare recipients to pass a urine test in order to receive their monthly check is becoming an ever increasing view. In short, the argument says that because many people on government assistance use their benefits to obtain and abuse illegal or prescription drugs they should be mandated to take urine screens before receiving their check. The primary concern is with the use and allocation of US tax dollars in a way that allows those on assistance to obtain and abuse illegal drugs. Moreover, the solution proposed by the supporters of this view, mandating urinalyses for those who are on assistance, is based on a false assumption that says a problematic proportion of the people who receive welfare benefits are drug users. There has yet to be a reliable source that shows that a substantial amount of welfare beneficiaries are drug users or drug abusers. Moreover, the explanation of "I deal with it and see it every day" is a common justification, but it only highlights a certain environmental or geographical locale within the United States and therefore does nothing but block the path to a better understanding of the problem.

In this analysis, it is shown that the majority of the people in the US who abuse drugs, in fact, do not receive any type of government assistance. Moreover, the misallocation of tax funds this view’s group is concerned with would best be addressed by increasing the intensity of investigations and police action within the population not on assistance. Furthermore, targeting the population on government assistance would lead to monetary inefficiency, an increase in class stigmatization, and ultimately an overall decrease in moral hazard.

CASH VERSUS COUPONS

Modern economic theory shows that awarding cash to the poor is better than awarding coupons mandating what they can buy. If the cash is given, then the consumer can buy a wider variety of products. If they are given a coupon for only food or only a jacket, they can only buy what the coupons mandate them to buy.

So, in modern economic theory (that's the right-wing, republican, conservative economic theory), giving the poor cash is more efficient than giving them food stamps / coupon mandates. If they weren't given cash, then coupons would be distributed. Once coupons are distributed, there needs to be more subsidies to support both the printing of the coupons and the products for which the coupons are used. That just means higher taxes

Now, we get into good ole left-wing, democratic, liberal economic theory - which is (in its extreme) the poor receive no money, only coupons for the products they are mandated to use / buy. This would allow them to not buy drugs, but only what the government mandates them to buy. Most economists go with the all cash theory because, well, no one wants to support a communistic idea. Today the US supports both, although there aren't actual food stamps anymore.

According to this view presented, and the reasoning behind it, there needs to be an equaling. If the purpose is to stamp out those who can, theoretically, sit around and soak up the benefits of our tax dollars, then it must also be mandated that all beneficiaries of government payouts which come from taxes also need to take drug screens. Therefore, those who receive checks for unemployment, those who are government bond holders - both domestic and foreign investors, anyone receiving an economic stimulus package, anyone adult choosing to go back to school and not work, all non-active church members - not clergy because they work (assuming the church is a non-profit), all government employees on their payed vacation should be screened on each payday, my tax dollars are paying for it - they are not working during this time and there is no absolute right to a paid vacation.

 WHAT'S THE REAL QUESTION?

The point I'm trying to make is that many people make this argument, but when the same exact situation is put into a different context it sounds absurd. All of the examples given might be working on something else, but didn't explicitly "earn" per se the tax dollars allotted to them. Just as the welfare beneficiaries may not be working at a job, but they may be working by looking for a job. But the poor seeking a job isn't implied - the poor receiving government assistance are always - always - portrayed as lazy and good for nothing. So, I agree that there are a few bad apples - there always is, but I have to disagree that those bad apples are the identity of the majority of the people on assistance.

At the end of this note is the most up to date, peer-reviewed study published so far on recipients of tax-derived transfer payments and drug use/abuse. One thing to note, the issue doesn't lie in illegal drug abuse, the largest problem within the beneficiary 'community' is with alcohol. Also, the numbers derived from the study streamline (are about the same) the percentage of abusers in the general population. By a process of elimination we can logically infer that those abusers who work and are not on assistance, on average, have more money to spend on illegal substances.

This brings up a few questions:

1) What is the primary concern of mandating drug tests?

2) Why should those who spend less money overall on illegal drug use be the target, why not target those who behave the same way as those on assistance do (the study shows that), but have more money, overall, to spend on illegal drugs?

3) If tax dollars supporting an 'immoral act' are the primary concern, then why not target one rich person, like a political figure instead of trying to target an entire population? I have a whole slew of examples that exemplify one person squandering US tax dollars away for an immoral cause - an amount superseding the aggregate of welfare benefits. That in itself would curb immoral acts as much as drug testing would. It would also save more on taxes than mandating a drug test for welfare recipients, which might (IMO 'will') put more of a stigma on receiving assistance - demeaning those who apply and/or receive.

4) If the reason behind mandating drug tests for recipients isn't because of curbing drug abuse (or alcoholism if you wanted to make the greatest impact) and it isn't because US tax dollars are supporting a societal moral hazard, then what is it?



This study was performed throughout the US and should not reflect anomalies in specific geographical locations.


http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/NewsReleases/welfare.htm

SUMMARY OF MY FEELINGS

I just think that this problem can be better solved (spending the less money) by targeting a smaller population that is the foundation of the problem. For example, if you target the doctors who are known to provide prescriptions illegally, then the total number of people you are 'catching' decreases drastically - thus saving more money, and in my opinion getting to the root of the problem. If the Doctors who do this are targeted, then you slowly eliminate the places that can provide prescriptions for abuse. Moreover, you get around adding to the negative stigma that those using government funds are 'needy drug dealers abusing our tax dollars.' Additionally, you would also be targeting more of the people who actually contribute to the problem. This would also simplify - as much as it can be simplified - the problem.

This not only targets drug users on state benefits, but it also targets those who are not on assistance and spending their money on illegal drug use - bringing down a larger portion of the population. So, I disagree with those who think the issue is and can be solved with the targeting of everyone on state assistance. I believe in targeting those who are the closest to the source, like doctors, and regulating materials like Claritin that are used to make illegal drugs domestically.  This would prove to be more efficient and 'morally right' than mandating drug tests for those who, on the most part, are innocent. Additionally, I think that targeting the sources or those closest to the sources of the illegal action has a larger impact and covers a larger portion of the US population - breaking down geographical barriers and anomalies that might exist, ultimately allocating our tax dollars more efficiently and not stigmatizing an entire population.

I guess I just I see this issue in a different way. It just seems to me that taking the stance to only target the drug use of welfare beneficiaries and not the largest contributing population - those not on assistance - is like saying "it's okay to do drugs, just not with tax dollars," which to me is absurd because it oppresses a group with a tendency of being generationally poor (which is a sociological phenomena and not because they're lazy), it makes the entire issue of drug abuse about whose money goes where and not about the welfare of the people wrapped up in it.  Not only that, it targets a minority of the "problem" population. Therefore, leaving no concern for the public's perception of those on assistance.

It's demeaning in the sense that only a portion (around 5%) of those on assistance are buying and using illegal drugs. The same percentage of those not on assistance are drug users. Focusing on the population that do not use assistance would make a larger impact without making the 95% who don't use drugs feel like criminals. I think that it comes down to the simple fact that people are more worried about where their tax money is being spent than they are about nipping the problem in the bud. The fact is, a greater proportion of illegal drug users are in the population that aren't on assistance. With that said, because the greatest amount of activity is in this population the greatest focus should remain there.  Moreover, because a greater portion of the population that abuses drugs are not on assistance, it is actually inefficient to mandate urinalyses for all beneficiaries.

So why target the population that contributes the least of the two?

I think those who hold to this view think that the allocation of their tax dollars are more important than increasing the general health of society. Is Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" the Democrats of society? Possibly.

I think it is ironic because if the majority of the population that abuses drugs are in fact not on assistance and there needs to be an increase in law enforcement to support the fight against illegal drug use, where does the money come from to do this? Taxes. So shifting your focus to the people on assistance in order to better allocate tax dollars is not the best approach. The best way to efficiently allocate your tax dollars is to combat illegal drug abuse within the general population.

So, I think we should continue to combat illegal drugs by increasing the intensity of what we're already doing. Taxes will increase relative to how much of the stuff we want to get off of the streets - the magnitude of the increase depends on the person paying the taxes. But, there is always a cost and fighting illegal drugs isn't cheap, so taxes will more than likely increase. Unless you make all drugs legal, then the dealers would be choked out from extremely low prices for high grade drugs. But that's too radical of an idea for the conservative American to even entertain.