Virginia Legislature Latest To Advance Drug Testing The Poor And Unemployed

Virginia Republicans are the latest to advance drug testing for the poor and jobless as a half-dozen bills requiring the needy and unemployed to prove they're not on drugs move through the state legislature.

More than 30 states in the past year have considered legislation to require drug tests for welfare recipients, and several have also targeted unemployment claimants. Virginia State Sen. Richard Black (R), a sponsor of drug testing, told HuffPost he's not surprised by the surge of interest.

"Frankly, I think the use of drugs for some people is the reason they are unemployed," Black said. "I don't believe that taxpayers have an obligation to pay for recreational drug use ... And I think if a person has the money to pay for illicit drugs, then they have the money to support themselves."

Over objections by Virginia House Democrats, the Committee on Health and Welfare Institutions on Tuesday approved one of several bills that would require welfare recipients to be screened in order to qualify for assistance.

The bill would require every person on public assistance in Virginia to be evaluated to determine the likelihood that they are on drugs. Anyone who aroused suspicion in an initial screening would have to submit to a drug test or be thrown off public assistance for one year. The law would allow those with positive results to attend an approved drug treatment program.

Delegate Lionell Spruill, a Democrat on the health and welfare committee, said he strongly opposed the bill. "All the Democrats on the committee voted no, and one Republican voted no with us," Spruill said. "We believe it's wrong, and we believe it's illegal to do so."

Many drug testing opponents have cited a federal judge's injunction halting a similar law in Florida last October. The judge said the law likely violated the Constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Black said he thinks the Virginia law will hold up to a constitutional test partly because military personnel are already required to submit to random drug testing.

"Everybody had to submit to it, I had to submit to it even as a senior officer," Black said. "If people who defend the nation can be required to submit to drug tests, then certainly people who are asking for the public largess can do as such."

Drug testing bills have not yet been introduced in the Senate, but Black said he'll support them when they do.

The Virginia House Committee on Commerce and Labor is looking at two separate bills that would require people on unemployment to pass a drug test before they could collect their checks. The bills differ on who would be tested and how the bills would be paid for. Currently, no state requires drug testing as a condition of receiving unemployment insurance.

According to Fredricksberg.com, Delegate Margaret Ransone (R) proposed HB 148, a bill that would require everyone on unemployment in the state to pay for and submit a drug test to the Virginia Employment Commission. She said the tests could be seen as a resume builder for the unemployed.

"It's really good to have the character skills," Ransone said. "It's just a good notion to consider that quality in a person that they're not using drugs."

Ransone said it wouldn't cost the state money because the unemployed would pay for their own tests, but the state's tax department released a statement contradicting the delegate.

The department estimates that the new law could cost Virginians upwards of $1 million because of the time and extra staff required to sort through and notify all 402,404 unemployment recipients of their status.

HB 562, proposed by Delegate Daniel Marshall (R), would require the unemployed to be screened for possible drug use and tested only if they are suspected of using. Marshall's bill also differs from Ransone's because Virginia would foot the bill for the tests.

State Sen. Linda Puller (D) said Virginia law already does not allow people who are fired for drug use to collect unemployment. Such is the case in 20 states, according to the National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy group.

Puller said, "I don't know that there is any reason to suspect that unemployment recipients use drugs."

Comments

[tntmcgovern]

04:08 PM on 02/10/2012

If the GOP wants to drug test welfare recipients, they will also have to provide them with photo ids and fingerprint them. Otherwise, anyone can show up for a drug test for someone else. How much would all of this cost the government? I thought the GOP was for decreasing the size of government, reduce spending and cutting the budget... Maybe they own stock in drug testing companies.

[Whisper Love Gray]

10:41 PM on 02/13/2012

It will cost about $30 a person. If that one person fails a test, and just saved the State $2400 in unnecessary payment in a years time .. its worth it.

[tntmcgovern]

01:03 AM on 02/14/2012

Not true.

The average cost to run a drug test on an analyzer is about $42 per person tested, which does not include the costs of hiring personnel to administer the tests, to ensure confidentiality of results and to run confirmatory tests to guard against false positives resulting from passive drug exposure, cross-identification with legal, prescription drugs such as codeine and legal substances such as poppy seeds. When you add in those additional costs, the drug screen actually costs approximately $98.00 per person.

Another way to measure the cost of drug testing is by counting what it costs to actually “catch” each drug user. Mandatory drug testing is not used by many private employers because of the exorbitant cost of catching each person who tests positive. One private employer tested 10,000 employees and only 50 of them tested positive for drugs. They spent $980,000 to catch 50 people.

Not cost effective.

[Jackflash77]

12:22 AM on 02/04/2012

The simple solution to keep welfare recipients honest, while not violating their civil rights, would be to not allow cash withdrawals on welfare debit cards, but instead have them used as purchase cards. Here, welfare poor could buy anything they wish ( the card working like anyone else's when used as a credit card) , except items restricted by the government, considered luxuries and vice items. A percentage of their welfare money could be allowed as a cash withdrawal for cash incidentals needed each month. Say 20 %. This would be fare to working taxpayers who wish the poor to not suffer, yet also don't wish them to buy fur coats and gold jewelry on the taxpayers account.

[derkinssg]

04:57 AM on 02/02/2012

Simple solution- attach a rider stating that the same requirements must be met by all elected government officials for their entire term/ employment. Per Black, the proposed law is justified because the military requires such testing. If that is so, then elected officials, who are paid by the gov't for doing a job just like military personnel are, have no excuse for not meeting the same standards.

I guarantee that this legislation would disappear forever in a hot second should such a rider be added, long before the first state big wig had to pee in a cup in front of an 'official observer' to make sure they didn't fake the sample. Gawd, I love hypocrisy!

[Whisper Love Gray]

10:43 PM on 02/13/2012

I agree.. My husband is just a 'Joe Worker' , but he has to pee in a cup for employment.. why not those who make the laws ! Its great thinking, and I hope to see this soon.. in all areas.. Let Justice commence !

[wed61071]

01:45 PM on 01/30/2012

Just another case of Republicans living in a bubble where no information/facts get through. This program has already proven to be a huge failure in the state of Florida.
It was proven that between 96-98% of applicants PASSED the drug test!
Further, after crunching the numbers, analysts found that the state will spend around $170 MILLION to save $60,000. All introduced by their "fiscally conservative" Republican/Tea Party Governor.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/08/98_of_florida_welfare_applicants_pass_newly_implemented_drug_tests_discrediting_governor.html

Given these FACTS, we can revisit my opening point that Republicans do, indeed, live in a bubble where no information seems to get through. They'll keep introducing these bills on the state level in the name of fiscal concern, all the while ignoring their flawed logic and ignorant views on people in need. Let's not forget the entire time, that they will cry "Obama is ruining Florida's economy," all while throwing away $170 Million per year on a program based upon prejudice.

[Whisper Love Gray]

10:50 PM on 02/13/2012

HEHEHHE.. I have to chuckle that you think its a failure.. Even if 2% of those that actually did the VOLUNTARY samples failed.. its still a HUGE savings over a year. Crunch the numbers.. You spend $30 to test someone and they fail.. that one person was only going to get $270 a month for a year in food and support.. well that's still $3240 a year that was just retained by the government for that one that failed.. No one can measure the amount of people that choose not to comply with the testing and decided it wasn't worth it for them.. Why not try Googling the 'facts' before you side with the liars.

[wed61071]

03:06 PM on 02/16/2012

Here’s some advice. When entering a debate, try to offer the sources of your information like I did in my first comment. That way, people have an opportunity to, I don’t know, verify the information and it won't just look like some idiot coming up with numbers out of thin air.

Try to do it like this:

The data is in. 98% of welfare recipients passed the drug tests, costing the state of Florida $30,000 - $40,000 a month in testing while saving the state $3,400 - $5,000 a month in denied welfare payments.
http://www.iberianet.com/forum/florida-s-welfare-drug-tests-results/article_cf30abce-d181-11e0-aa9c-001871e39d26.html

Net savings to the state — $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Whisper_Love_Gray/unemployment-drug-testing-virginia-legislature_n_1228597_134791868.html

[wed61071]

03:11 PM on 02/16/2012

Here's a mathematics lesson for you. When doing any sort of calculation, by leaving out a critical piece of the equation, you will most certainly end up with the wrong answer. This is what you are doing by not including the true cost of the program ($170 million + cost of reimbursing the fees for negative tests)

So, follow your own advice and GOOGLE it. Do like I did. I googled "success of drug testing on welfare applicants in Florida." You will be surprised to find that it's very difficult to find an actual success story.

I suggest you either:

1. Include all variables in your mathematics or you will NEVER get the correct answer, or
2. Leave the debates to the capable.

Here's another link that I got from, you guessed it, GOOGLE. This may help explain why you are like you are:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html?ref=mostpopular

[richodg5]

09:26 AM on 01/30/2012

Hey folks, It's up to us to end this madness. There are more of us than them. One day the masses will figure it out. Oh and you can bet if there is a way they will do it.

[bchenson]

10:00 PM on 01/29/2012

If they start drug testing everyone, where will I go for my crabs and beer on the 1st and 15th of the month. Puff puff pass MF.

[wisdom42]

09:40 AM on 01/29/2012

People kill me with their hypocrital comments like test the unemployed,test the people getting benefits, but lets remember unemployment is money u pay from ur paycheck in case u lose ur job so it is ur money that u previously worked for and is owed to u. the same people who r for it has a job now but they will be applying for the same benefits when they lose their jobs so get over it dont let the government control everything we do WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!

[1shadow1]

04:44 PM on 02/02/2012

You do not pay unemployment from your paycheck. It is a tax on the employer.

[jimshomephone]

12:17 PM on 01/28/2012

All the democrats have to do is attach a rider stating that everyone that wants to purchase a firearm must also submit to a drug test, and this thing will disappear in a heartbeat.

[jimshomephone]

12:05 PM on 01/28/2012

Michigan tried this in 2003 and it was struck down by the courts. All these fools are doing is wasting time on an issue that will be declared unconstitutional under the 4th amendment, and will not save the state any money. Almost 75% of illegal drug users are employed full time.

[Whisper Love Gray]

10:53 PM on 02/13/2012

No one is going door to door and demanding people to piss in a cup. If you want a driver's license you MUST pass an Eye exam.. is that now Unconstitutional ? This is a completely Voluntary thing, if you want something bad enough you will do it !

[gmb007]

12:21 PM on 01/27/2012

I've long suspected that the Kings of Wall Street celebrate their victories with coke.

Step right up, Blankfein, you're first.

Pee in the cup.

[bcrice]

12:35 AM on 01/27/2012

Drug test are a joke anyway, a total sham. They can only actually detect marijuana more than 8 hours after taking a drug. So any of the actually bad drugs you can simply abstain for a day and pass your test. Piece of cake. But weed can be detected for weeks after use, and it is completely harmless if not actually beneficial to your health since it is legally used as medicine in many states now.

These "tests" are nothing more than another attempt to unfairly ruin pot smoker's lives. Leave it to the hypocritical GOP (lol the irony) to continue to try and barge into your private life in any way they can.

[Gabriel22]

04:30 PM on 01/26/2012

lol is this a joke? This might pass in a Conservative state on the east but would never have a chance, hear in the West or the West Coast

[Dee Amschler]

03:57 PM on 01/26/2012

How many times does this have to be declared unconstitutional for states to get the hint? Testing someone simply because they're poor enough (or simply unemployed) to qualify for anything on a list of "benefits" violates the 4th Amendment right to protection from search and seizure. Being poor or unemployed and receiving the related "benefits" for which you qualify is NOT a valid reason for suspicion of drug use. Furthermore, where testing has been done prior to being struck down by the courts, the paltry number of positive tests would NOT support a government interest in "needing" to know. The positive tests are typically under THREE percent. That's not worth the cost of testing - the state wouldn't save money.

Furthermore, it doesn't compare to when a person gets a job - even a government job. At that point, the drug test is part of an employment contract. If you want the job, you sign the contract and agree to the drug test. Is it invasive? Sure. Should it be done? I'm not so sure on an ethical point of view, but employers CAN ask since they're not governed by things like search and seizure and many aspects of your right to privacy don't apply either.

[postaledith]

01:41 PM on 01/26/2012

I think it's absurd. I've been clean for over 35 years, but I don't agree with it. I do agree with testing the officials, bankers, and others that decide whether we eat and have a place to live.

[Natassha Halverson]

11:22 AM on 01/26/2012

Good! I get drug tested for having my job. Why shouldnt they?

[Jasel]

11:34 AM on 01/26/2012

I don't get drug tested for my job. Why should they?

[Natassha Halverson]

11:37 AM on 01/26/2012

Everyone should! Test positive, get fired. Test positive, lose your benefits. I like it.