What is Wrong with Testing Welfare Recipients for Drug Use?

Abstract

Is mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients morally justifiable? This article argues that none of the three justifications typically offered in support of drug testing—that is, paternalist, contractualist, and harm-based justifications—are normatively persuasive. On the one hand, I claim that these normative justifications do not warrant the violation of welfare recipients’ privacy. That is, I argue that they fail to make the case that the benefits of drug testing outweigh its costs in terms of welfare recipients’ privacy. On the other hand, I argue that even if we accept any of these normative justifications for drug testing, current background conditions in the US make the implementation of this policy unfair in practice. First, the enforcement of drug testing can strengthen existing injustices. Second, under current circumstances, drug testing policies are likely to engender moral obligations which cannot be fulfilled.

Effect of alternative income assistance schedules on drug use and drug-related harm: a randomised controlled trial

“…In ITT analyses of exposure to violence (figure 2), contrary to study hypotheses, overall exposure to violence increased in the staggered group (AOR 2•71, 95% CI 1•06-6•91, p=0•037) compared with the control group (appendix p 22). Findings were similar in ITT models with multiply imputed data and including time-varying covariates (appendix pp 24,27). No significant results were observed for participants in the split and staggered group.…”

“…Furthermore, changes should be applied without collecting drug use information, because such data could be used inappropriately to discriminate against or stigmatise recipients. 27 We note several limitations. The study was implemented in a single context.…”

“…Importantly, our findings do not justify the drug testing of benefit recipients nor the retrenchment or withdrawal of benefits for people who use drugs, practices that are largely deemed unfair, immoral, and objectionable. 27 Instead, this study has identified the cash benefit disbursement design as a poten tially important and underused tool to promote public health for people who use drugs, with substantial potential to intervene in the social and structural contexts in which drug use and drug-related harm are produced and reinforced. Past modelling and observational research identifying the benefits of staggered, more frequent payments 8,11,12 suggest potential applications to drug-related outcomes.…”

State supervision, punishment and poverty: The case of drug bans on welfare receipt

“…Overall, TANF has become increasingly restrictive, as well as paternalistic for those left on the rolls (Handler and Hasenfeld, 2006). TANF recipients are told the proper ways to act, including engagement in the labor market, are closely supervised to make sure they are doing so (Perez-Munoz, 2017). Failure to meet these obligations results in financial penalties or sanctions.…”

“…To encourage participation, states can count the time spent in drug treatment as work-related activities. Rather than being exclusionary, these policies adopt a paternalistic stance and seek to increase supervision in order to shape the behavior of recipients to conform with societal expectations about proper behavior (Perez-Munoz, 2017).…”