While these states haven’t had broad authority to test any and all applicants thanks to an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that held up Florida’s attempt to do suspicionless testing (because it violated the 4th amendment), there’s a clear desire to push against the boundaries. Like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and his push to drug test people who apply for food stamps. How successful are the states that drug test? Not very, and that’s not likely to change. From Think Progress’ oft-cited 2015 report: In 2015, despite lack of evidence that programs in other states accomplished their goals, three more states have implemented similar regimes. And a ThinkProgress survey of the 10 states that now have these programs in place found that they continue to be expensive and not especially effective. All told, states spent another $850,909.25 on the testing regimes in 2015 to uncover just 321 positive tests — in more than one state, none at all. This came after a February 2015 ThinkProgress examination of the seven states that had implemented drug testing programs for TANF applicants and/or recipients. At that time, those states had spent about $1 million to create and implement a complicated system of screening and urine testing — and found just 407 drug users. You may be somewhat shocked by the small amount of people that have been caught, but be aware that the incidence of actual drug use doesn’t likely align with the number of people that tested positive. A 2013 study by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration states that 18.2 percent of unemployed Americans use illicit drugs. Those specific numbers also don’t speak to the total amount of people who have lost their benefits in this process for reasons other than testing positive for drug use, but that is mentioned prominently later on in the Think Progress report: One is that those who are most likely to be kicked off of benefits in states that have drug screening are not those who test positive, but those who don’t even take tests at all. “There’s actually more people who are denied benefits for not following through with a test than for failing,” Schott of the CBPP noted. “The impact is largely on people who don’t necessarily have any substance abuse issue.” As Alternet points out, the $350,000 in denied benefit money to 250 people in Utah that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) counts as a victory actually came mostly from people who didn’t get tested. But those benefits “savings” could wind up being minuscule if even 5% of the people who fall away from the safety net wind up in prison, leading to a higher eventual cost for taxpayers. A 2012 Vera Institute of Justice study pegged the cost of incarcerating a state prisoner at approximately $31,000 per year after reviewing 40 states. There are also people who almost certainly game the screening process (which can vary from state to state, but which often utilizes a questionnaire) that is used to determine who gets tested. This so they can avoid detection, difficulty with their benefits, and a possible forced rehab program (except in Alabama, Arizona, and Georgia, where that isn’t on the table). Because the government views as the same the daily heroin addict and the person who smoked a joint two weeks ago at a party before they lost their job.



To be honest, it’s shocking that there are people who say yes when the government asks if they’ve done drugs. And when you factor in that often-times inefficient screening process and the fact that the courts don’t seem keen to let the government test whoever it wants (for good reason), you wonder why this process exists at all.

It feels crappy to say this, but there just are people in this country who are on unemployment, welfare, and food stamps who are going to try to numb their pain with drugs (occasionally or otherwise). Yes, it can be potentially bad for them and their prospects. And it can also be unfair for the rest of us who pay our share of sales, payroll, property, income, and FICA taxes to pay for defense, roads, and a safety net for people who fall on hard times. But wasting money on something you can’t really fix to catch a few people while driving a lot more away from that safety net (thus increasing the possibility that they never climb back) and stigmatizing all job seekers is little more than a wrongheaded and reckless attempt at a solution. Continuing to help people through a hard time and dedicating resources to real treatment and job training (while still paying them their benefits), on the other hand, might be a better focus for politicians. Especially those that are trying to score a few cheap points by vilifying the poorest among us. They could use the good karma, and we could all use a break from their sh*t.