7 million families that currently receive welfare benefits in the US are headed by a parent with substance abuse, including alcohol. The estimated 740, 000 substance abuse recipients of welfare is a staggering figure. The fact these individuals qualify for welfare programs indicates their low economic condition; drug or alcohol use decreases any disposable income the family might otherwise be able to use for food, medication, school supplies, etc.
I'm not downing the welfare system; I just believe that it should be reserved for emergency situations, like people losing their jobs because of the economy and the disabled [GaleGroup]. Mandatory drug testing is a way to deter drug use and lower the number of people abusing the welfare system. Many drug users have been known to sell their food stamps for money. Mandatory drug testing would send a clear message to drug users: your drug habit will not be supported by tax payers. There have been claims that drug testing programs violate the constitutional right to privacy as well as the Fourth Amendment, which establishes protection of citizens from "unreasonable searches and seizures". Conversely, other claims state that since welfare is "earned" government aid for which people apply and are approved, that drug testing does not violate constitutional rights, especially if individuals at the time of application understand and accept drug testing as a condition of their approval. If employees are drug tested how can testing of welfare recipients be considered unfair? Who would want to lose free money? .
On the other side of this argument is the stance of those who believe that the social and economic differences between the "haves and the have nots" make it difficult for many who are susceptible to poverty to argue against drug testing. It is not easy for those who receive these benefits to argue against drug testing because of the stigma associated with minority groups who are overrepresented by those who are impoverished.