Feds: Georgia can’t tie food stamps to drug tests

Georgia cannot implement a new law requiring drug tests for some food stamp applicants and recipients, federal officials told the state Tuesday.

The law, passed by the Legislature in March and signed by Gov. Nathan Deal, would require testing in cases where state workers have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is using drugs. It is scheduled to go into effect on July 1.

But U.S. Department of Agriculture policy “prohibits states from mandating drug testing of (food stamp) applicants and recipients,” according to a letter from Robin D. Bailey, regional administrator of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service.

In recent years, a number of states, including Georgia, have attempted to mandate drug testing for recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, colloquially known as “welfare.” But Georgia is alone in extending the requirement to people seeking food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/feds-georgia-cant-tie-food-stamps-to-drug-tests/ngDCQ/?nmredir=true

Yay. +1 for common sense and human decency.

Bonus: Read about the failure that was Florida's welfare drug testing

I apologise for my ignorance but what exactly is the problem with the testing? Which civil rights are being infringed?

My stance isn't really from a civil rights perspective since I'm not sure what kind of laws are around that. I just think drug testing for welfare is a horrible idea.

1) It stigmatizes poor people as all being drug users, in a country where drugs, addiction, and getting help in general carry a huge stigma. It is just another way to demonize the less fortunate.
2) It costs tax payer money to conduct these tests. The Florida one only found 2.6% to be drug users, and out of that 2.6% it was mostly marijuana.
3) Even if they are a drug user, I think it's absurdly immoral to just let them starve.
4) Why arbitrarily draw the line at drugs? Might as well ban people who buy junk food and other crap from food stamps well.

@Aljosa23:

1) Well, rich people aren't receiving welfare.

2) They were giving money to people who passed the tests, which I think it's unnecessary...that boosts the costs a lot, but with such a low rate of drug users (assuming it's even moderately accurate) the need for tests does seem ridiculous.

3) True, although I'm thinking some of them will starve anyway; when you're using money for drugs when you can't afford food you're either counting on the government to feed you or you just see it as more money for drugs.

4) Seems like an excellent idea, to be honest. If only that could be monitored without major costs...

1. I don't understand your point here. :P

3. That's a dangerous assumption to make. That assumes all drug users are addicts when in actuality they might not be or they're just frequent marijuana users and that isn't an addiction.

4. Not a really a fan of telling someone what they can and can not buy with food stamps but yes, if they are going to go after drug users might as well go the full mile and get anyone that isn't eating healthy.

I wish #4 were taken more seriously. It's not uncommon to be in line at the grocery store and see people using food stamps and WIC to purchase items that clearly are not necessity. I've even heard accounts of some getting clever and buying items with food stamps, then return those items at the help desk for cash back.

@Aljosa23: Well, you said it stigmatises poor people...anything they do test related will stigmatise poor people because it's poor people who receive welfare =)

As for the other 2 it has nothing to do with whether they are addicted or not...if I get money from the government to feed myself and my kids and decide to spend it on a spa doesn't mean I'm addicted to spas, it means I'm an ass.

@Aljosa23: lol if marijuana is illegal in their state what does it after how frequent they use it?

I am fine with not allowing junk food. They are given hundreds of dollars a month of free food. It's not a luxury it's should be needed items. In place if junk food I'd be ok with hygiene products and things like toilette paper. But it's probably be to much work to have a system setup to tell which products to allow and not allow.

That's kind of exactly my point. It doesn't need to be that way. :(

You might be an ass sure but that doesn't mean you should starve.

@Aljosa23: Yeah, I don't want anybody to starve but if you're the one starving and decide "Hey, why don't I go spend money in recreational drugs?" then why should you receive help? Of course you have the whole "medicinal marijuana" and those cases might be a bitch to identify correctly...

@korvus: I don't think anyone should starve but at very least should be on a type of probation and treatment and/or community service.

In fact I think community service should be used a lot more with minor non violent drug crimes instead of jail. Have them out cleaning and beautiful their neighborhoods

@-Sun_Tzu-: What a stupid quote man XD You can do better than that.

@-Sun_Tzu-: Brilliant comedian. Such a shame he had to leave us so soon. Interesting you picked that bit from his act, because I think he died from a drug overdose...so I guess there is a lot of truth to comedy.

@AutoPilotOn: I agree with you; no doubt. I was referring specifically to welfare though =) If they're willing to work for their money, they can go and spend it wherever they want, I just don't think they should be GIVEN money and then blow it in non essential stuff.

@-Sun_Tzu-: lol what's the point of that? Are you saying drugs and alcohol should be on food card too?

@korvus: Hard to believe that is an actual occurance unless you have direct evidence.

I do agree that they should have a way to limit what you eat while on EBT but that is most likely too costly to put in place that it just wouldn't be worth it.

@Aljosa23: it won't allow you buy alcohol and things like prepared foods in the deli/bakery of a grocery store. Something must already be in place to allow/not allow items

@Aljosa23: Back in Portugal a lot my neighbors were getting money from the government and quite a few of them would spend the first week of the month smoking, drinking and eating out...then 3 weeks starving themselves and their kids. Their reasoning? "I'm tired of being poor...I want to be able to smoke, drink and eat what I want, even if it's only a week a month". But talk to them about getting a job? You'd think you were telling them to become a hooker...some people are beyond stupid...

Actually I don't think there should be food cards in the first place. Rather than having government bureaucrats tell poor people how to spend their money the government should just give poor people money through some sort of negative income tax or guaranteed income. It'd be cheaper and more effective. The problem with poverty is a simple one - poor people don't have enough money. The solution then is pretty straight forward, give poor people more money. That's what things like food stamps and medicaid already do, only in an overly complicated manner with armies of bureaucrats and red tape everywhere.

@korvus: Yeah people like that exist but I specifically wanted an example of someone going to buy drugs instead of food. In your example they still bought food. Apologies if I wasn't clear on that earlier. My last post was a response to this:

"Yeah, I don't want anybody to starve but if you're the one starving and decide "Hey, why don't I go spend money in recreational drugs?"

@Aljosa23: Yeah, I meant it as an example but it sounded like a generalisation. Then again the people I mentioned were buying smokes and booze, which to me is the same as drugs as far as "non essential" goes.

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

For me it's less about judging the guy and more along the lines of "if it's gonna be spent on drugs or alcohol, I'd rather it be spent on drugs or alcohol for ME." I might give away my booze money so some guy doesn't starve, but I don't want to give him my booze money so that he gets to drink and I don't.

@-Sun_Tzu-: thing is with a guaranteed income what is the motivation to even try and work at all? A lot of people who are really homeless and hungry have some type of mental illness

Also what if they didn't use the money properly for food and shelter first. Do you still give them housing and food on top of it to avoid them being homeless and hungry?

The motivation to work is the same as it is now, to get more money.

And what person in their right mind who is starving and homeless is going to not first make sure they have a food and a roof over their head if given enough money to do so? Sure, there might be some people who don't do this, but they represent the rare exception, and you shouldn't base any policy off of a special case.

So you want it like SSI? They get say 1000 a month. But what about when they work? I know with Ssi the first $80 a month they don't count. After that they take 1/2 of what you make away in your SSI. So say you make 10 an hour. After your first 80 you only get 5 dollars an hour. It's easier to just not work for 5 dollars an hour. Or 3.something if min wage...

And even if it's only a few(I doubt) that don't spend their money on needs first. They are broke with no food towards end of month maybe lack of budgeting. Do will give them food too or let them "starve" till next check?

Obviously considerable thought would have to be put into the specifics. But for the sake of this discussion, have $10,000 be the threshold between "paying" a positive or negative tax rate. Have the negative tax rate set at 50%. So if a family made say - $8,000 dollars a year, they'd get an extra $1,000 from the IRS (so they'd make $9,000 in total). If they don't work at all they'd get $5,000, no strings attached. The incentive to work is still there though because you will always make more money by working and increasing your income, which isn't always the case with the current welfare system where you might actually end up being worse off if you jump up an income bracket and suddenly find out you don't qualify for medicaid and/or food stamps.

@-Sun_Tzu-: well I agree the current system is a joke.. A serious one that needs fixed. I can't imagine the time effort and numbers that would need to be crunched to figure it out.

I think I'll side with Aljosa on this one. Mandating drug tests for poor people on food stamps is really stigmatizing and patronizing. But regardless of that, I doubt crackheads would be willing/able to give up drugs in order to be eligible for food stamps. They wouldn't have a problem starving themselves and their families to death in order to get high.

With that said, I think whoever that endorses this law would be able to sell it to the public and the authorities if the law was capable of functioning. But as it is, it would prove highly ineffective and flat out broken.

Honestly, I don't care if people want to get high as long as they aren't using my tax dollars to do it or operating motor vehicles while blazed. Therefore, I have no issue with drug testing welfare recipients. The issue I see with the testing is people like to bring race into the picture by claiming that the drug tests are targeting minorities who are more likely to smoke.

Here's the thing though, the law won't work. As I already said I highly doubt a crackhead would give up drugs in order to be able to claim his food stamps. In case that this crackhead, with much regret and remorse, turned out to have a family, he/she also wouldn't have a problem letting them starve to death just that he/she can continue shooting up.

The law can function inasmuch as it denies drug users their food stamps, the same food stamps that may be the only thing keeping their families and dependents alive.

@GazaAli: I don't know how the Georgia law worked but if I'm not mistaken another state that had the law only denied benefits to the adult and the children would still get their benefits. Granted, if the crackhead is desperate enough he will just take the child's benefits and use it to shoot up. But in situations like that they are unfit parents anyway and their children should be taken away from them. There is no scenario one can give me showing how a man or woman who would choose getting high over putting food in their children's mouths is still a good parent.

how much does the state estimate this will save them in drug addict food stamp payments vs. the cost of testing?

didn't florida want to do the same thing until they realized they would lose money off of it?

Drug addicts are unfit parents no doubt and they pose a threat to their children on so many levels. If the law would go beyond the sole act of denying drug abusers their food stamps then it may be applicable and functioning but if I had to guess I doubt the legislation and its observance would extend to include other measures and account for possible ramifications and "collateral damage".

Read the second link mayne. The tests cost the stage and extra $100k

Why does a Bosnian-Canadian give a **** about some boring ass administrative region in that backwards country?

I don't understand how this is an issue for any of us. Doubt any OT will ever meet someone doing drugs who receives food stamps and is a resident of Georgia.

I thought it was an interesting topic + this is a US populated forum.

I'm not saying it's not interesting. It's just that most countries in the world are much more interesting than the US. And if it is a US populated forum then people should be more interested in what happens in other countries as they have to wake up in that country every day. If I would go into the forums and every thread was about Sweden I would freaking vomit.

So if this was about something about food stamps in Armenia then I would personally be more interested, as Armenia is very different to what I am used to and hence more interesting.

Drug addiction is an illness. Are we to say people with an illness don't deserve food?

That's the major problem with how we view drugs in general, it's treated as a criminal matter and not a health one.

That's good

The argument that the government should spend $120, 000 to save $75, 000 from being "used poorly" is obviously unsound. Especially when you consider that denying drug users economic aid in this way is likely to cause them to turn to other criminal activities in order to sustain themselves. That's also going to increase costs on other government sectors.

Also, false positives are a thing (IIRC, 5-10% of positives in drug tests are false), so you're going to get a significant amount of people who qualify but get flagged wrongly as drug users, and denied important economic aid. Economically, socially, morally - this drug testing policy is utter shit.

@korvus: it is making out all poor people to be drug users. Being poor is already stigmatized as to be lazy and involved im criminal activity.

Just imagine you are struggling financially and you wind up on government funding. Then you get subjected to a drug test.

@helwa1988: Most normal jobs and almost all government jobs in the US drug test, with some testing randomly. Yet people have a problem with testing people who for the most part just need to show up and fill out some paperwork to get benefits.

@helwa1988: I have been there with my parents and we were subjected to a lot worse, and we didn't give a crap because we needed the money and we understood they need to be sure who the money goes to.

They went through all our bills to see where we spent our money, told us what we could and couldn't buy etc etc. We didn't think it was out of line. If we were subjected to drug testing, so what? People would see us as drug users? Who are "people" and why should we care about their opinion? They weren't the ones giving us financial help.

Okay. I don't agree with that either.

@Aljosa23: but that's the way it is. I've never had a job that didn't require drug test before you could start and then random drug tests through out employment. Also if you get hurt at all after any treatment needed the next thug you do is drug test right away. They also do breathalyzer too. Hope you didn't drink at all the night before work not sure but I think blowing anything but a 0.00 will be cause for discipline.

There is a huge difference in stakes, benefits and risks between the two situations you are describing. A drug user is a potential legal liability to his employer, is likely to have subpar productivity and U.S. costs of employment are at least $20, 000 a year per employee. The first two concerns don't exist with food stamp recipients, because drug usage doesn't much effect the economic benefit of handing out food stamps, and the cost of food stamps are under $2000 a year per recipient.

This is why a drug-testing program for food stamps wastes more money than it "saves". Furthermore, just because this policy is adopted in some vaguely related situation doesn't make it valid in this case; that's called appeal to tradition.

The fact that your family was "ok with it" doesn't mean that it's a good idea. The evidence shows that on balance, both the government and the recipients are made worse off by this drug-testing policy.

@Barbariser: Helwa asked me to "just imagine" and I replied saying I didn't have to imagine. That was all.