Oct 28, 2013 3 min read

Even though the job market has not yet found its footing five years after the financial crisis and Americans from all walks of life find themselves unemployed, lawmakers in several states and Capitol Hill have been looking to slash benefits for many just when they have the greatest need for them.

Before they threw their shutdown tantrum, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives voted for draconian cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps, which is a necessary – and hardly bountiful – lifeline that keeps many needy families from going hungry.

A 13 percent reduction is already due to take effect Friday as a provision in the 2009 stimulus package expires. There have also been measures in some states to limit the amount of time residents can collect unemployment benefits, despite the fact that only somewhere around half of the 7.7 million jobs lost in the Great Recession have been recovered, and some states have opted to impose drug testing on those seeking unemployment benefits or receiving welfare.

The requirement that the jobless or needy produce a urine sample indulges the crude, mean-spirited notion that individuals who are out of work are lazy and would rather spend their days in a narcotic fog than punch the clock. One Facebook page urging such a law be approved in Pennsylvania asks users of the social media site to “show support for keeping junkies off welfare.”

The only problem is, though, such programs are costly and have yielded little in the way of results. A report in the Saturday edition of The New York Times pointed out that 29 states have considered drug testing welfare recipients this year, even though similar regulations in other states have uncovered few drug users.

In the 11 months since Oklahoma started asking those applying for welfare to submit a urine sample if they fall under suspicion of using drugs – how such a determination is made seems rather nebulous – they have denied benefits to only 83 people at a cost of $80,000.

A similar program was in effect in Florida for four months in 2011 before being put on hold by a federal judge, and it cost $118,140 to nab exactly 108 drug users out of over 4,000 applicants who were screened.

Harold Pollock, a professor in the social administration department at the University of Chicago, recently noted in The Washington Post that depression, limited education and physical health woes were far more likely to hinder the population on welfare than the use of illegal drugs. He also said, “But let’s be real. Much of the conversation about drug testing welfare recipients reflects nasty stereotypes with flimsy empirical validity. It strains credulity to believe that we’d demand hair or urine samples from a more influential set seeking public help.”

Pollock suggested that “legislators across the country should be exploring how to address serious unmet needs among millions of families in a tough economy.”

Our lawmakers would do well to heed this advice.

Drug testing those in need or struggling to find a job isn’t a solution, but an expensive diversion, a way to deliver another kick, another indignity, to those who are already down.