You may view it that way, but they're not actually government employees, so it isn't Constitutional to require random drug tests.
Fair enough. Is it constitutional to require someone to have a set number of interviews/resumes sent? b/c that's a requirement. I'm just trying to see where this slippery slope ends: you can withhold money if they're not proactive in finding a new job, but not if they don't submit to and pass a test to see if they're breaking the law while receiving compensation?
It's not a slippery slope...the 4th amendment prevents random searches of private citizens by the government, of which drug tests qualify. Searches can only be done if there's reasonable cause to believe the person might have something illegal concealed. Requiring job applications/interviews and such aren't related to this issue, since they're not searches. The point is not that government services can't have requirements attached. It's that drug tests, specifically, cannot be one of those requirements, due to the 4th amendment.
Then why isn't a requirement of putting out a certain number of resumes also not an illegal search or an invasion of privacy?
Because you're telling them that you can't get a job, so some evidence that you can't, as opposed to won't, is required. If the program were compensation for staying off drugs, then a drug test would be appropriate. Whenever you are requesting aid from the government based on a condition, you need to prove that condition. I don't think many, if any, people consider that an invasion of privacy. Searching/testing for crimes simply because you're requesting assistance is qualitatively different, IMO.
Many companies require some form of drug testing. Part of unemployment is ensuring that you're not limiting the companies for which you could work. Incentivizing people to stay off illegal drugs that could cost them employment seems to me to be a prudent step.
It's a valid perspective, after a fashion, even if I don't agree with it. But it seems to be unconstitutional to require it.
