Drug Tests Falter as Way for States to Deny Public Aid With safety-net spending under review around the country, proposals to make welfare and unemployment checks contingent on drug testing have become a routine rallying cry in dozens of states. But the impact of drug-testing measures has been limited. Supporters say the tests are needed to protect welfare and unemployment compensation funds as the nation emerges from the recession. But their enactment has often been hampered by legal challenges and the expense of running the programs, which generally uncover relatively few drug users. Drug testing of welfare recipients in Florida was halted by a federal judge. The rollout of a similar program in Georgia was suspended indefinitely as a result of the Florida ruling. Measures in other states have been narrowed in scope, primarily to keep administrative costs low and avoid protracted court battles. This week, legislators in Michigan, after failing to agree on more robust drug-testing bills in recent years, approved a measure that would withhold unemployment compensation from people who fail drug tests given as part of job interviews. The approach, a one-year pilot program, leaves it up to prospective employers to screen applicants and does not force businesses to test or report the results. "We just didn't want to waste people's time," Ken Goike, a state representative in the Republican-majority Legislature and sponsor of the bill, said about legal considerations. Why go through all this if it's just going to be busted down? If signed by Gov. Rick Snyder, the Michigan bill would join drug-testing laws enacted this year in Kansas, Texas and North Carolina that try to navigate a delicate legal landscape. This year, at least 29 states considered drug testing for people who receive cash assistance from the primary federal welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, but only two measures passed, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Ten states considered testing laws for unemployment compensation benefits, and two measures passed. In all, despite a steady wave of bills introduced largely by Republican-led legislatures since 2011, only nine states have passed drug-testing bills related to welfare recipients; at least six have passed them for unemployment compensation, though Wisconsin repealed a law last year that required employers to report failed tests. Opponents say that the laws amount to an unfair attack on America's most vulnerable, and that people receiving public assistance and unemployment benefits are no more likely to use drugs than anyone else. Yet, even critics admit the issue poses little political risk for lawmakers backing the measures, regardless of what form they take. "A lot of it's just posturing to show I'm tough on drugs," said Rebecca Dixon, a policy analyst for the National Employment Law Project. Legal obstacles are rooted in a 2003 federal court decision that struck down a law that required the testing of all welfare applicants in Michigan. In February, a federal appeals court upheld a move to halt enforcement of a similar Florida law that passed in 2011. Both rulings found that blanket testing was unconstitutional, amounting to unreasonable search and seizure. But lawmakers have not abandoned the underlying principle; they are still trying a range of nuanced alternatives. If successful, a flood of states may follow. Lawmakers in North Carolina pushed through a drug-testing policy this year that applied only to welfare applicants who show "reasonable suspicion" of substance abuse, which can be determined through background checks and questionnaires. Gov. Pat McCrory vetoed the bill in August, citing similar laws in other states that he said have "proven to be costly for taxpayers and very ineffective at catching drug offenders." The legislature overrode his veto last month, but Mr. McCrory has fought back, saying his administration would stall implementation until sufficient funding was provided for the program. Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas signed a similar suspicion-based drug-testing law for welfare recipients in April. The law also stipulates that people receiving unemployment compensation who test positive for illegal substances will be required to complete rehabilitation and job training programs, but benefits will be stripped only in cases in which the person fails to comply or tests positive a second time. In Texas, an unemployment insurance law approved in June limits drug testing to those whose only "suitable work" would regularly require one. The program, expected to start in February, and a similar one in Mississippi that was passed last year await federal regulations to define which occupations can be tested. Jason Kuruvilla, a spokesman for the federal Department of Labor, said those rules were still being drafted. "By definition, someone that is abusing illegal drugs is really not ready to return to work," said Tommy Williams, a Texas state senator who sponsored the testing measure this year. He added, "I wasn't out here trying to make political hay, I was trying to make good public policy." David Holt, a state senator from Oklahoma, where welfare applicants must fill out questionnaires to determine their eligibility for drug testing, said suspicion-based laws save states money because they reduce the number of people who are required to submit urine samples. "I think what we did was just smarter," he said, calling it a measured approach. And we did it in a way that didn't get us on Fox News every night. But even with prescreenings, testing programs have not exposed rampant drug use by those applying for public assistance or unemployment insurance. In the seven months after the law took effect in November 2012, Oklahoma officials screened nearly 1,900 applicants, conducted 537 drug tests and denied benefits to 83 people, according to the state's Human Services Department. The testing process cost about $80,000. State officials were reluctant to estimate the savings from the denials. In the four months that the testing was allowed in Florida, 108 out of 4,086 cash assistance applicants failed drug tests. The state's outlay: $118,140. "These programs are expensive, and they don't work," said Jason Williamson, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has not ruled out legal action in cases of suspicion-based testing. They'll look exceedingly reasonable and unassailable, I'm sure that's part of their calculation, but the arguments that we're making are the same. By leaving it up to employers to test for drugs, the legislation in Michigan has tried to sidestep the fray altogether. Whether businesses will voluntarily report failed drug tests to the state remains to be seen, as some may not want to get dragged into the appeals process. Mr. Goike, the state representative, said he proposed the bill, modeled after a law in Indiana, after his brother-in-law tried hiring employees at a local manufacturing facility. Half of the applicants tested positive for drugs, Mr. Goike said, making them "unavailable for work," which is a condition for receiving unemployment compensation. Michigan has a 9 percent jobless rate and more than 233,000 people receiving unemployment benefits amounting to $935 million this year.