Drug Testing Welfare Recipients....About Time at least in Florida

Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure
June 01, 2011|By the CNN Wire Staff

Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.

"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."

Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.

Most welfare is given to families with children. Let’s say the head of one of these families tests positive for some drug. Do we cut off the family? Do we take their food stamps? Do they lose their medical card? Do the children go hungry and without medical care because their parent used drugs? Are the children punished for the sins of the parent? Or do you just cut off the offending parent? Is the household allocation of food stamps reduced by one person? Who comes around to make sure that person doesn’t have a plate of beans? The Florida law would allow an adult who fails to designate someone else to get benefits on behalf of his children. So I guess he has to leave the home. Very pro-family.

Because marijuana stays in the system for a month or more, drug testing disproportionally catches marijuana smokers. Harder drugs leave the system much quicker, usually within hours. Because of this, drug testing will catch a guy who smoked marijuana three weeks ago at a party but a heroin addict who mainlined day before yesterday goes scot free. I suppose alcohol users, unquestionably the largest group of drug users, who cause much more social costs than any other drug abusing segment, wouldn’t suffer loss of benefits at all. After all, it’s legal. Likewise with tobacco users, who may in fact rival alcohol abusers in health problems and social costs. Many of the pill people, our current drug scourge, have prescriptions. Presumably if a welfare recipient has a prescription he won’t use benefits. The pills, like heroin and cocaine, leave the body relatively quickly. The downer taken 36 hours ago has already left the body.

So who is caught in drug testing? The pot user. The user of the least dangerous drug is caught in a drug test and the heroin, cocaine, pain pill, tranquilizer, meth, user is much more likely to skate by. Not that there’s anything positive about marijuana. No doubt frequent use dulls energy and initiative. It would be much better if people didn’t use it.

But by and large, the welfare population leads miserable lives. Their housing is generally decrepit. Food stamps barely cover nutritional needs. There’s no money for extras. Many of them are sick. Most of them are poorly educated. Fact is, the great majority are unemployable. I know you can’t get anybody to weedeat. But most welfare recipients really are unlikely to get a full time job that will support them. I know, some do, and they work very hard and exhibit wonderful resolve. These few have great initiative. But it’s hard enough for decently trained healthy people to get a job in this economy. And where there are children in a one parent home it is very difficult. Is it so surprising that people living in these conditions might want to take something to brighten the world for a few hours? Oh, I know they shouldn’t. I know it’s bad for them. I know it won’t improve their situation. But is it really that surprising? And if they do succumb, should the penalty be starvation and homelessness for the backslider, his spouse and his children, or else separation of the family? For smoking a joint?

Drug testing for welfare benefits generally comes up in the legislature every session. It has a facile appeal. No politician ever went broke advocating it. I’m not surprised that Florida passed it. Virginia and Texas will probably get on board followed by Mississippi and Alabama.

Associated Press

ORLANDO, Fla.—A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida's new law that requires government-assistance applicants to pass a drug test before receiving the benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judge Mary Scriven's ruling is in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that claims the law is unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who sought the benefits while finishing his college degree, but refused to take the test.

Nearly 1,600 applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid-July, but they aren't required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana.

Supporters say applicants skipped the test because they knew they would have tested positive for drugs. Applicants must pay $25 to $35 for the test and are reimbursed by the state if they pass. It's unclear if the state has saved money. During his campaign, Gov. Rick Scott said the measure would save $77 million, but it's unclear how he arrived at those figures.

Under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the state gives $180 a month for one person or $364 for a family of four.

Those who test positive for drugs are ineligible for the cash assistance for one year, though passing a drug course can cut that period in half. If they fail a second time, they are ineligible for three years.

The ACLU says Florida was the first to enact such a law since Michigan tried more than a decade ago. Michigan's random drug-testing program for welfare recipients lasted five weeks in 1999 before it was halted by a judge, kicking off a four-year legal battle that ended with an appeals court ruling it unconstitutional.

FYI: the proportion of those who test positive for drugs is the same for the genral working population as for welfare recipients. Is this a stigmatizing of the poor? Illegal search and seizure? We require drug tests for people who have occupations where drugs in the system might influence the performance of a job that might harm others--train engineer, bus driver, etc. Otherwise, it is unconstitiontional. Do those who receive ADC, food stamps, disability payments, workmen's comp lose their constitutional rights?
Those drug tests are at the expense of the recipient. So now a whole class of people have to pay for a medical service they don't need because they are poor, making them even more poor. Let's not even try to talk about those with, say, terminal cancer who use marijuana to ease nausea, legal in some states, illegal in others.

Simplistic answer. Think it through. Poor are no more likely to be addicted than mainstream population. I looked into it further: if the Florida 'welfare' recipient comes up negative, FL pays for the test. The question becomes one of economics. Is it saving Fl money or not? Secondly, does it have any efficacy at all? Thirdly, what is the price of stigmatizing people who are already humuliated? Unless, of course, we have a prejudice against the poor and think that they are poor because they are somehow less moral than we are. I suspect it is that prejudice that underlies the 'drug testing' idea.

The answer to drug abuse is complex and expensive. We have been throwing thoughtless money at it for years; the result is seen in the horrid 'narco' situation in Mexico, in the wasted lives and crime in our own cities and rural areas and the fact that we have more people in our jails than any other 'civilized' country in the world--which obviously doesn't work.

Throwing out the Constitution should be anathema to a lawyer. We might as well then say that anyone below a certain level of income who don't pay taxes be tested. Are we testing people on unemployment? that is welfare. Some think Social Security is welfare. Let's test our seniors. Kids in public school get public money. Let's test all of them. People traveling on federal and state roads are using 'our' money, let's test all people before they get on the road. I suppose to get a driver's license or renewal, we could require it. Perhaps to vote, we could require a stop in the bathroom with a matron to pee first. Afterall, it is public money that pays for the election machines, etc.

Wouldn't money be better spent screening for diabetes or high blood pressure? Let's force people to do that before they collect from "us" on the 'dole'. If we want a police state, then let's get started the right way. Talk about class war fare . . .

Martin,
When you posted the article you cherry picked and left this out.

The judge said there was a good chance plaintiff Luis Lebron would succeed in his challenge to the law based on the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from being unfairly searched.
The drug test can reveal a host of private medical facts about the individual, Scriven wrote, adding that she found it "troubling" that the drug tests are not kept confidential like medical records. The results can also be shared with law enforcement officers and a drug abuse hotline.
"This potential interception of positive drug tests by law enforcement implicates a `far more substantial' invasion of privacy than in ordinary civil drug testing cases."
Is it constitutional to single out one group of people for search due to their income? Do I give up my right to non self incrimination because I need welfare? It sounds like law enforcement could find out when FL welfare applicants turned up positive. Is that a good thing? As a defense attorney you could have a field day with a case involving evidence taken as a result of welfare testing.

This law might make some people feel good but does no good. If raising taxes is inciting class warfare, what is this doing?

I think if we could figure out why people take drugs that might go a long way to solving the problem. Is dulling the senses that important?
For myself, I take two 7.5 mg hydrocodone a day for extreme pain in feet and back.
It perserves my quality of life so I can work everyday.
It is perscribed by a doctor but I still feel guilty about having to take it.