Florida Governor Rick Scott (pictured above) signed a bill into law requiring welfare recipients to undergo a drug test before they receive their benefits. They must pay for the drug test themselves, but will be reimbursed if they pass the test. Positive tests will result in a one year ban from welfare and a second positive test will result in a three year ban. I think this is a horrible idea for a number of reasons.
This is yet another chapter of the War on Drugs, a miserable failure that has wasted tons of taxpayer dollars for decades. For some reason, our government has decided that the best way to attack the drug problem is to punish users instead of treating them. I see it differently. I don't view drug addicts as losers. I consider them victims of dealers/traffickers and the best way to deal with the problem is treatment instead of punishment.
I've seen the toll drug addiction takes on people and the struggle it takes to get clean. I think cutting off assistance to these people will only make things worse. I mean, where will these people go when they lose their benefits? They will go back to the streets, continue their drug habit and probably use crime as a means of getting it. If anything, this will lead to a worse financial problem for Florida as it will likely lead to an increased prison population. I'd rather the government look for ways to help people break the cycle of addiction than just blindly cutting them off and hoping the problem goes away.
Everyone receives some kind of government benefit in one way or another (financial aid, government highways, corporate bailout money, etc.), so Gov. Scott's argument that this protects the taxpayers from supporting drug addicts doesn't pass the smell test, because if that was the real goal then he'd have to drug test everyone in the state and deny them of whatever benefits they are receiving. When Michigan passed a similar law in 2003, a federal judge used similar reasoning in striking the law down as an unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment. The ACLU has filed suit and hopefully the same result will happen in Florida.
What I do find highly offensive is this is just another case where people at the bottom are being attacked. Ever since the 2010 midterm elections, conservatives have made it their mission to target teachers, unions, immigrants, the unemployed, people on welfare, and even 9/11 rescue workers who needed medical assistance. Yet the rich CEO's, bankers, and real estate lenders who used corruption to line their pockets and contributed to the country's economic collapse have largely gotten away with no punishments whatsoever. If there was any law requiring business owners to submit to drug tests, I guarantee you the conservatives would be up in arms and the tea party would be holding massive rallies condemning the law.
Another problem with the bill is that people are expected to front the money for the drug tests (expected to range $10 to $25). That may not seem like alot, but it certainly is for someone on welfare who needs every dollar they can get to feed their family. Sure, people get reimbursed if they pass the test, but waiting for a reimbursement isn't necessarily feasible for people on welfare. I suspect the real reason for this is Governor Scott and the GOP hope people (whether drug users or not) won't be able to come up with the money or won't want to undergo blood/urine tests, thus reducing the welfare rolls and making him look like a fiscally responsible hero.
Alot of this comes from a seriously warped view of what people on welfare are like. The stereotype is that they are lazy, don't want a job, keep having kids, and waste their welfare money on drugs and other frivolous items. There's no doubt that there are people like that. But there are many people that are trying to do their best in an awful situation and climb out of the depths of poverty. In fact, a pilot drug testing program in Florida found that the number of welfare recipients testing positive did not significantly differ from the population at large.
I hope the ACLU is successful and this new law dies in the courts, not because I think people should be able to use taxpayer money to supplement their drug habit, but because I think there are better ways to fight the problem - treatment, education, job placement programs. All of these are better solutions to the problem than requiring poor people to provide blood/urine samples to receive money they desperately need to live on.
So, I agree for the most part with what you've said in your blog. I don't agree that drug users are victims of drug dealers and traffickers. That's a bit too extreme for my tastes. Yes, there is indeed a vicious cycle that is often times closely related to socioeconomic class, but your suggestion that all drug users are victims is a bit skewed. There is almost always choice and the ability to break through socioeconomic barriers and vicious cycles of drug use.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, the law is set out incorrectly. For it to work, the penalty for a positive test would be mandatory enrollment in a treatment program provided by the government at no charge to the recipient. This would be in line with the idea of welfare helping to get people back on their feet. Obviously, the other problem is the fact that these people will have to pay for their own drug testing. That's just ludicrous, considering the fact that we are talking about welfare recipients.
Your comparison of the welfare program to all other government aid programs doesn't quite stack up, in my honest opinion. The closest comparison would be to financial aid (in the form of grants, not loans so much). But even there, there is a check and balance system...one can only receive such grants so long as they maintain good academic standing, which indicates that they are functioning at least reasonably well. I'm not arguing that they might not be using drugs. They could be. It isn't black and white, but I'm just giving you another side of this.
I think that with some reworking, this law could benefit welfare recipients instead of punishing them. Of course, that is clearly not where the GOP's heart is. With all that said, my view of drug usage in general is more lenient than many others. I could care less if a welfare recipient uses marijuana. It should be legal anyway. The problem comes in with the idea that the marijuana may indeed be paid for with money that should be used to support that welfare recipient's family. Instead that person is relying on welfare to take care of his or her family, while using funds that they come across somehow to support their drug habit instead.
In other words, I don't really agree with the law as it is laid out now, but I understand at least some small part of the motivation behind it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting, Tina. You made alot of very intelligent points and I certainly agree that marijuana should be legalized. I do have a few responses:
ReplyDeleteI'm not suggesting that other government aid programs are exactly the same, but just responding to the argument that the Governor is making. State money is used all the time for people that are on drugs, but it's welfare recipients that are being singled out. And as the 2001 pilot program showed, there's no evidence that welfare recipients are using drugs more than anyone else.
As for drug users as victims, I stand by that statement because I view it as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. Sure there are some people that just don't care at all (but even on that level I'd consider them victims somewhat due to the social conditioning brought about by dealers and traffickers), but there are many who struggle so hard to come clean. Even the ones who have gone sober struggle on a daily basis to stay that way. I'm not sure there is a real "choice" for many addicts, as I'm sure many of them would choose not to be addicted.
I do like your idea of mandating treatment instead of denying benefits, but even if the program were a good idea I still don't think it passes the provisions of the 4th Amendment's "search and seizure" clause. I'm against people being forced to turn over evidence against themselves to receive a government benefit. I would rather Florida develop a comprehensive treatment program that is free for people on welfare.
In response to your comment about state money being used all the time for people who are on drugs and that welfare recipients are the only ones getting singled out: Yes, that is true. My argument speaks to WHY they are singled out. Surely, there is prejudice against the poverty stricken and stereotypes as to their behavior. But, there is also the very real issue to voters and tax-payers: the reason WHY they are getting the money is to support themselves and their families. That's why people get up in arms about. If state funding is used for financial aid grants (to continue with my example from before), there is still no way that we can be sure they are using the money just for school and not for drugs too, but there is a checks and balances system, as I stated. From my point of view, if you are getting state money because you just can't afford to live otherwise, then you also shouldn't be able to afford drugs. But there are exceptions to that as well, of course. Like when someone accepts drugs as payment for sexual services. They aren't using their welfare funds for their drugs then. I don't propose to have the answers and like I said, the law is set up incorrectly to align with my views, but I can see the motivation. It is, of course, very tragic for those people who are in such situations.
ReplyDeleteFor the second point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree there, because while there is plenty to say on the subject, I'm just not going to go there. Suffice it to say that I do not believe it is only a medical issue and I stand by my statement that there is always choice, even for the most addicted person. There is still a personal responsibility even when faced with peer pressure or drug pushers, and then later when one is addicted and fighting to get clean. Otherwise, drug treatment wouldn't work at all, would it? Every day it's a choice for those who are in recovery. Anyway, I don't want to antagonize you or get into a huge debate, just sharing my thoughts on the subject based on my personal experiences with such issues.
On your last point, I agree. I don't think people should be forced to basically turn themselves in to receive benefits either, at least not straight out. And, yes, I would also prefer for Florida to develop an inclusive program for welfare recipients to help them get off drugs and stay that way.
You weren't antagonizing me at all! I always appreciate a good discussion about an issue. I've talked about this with alot of people and it has led to some pretty lively and incisive discussions.
ReplyDeleteI may not agree with everything you say, but you make your points well and give me alot to think about.