We are experiencing a state of regression as certain legislators are perpetuating stereotypes of welfare recipients through their insistence they be drug-tested as a condition to receiving aid.
Supposedly, the mandatory drug tests are designed to reduce deficits, utilize tax-payer money more efficiently, and encourage “personal responsibility.” The government now will have the power to kick people off welfare, or otherwise simply deny them welfare, should the person fail their mandated drug test. Aside from deterring these self-destructive behaviors, they believe they will also save millions of dollars because they suspect they will no longer have to subsidize the drug dependencies of a substantial amount of recipients.
Did these legislators take a hiatus from work to watch an all-day Jerry Springer marathon? It’s as if their perception of recipients has been shaped from some trash talk show, rather than any sort of objective data or research on this demographic.
But even before looking at the raw data and facts though, we must recognize how troubling it is that there is a sheer persistence by these lawmakers to trample our 4th amendment constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. This draconian law has a wretched history and has been classified by the courts as a blatant violation of the constitution. For example, Michigan implemented mandatory drug tests for 5-weeks before a lawsuit sought an injunction on the practice. The Appeals Court later declared that it amounted to a “suspicionless” search, stating that drug testing without probable cause was unconstitutional and thus a violation of the 4th amendment. Prior to this, a Georgia law making it mandatory for public officials to undergo urinalysis was also deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for the very same reason.
Now, Florida, approximately a decade after the courts concluded that mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients was unconstitutional, began implementing a similar law requiring drug testing of welfare recipients. However, when the law was challenged in courts by a navy veteran and single father who was seeking benefits while continuing his college education, the Judge sought an injunction, questioning the constitutionality of the law.
Is it a crime to be on welfare? Does it arouse suspicion that you are engaged in criminal activity if you decide to pay for that milk with a food stamp? No… of course not. The Courts understood this in prior decisions, which is why they deemed it to be an unreasonable search and seizure. For states to implement this law, would essentially be sending a message that being a welfare recipient, in and of itself, warrants suspicion of illicit drug use. Constitutionality aside, just imagine how demoralizing and demeaning this can be to someone like the Navy veteran who is trying to piece his life together.
Florida’s Governor thought that amnesia had set in regarding the constitutionality of this practice. He was wrong. The unfortunate thing is that at least a dozen more states are now trying to enact similar legislation, with some even trying to target those on unemployment insurance and recipients of food stamps.
The perplexing part of all this is that you would think that the legislators who had the audacity to attempt to intrude the privacy of others, would be doing so with a substantiated belief that there is rampant drug use by those receiving welfare. In fact, to their dismay, the data clearly show that drug use among welfare recipients is consistent with the general population:
• The Center for Law and Social Policy found that 10 percent of the 268 welfare applicants tested in Michigan during those five weeks that mandatory drug tests were implemented scored positive for illicit drugs. This is consistent with the rate of illicit drug use by the general population.
• The National Institute on Alcohol and Alcohol Abuse has found that there is no significant in the
rate of illegal drug use by welfare applicants and the general population. A 1996 study revealed
that alcohol abuse and/or dependence, along with drug abuse/and or dependence among welfare
recipients were consistent with the general population.
• Florida’s Department of Children and Families found that just 2.5 percent of welfare applicants failed the urinalysis during the brief lifespan of Florida’s drug screening program, which was lower than the rate of the general population.
• The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (which is part of the
Department of Health and Human Services) found that 9.6 percent of people living in
households receiving government assistance used illicit drugs in the previous month,
compared with a 6.8% rate among families who receive no assistance.
So then how is it possible for a state to save money and reduce its deficits when the data contradicts the stereotype (fueled largely by the media) of welfare recipients as drug dependent? If the legislators are to lend credence to this data, the numbers would suggest that implementing the program would only save their respective states a nominal amount, and may even lead to a net loss. For example, drug tests typically cost anywhere from $35 to $75. If the state has a large number of welfare recipients, and they are passing at the rate of 92% (as was the case for Michigan as cited above), the savings in denied benefits would certainly be offset by the cost of drug testing so many recipients.
For example, Louisiana’s Legislative Fiscal Office concluded that testing would save the state $480,373 in denied benefits while costing the state $184,114 for testing. Thus, the net savings to the Louisiana taxpayer would be $296,259. This figure was calculated under the assumption that Louisiana would not pay for treatment costs associated with drug dependency; if treatment costs are subsidized by the government, the figure turns out to be a net loss of approximately $467,000.
According to Florida’s Governor, the program would save his state 77 million dollars. Of course, this was during his campaign that he touted this figure, and it is still a mystery how he came up with this figure or whom he consulted with in coming up with this estimate. I think he may have inflated the number to excite the Tea Party in Florida to rally behind him, knowing quite well that the historical data didn’t match the stereotype shaped by the media.
While the authors of the bill say the main purpose is to help users straighten out their lives, I find this to be a ruse for the true purpose, which is to save money. How can you possibly help someone with a drug dependency if you kick them off any assistance for an entire year, or fail to subsidize their treatment program? Of course, if the data is correct, not much money will be saved and homelessness and the crime rates will increase, making the program have failed in its twin aims.
I think they have scapegoated the poverty stricken to gain favor among those whom are employed and paying taxes, with the goal of invoking a sense of “populism”. They are reinforcing stereotypes and trying to assuage the frustration of the working class who may now be asking themselves “Why are my tax dollars being used by someone who is going to return the favor by smoking marijuana and failing to seek work”? Mr. Taxpayer let me answer that for you-those on welfare are actually much like you and I.
I think we have had enough “class warfare” and we don’t need another, especially one waged on a group of people who have few resources and support.
Sources:
Substance Use Among Persons in Families Receiving Government Assistance, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Matt Lewis and Elizabeth Kenefick, Random Drug Testing of TANF Recipients is Costly, Ineffective and Hurts Families, Center for Law and Social Policy
Press Release, National Institutes on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
John Kennedy, ACLU Sues Over Florida’s Requiring Drug Test For Welfare Recipients, Palm Beach Post
Labruzzo, Drug Testing 20% of FITAP Adult Recipients, Louisiana’s Legislative Fiscal Office
Supreme Court of the United States, Chandler V. Miller, Legal Information Institute