Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
I have seen the suggestion before that Welfare recipients need to be drug tested to make sure that taxpayers are not paying for the drug habits of those evil poor people. I have even seen relatives allude to it in messages on social media sites and I have witnessed friends championing the idea in personal emails. I always wondered why some people think that the poor must be abusing the state and federal aid programs and therefore must have drug tests to insure that the taxpayers money is not being wasted. While I agree that taxpayers money should not be wasted, I have not seen any benefit from forcing people to be drug tested before they receive their aid payments.
The State of Florida tried this from 1999 to 2001 and reintroduced it in 2011. The Florida plan was subsequently struck down by the courts because there was no evidence that poor people abused drugs more often than their wealthier counterparts. “The state of Florida passed an almost identical testing procedure that ran from 1999 to 2001 and was reintroduced in July of 2011 that was struck down by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta the following month, citing the fact: ‘ “there is nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a `concrete danger’ that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use.” ‘ Crooks and Liars Does it surprise you that it took the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals before this expensive and intrusive process was ended in Florida?
The Florida experience proved to be a costly waste of taxpayers money according to the Tampa Tribune. “The Tampa Tribune investigated the results of those July 2011 drug tests and found that “96 percent proved to be drug free”, another 2 percent never bothering to complete the lengthy application process, and 2 percent actually failing drug testing. At an average cost of $30 per test, the state was hemorrhaging tax dollars at a rate of “$28,800-$43,200 monthly”… FAR out pacing the supposed “savings” from preventing drug-abusers from gaming the system to buy drugs.” Crooks and Liars The failure of this idea in Florida did not prevent or dissuade the Texas State Senate from unanimously passing an even more draconian plan to screen and drug test welfare recipients.
“On Wednesday, the Texas State legislature, currently composed of 19 Republicans and 12 Democrats, unanimously passed Senate Bill 11, which mandates that every Texan applying for food assistance through the TANF (Texas Assistance for Needy Families) program, submit to an undefined “screening process” and possible drug test before receiving benefits if the screener finds “good cause” to even suspect that person is… or is likely to… abuse any “controlled substance” — despite the fact that there is no evidence at all that people seeking assistance are more likely to do drugs.
According to the bill’s author, Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound), the purpose of the bill: ‘ “It ensures that TANF, formerly known as welfare, supports its core purpose of helping families to achieve self-sufficiency,” said Nelson, as she introduced the bill. “We found common ground to support a plan that makes sure state resources aren’t used to support a drug habit while at the same time making sure children receiving benefit in a productive environment.” ‘ Crooks and Liars
I can only assume that the venerable Texas State Senators failed to read about the experience this type of plan had in Florida or merely discounted the facts available to them. Is there a reason why politicians of all stripes jump on the bandwagon that claims the poor and needy are just lazy and may even be on illegal drugs and therefore do not deserve the help of their fellow citizens? These same Texas Senators ignored the Houston Chronicle which published an article critical of SB11 and other proposed bills designed to root out those drug abusing poor people out of their assistance programs.
“Four times during last week’s House Human Services Committee meeting, Rep. Scott Turner asked whether Texas has a problem with parents diverting assistance dollars for food and children to buy drugs. Agency officials could tell the Frisco Republican only that they do not test recipients, and few people lose their benefits because of drug convictions or tips that can be corroborated. ” Houston Chronicle
The Chronicle discussed a similar plan in Michigan that was struck down by a State court for being unconstitutional and the plan in Florida discussed above. According to the Chronicle there are seven other states with similar drug testing of welfare recipients programs. ” Seven states have enacted similar measures – all but two require risk screening before drug testing – and another 29 states are considering legislation this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Three Texas bills propose testing some applicants for state unemployment benefits rather than TANF applicants.” Houston Chronicle
Just where does this pervasive fear that the unemployed or impoverished are stealing from the public in order to support their drug habits? Does this relate to the old “welfare queen” meme? Is it related to the attempt by some state legislatures to pass voter ID laws to prevent non-existent voter fraud?
As usual, it seems that the politicians are unfazed by the fact that the poor do not use drugs any more than the middle class or the wealthy. Growing up my family received Veterans benefits and Social Security benefits that kept us from ending up on the street. Today, these onerous screening and drug testing programs would have forced my Mother to be tested before she could receive her check which paid for the housing and food for herself and her 5 young children. Remind me again, why is this a good idea?
Additional References: ACLU;
Well said lotta!
Otteray,
Rick Scott looks like an alien–and I don’t mean a foreigner from another country.
😉
OS, LOL, I wouldn’t eat or drink anything she prepared for me either.
********
There’s a lot of mean-spiritedness in legislation like this as well as a profit motive but I think it’s tied to the ‘blame the victim’ mentality also. Blaming the victim is way to distance yourself from the victim and victimization. No one likes to think they can be attacked or killed for no reason or that most folks are no more than a couple of paycheck’s away from losing their house or being evicted. Obviously, there’s something wrong with poor people in general (but not me) and if we look hard enough we’ll find out what it is. They’ve got to be doing something wrong or they wouldn’t be impoverished and hopeless. There’s a good pinch of religious faith thrown into that attitude too, IMO.
JOY got it right. It’s also true that ALL assistance programs are a form of corporate welfare. Ironically, some ot it (e.g.from the corner store’s sales) is transferred back to China, Phillipines, Pockystan etc.
OS,
I like that idea.
Bron,
Very few people would be against saving money in administering these programs, but trying convincing the House.
Elaine,
It would be poetic justice if she hooked up romantically with a good looking foreigner and left the country with all the assets.
Gov. Rick Scott, Solantic and conflict of interest: What’s the deal?
Kris Hundley, Times Staff Writer
4/1/11
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/gov-rick-scott-solantic-and-conflict-of-interest-whats-the-deal/1161158
Excerpt:
If you have a $62 million investment, representing the biggest single chunk of your $218 million in wealth, and you put it in a trust under your wife’s name, does that mean you’re no longer involved in the company?
Florida Gov. Rick Scott says it does.
Scott has aggressively pursued policies like testing state workers and welfare recipients for drugs, switching Medicaid patients to private HMOs and shrinking public health clinics. All these changes could benefit that $62 million investment, but Scott sees no legal conflict between his public role and private investments.
And, experts say, under Florida law he is correct.
A few days before he took office in January, Scott moved his shares in Solantic Corp., a chain of 32 urgent care centers, to the Frances Annette Scott Revocable Trust. Scott co-founded Solantic in 2001 and was involved in its operation until last year. His wife’s trust now holds enough stock in the private company to control it.
Solantic’s walk-in clinics, clustered in mid-Florida and along the east coast, handle everything from stitches and sprains to school physicals and immunizations. Charges are posted like fast-food prices and there’s a three-day feel-better guarantee — if you’re not feeling better after three days, your follow-up visit is free. The company partners with hospitals in several markets, including Shands HealthCare in Gainesville.
By transferring the Solantic shares to his wife’s trust, which is represented on the Solantic board by one of his former business associates, Scott maintains he is free from any possible conflicts.
rafflaw:
I dont know why we dont just give poor people money and get rid of the whole entitlement program in total. It could just be done by the IRS. Submit a W2 with any amount of income and receive a check every month to bring you above the poverty line. End the payroll for all of those social workers and the expense for the infrastructure and use the savings to help the people in need.
Lets cut out the middle man and all this admin cost and cut to the meat which is providing assistance.
I am guessing the cost of administering these programs is almost as much as the money given to the people when all is said and done.
Drug testing of people on public assistance is both unnecessary and would cost way more than any return on the investment. Many people on SSI are disabled. Disabled people are often on a variety of medications. So, if a chronic pain or cancer patient is on massive doses of narcotics, does that mean benefits are cut? Social Security disability applicants often show up for exams with a plastic Walmart bag bulging with medicine bottles. How is a lab going to sort all that out without getting false positives out the wazoo?
Perhaps I am becoming more cynical in my old age, but whenever something like this comes along, I suggest following the advice “Deep Throat” allegedly gave Bob Woodward. “Follow the money.”
Bud,
The presumption of guilt is a good way to put it.
Raff,
I have a huge problem with the presumption of guilt.
Why don’t they presume any other sector of society
is guilty of drug use and abuse, and legislate it.
Politicians seem to hate the thought that these people
are taxpayers (like sales tax) as well. They spend
100% of their income every month, unlike some slimy
SOB’s that hide their money offshore and produce
nothing for the country at all…
Steve,
I would not have any problem with drug testing welfare recipients if there was any evidence that their population had a higher than normal incidence of drug use. That is not the case.
AY,
No problem! 🙂
Mea culpa,
Mea culpa,
Mea culpa…..
Two wrongs don’t make a right, but there is a lot of support for welfare drug testing among workers for whom drug testing is a condition of employment.
The courts have ruled that companies can drug test as a condition of employment (whether or not safety is a consideration).
Not logical and smacks of meanness, but why not apply the same standard to both?
In fact, arguably, the taxpayer is providing the higher value to society and should be afforded the greater protection from the consequences of taking drugs.
debate aside, what we are seeing is a growing encroachment on personal liberty under the guise of morality, corporate rights and government power.
AY,
The Houston Chronicle article quoted and linked to above discussed the Michigan experience and I noted it briefly as well.
Raft,
You left Michigan out of the equation…. They did it first under John Engler…. It was not upheld….. The twist an alternative payee…. If they test positive….. Which is BS…. But Texas is the 5th Circuit so it might have a chance in being upheld….
KathyP I have thought that….the elected officials…..should be able o do what the expect others too….
Florida didn’t save money by drug testing welfare recipients, data shows
By Brittany Alana Davis
4/18/12
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/florida-didnt-save-money-by-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-data-shows/1225721
Excerpt:
TALLAHASSEE — Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows.
The findings — that only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed — are additional ammunition for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state and won a temporary ban on the drug-testing program in October, said ACLU spokesman Derek Newton.
Attorneys for the state immediately appealed the ban, and will face off against the ACLU again at the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta and the U.S. District Court in Orlando in coming months.
The costs and benefits of the law — and the outcome of the court case — could reverberate nationwide. This week, Georgia passed its own drug welfare law.
Since Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law last year, 25 states have considered similar legislation, Newton said.
Data about the law’s cost may impact the court of public opinion, but Jenn Meale, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, said it won’t play a role in the legal proceedings.
That’s because ACLU’s case rests on whether the law violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against “unreasonable searches” by the government.
“Any costs associated with the program are irrelevant to the analysis of whether the statute is constitutional,” Meale said.
Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana. About 40 people scheduled tests but canceled them, according to the Department of Children and Families, which oversees Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known as the TANF program.
The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.
The state’s net loss? $45,780.
The reason people think there is a lot of abuse is that they see it in real life. If you live in a rarefied realm where there is no one using means tested benefits, you tend to think its all on the up and up, I guess.
You can be sure that the reason given for passing this law in florida was a ruse to obfuscate the legislators’ cronies’ drug testing businesses that would be benefitting the lot. The republican party has had a death grip on this state for 20+ years. Expect to see more JEBby promotion of charter schools, while disemboweling the public ones, a la drug-testing debacle. The usual bushfamily influence peddling for their personal pocket lining. Scum of the earth run this state.
I would like to see weekly mandatory drug and alcohol testing for all elected officials, especially at the state and federal level. These individuals are making life and death decisions for citizens and we, the electorate, should have the assurance that their deliberations are done with the utmost sobriety.