According to studies, the general public has a drug use rate of between 6.5% and 8.5%, so the 2% positive test results is well below that of the public, not higher.
The idea is simple. No taxpayer wants to see their hard earned tax dollars pay for someone on welfare to buy drugs with. That's perfectly sensible. I agree with that sentiment. I'm guessing you do as well. The devil, as they say, is in the details. With 4th Amendment issues regarding unreasonable search and seizures, this was bound to be a slippery slope from the start. The US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against a Georgia law requiring candidates for State offices to pass a drug test. In the ruling, drug testing where public safety was at risk would be Constitutional, but short of that standard, no. In 2003, a US Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Michigan law regarding drug testing for welfare applicants as a violation of the 4th Amendment rights. The ACLU is expected to file suit in Florida against Governor Rick Scott new law that requires testing for all welfare recipients, citing it singles out a particular group.
So, is it discrimination against the poor, or is it a reasonable effort to verify that tax payer dollars aren't being misused?
Technically, it seems that it may have a hard time standing up to Constitutional muster. With two decisions already on the books that seem to question the legality of it, it appears that the ACLU may have some success if they decide to pursue a case against Gov. Scott. From a populist's point of view, this will likely stir up even more contempt for the poor than already exists.
In my eyes, a certain group is being singled out because we grant tax breaks, write-offs, subsidies, etc. to the wealthy and corporate entities, (corporations are people, remember?) That group is not subjected to drug testing. A cynic might suggest we'd be making better use of our time testing "misuse of government funds" in other places than with the poorest of the poor, but I digress...
If the problem lies in the singling out of a particular group, then why not change the scope of the testing? The idea of holding of Government accountable, reducing fraud and waste, etc. plays well in today's highly partisan world. Everyone wants to see improved Government accountability, everyone wants to see reduced fraud and waste. Why not open the testing criteria up to all State vendors, all contractors, etc? Anyone who receives state dollars should be held to a high standard because they aren't receiving private sector dollars. They are receiving public sector dollars. The Government should advocate for the the taxpayer. As Lincoln said and I've repeated many times, Government is best utilized doing things that the people can not do for themselves.
You or I aren't in a position to administer drug tests. The Government is. If a State came out today and announced that any individual, vendor, company, etc. doing business with that State must submit to random drug testing, I think...based on what I've read...it would stand up to Constitutional review and become law of the land. If one State does it successfully, then others will surely follow. Which would allow a much larger step to be taken toward fiscal accountability with those who receive State monies. It would also appear to less of a political ploy to most people as well. It would, over time, raise the standard of what our tax dollars are able to purchase. If we punished both the small and large, the poor and the wealthy, then I say let the testing begin.
One caveat.
Children.
I have a big problem with this scenario. Dad's long gone, Mom is working a part time job taking care of her 2 year old son. She would like more hours at work, but they're not available. She has no health care beyond Medicaid. Occasionally, when her son is at Grandma's, she hangs out with her friends. Sometimes, someone will have weed. If she tests positive, is she really to have her benefits terminated? If we're playing hard ball, then the 2 year old will certainly be effected by it. My fear is that a child gets punished for the actions of a parent. Its a bit of a grey line as well. Do we put the above Mother into the same group with welfare recipients who commit fraud?
I'm not sure what the difference is. I know this perception that welfare mommas are living high on the hog, watching wide screen TV's, wearing Rolex's and driving Lexus's is bullshit. If you're on welfare or medicaid, you by definition are the poorest of the poor. I don't care about anecdotes. I don't believe most of them anyway. What your friend heard from her cousin about a friend of a friend of a friend isn't anything that we should be basing public policy on.
I repeat we're talking the poorest of the poor. For example, if you're a couple in Alabama and between the two of you, you earn more than $2,500.00 a YEAR, you won't qualify for Medicaid. Which is about the only shot you have at any kind of normal health care. To single out a group in this economic bracket seems cruel to me.
It will be interesting to see additional data come out on the test results. If future reports suggest that the initial finding of just 2% is an average for those welfare recipients using, a rate lower than society in general, then the entire basis of testing this population for drugs will have been proven to be a highly questionable use of public monies.
Test anyone who receives public monies via a State. I think we'd be shocked at the returns on that idea.
UPDATE: In my main work, I provide live musical entertainment for a variety of venues, including Nursing Homes, such as the Veteran's Administration offers all over the Country. As I then receive public monies, I say test me. In fact, test me first...Bring it on, I'm good...
Sources:
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2090871-2,00.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125387528
http://mdcarroll.com/2010/02/17/a-review-of-medicaid/
http://www.franklincountyvapatriots.com/?p=1331
No comments:
Post a Comment