A new, controversial law instituted in Florida on July 1, 2011 and repealed on October 26, 2011 required drug testing for welfare applicants. Many opponents of this policy cite it as racist and in violation the “unreasonable search and seizure” clause of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Many also argue it may unfairly and unjustly target the African-American community. Upon further research though, I discovered approximately 8 out 10 African Americans actually favored this policy according to a BlackPlanet/NewsOne poll (http://newsone.com/newsone-original/newsonestaff2/77-percent-of-black-people-support-drug-testing-for-welfare-recipients/). Proponents of drug testing welfare recipients argue this government aid program provides the financial means for drug users and dealers to fund their habits. I believe stereotyping blacks receiving welfare as lazy criminals who use and deal drugs has played a major role on individual’s opinions on this issue. Contrary to popular belief, nearly 70% of illegal drug users are full-time employees and do not receive welfare benefits (http://ideas.time.com/2011/08/29/drug-testing-the-poor-bad-policy-even-worse-law/#ixzz1fzlKzdO5). In fact, most African Americans on welfare are law-abiding citizens that diligently work to try to make ends meet each month. These individuals want safe neighborhoods that a proposed policy like this may bring along with it.
While this law was institutionalized in Florida, only 2% of all welfare applicants tested positive for drugs. A television station in Florida revealed that only two of the first forty applicants actually tested positive. The state of Florida would have saved $240 a month if it denied welfare to those citizens but would have spent $1,440 testing all forty applicants. Additionally, this issue ended up in Florida courts, and taxpayers picked up this tab. If this policy’s aim is to save the state money, the benefit-cost ratio shows this law has no economic value. Other reasons besides finances must be at play if the policy continues to be legitimized. Even after these findings have been reported, states such as Alabama, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Louisiana have expressed interest in passing a similar law.
Due to these findings, I am suspicious of the true reason why welfare applicants are actually being tested for drugs. Many other citizens receive government aid such as farmers, college students, and retired state workers, and no arrangement to test these individuals for drugs has been proposed. My personal opinion is race played a significant role in why this policy was introduced and ratified in the first place. I am interested to see thoughts others have on this issue and whether or not you believe race has played a role in its proposal as a law.
After reading your blog post and mentioned article, I can definitely see both sides of the debate. This blog post grabbed my attention particularly, because I have looked into this exact issue before.
ReplyDeleteMy dad works in industrial sales for a company that produces large inputs for refineries and petrochemical facilities. Because of the nature of the industry, he along with every other employee has to be drug tested on a regular basis. He and I have talked about the implications of this before, and I admit he is in favor of the proposed policy at face value. His main concern is that if he has to be drug tested to make his money, and then is forced to give back a portion to the government, whomever receives his money should be applicable to the same conditions.
However, your article makes me consider the policy in different light. Financially, Florida's enactment was a sunken cost, losing more of the tax dollars than saving. Thus it seems the policy is a waste. Similarly, the policy does indeed touch on rights violation. I then thought, if it is my dad's choice to work at a company that drug tests, then his argument is negated. In the same light though, if an individual who chooses to apply for welfare under the policy, he is making a informed decision also. An individual is not forced to apply for welfare, thus he is not forced to take a drug test.
Also, even though only 2% of Florida's welfare recipients tested positive, other states might prove differently if they have higher drug use. Additionally, if the policy was publicized, it might have possibly pressured some individuals to not apply at all. The 1996 report's 70% statistic could also be compromised due to our current economic crisis, i.e. more people are unemployed and unemployment does have a complex relationship with the drug industry. But, I don't want to make a debased assumption, so I'll shy away from that issue.
All in all, I really enjoyed reading this. I am definitely going to share the article with my dad. My opinion on the policy has certainly been enlightened.
I also enjoyed reading your article. In my family, we often have discussion about the topic. The general consensus in my family has always been that there should be drug testing for individuals on welfare.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can defiantly see how using drug tests could be seen as racial profiling, I believe that that government is responsible for making sure the money they have collected from other citizens is being used appropriately. More over, if the drug test is paid for by the government, and the individual isn't using the money for drugs, then there really should not be an issue. Drug tests are a standard portion of a job application and people do not question that policy. Maggie commented that her father has to take a drug test and if someone is receiving his money they too should have to receive the test.
I don't know if it is just me, but it seems like implying that "drug testing welfare recipients is racial profiling" is in itself racial profiling or just a very indirect way of being offended about the relationship between race and poverty. If the point of this program was to save money, then I think it is ridiculous. On the other hand, assuming that welfare is meant to provide a safety net during periods of unemployment, I see it as a wake up call. I'm not sure if any of you have known a crack or meth addict but I have. Growing up, my best friend's mother (a white woman) was addicted to crack and funding it with welfare, leaving her kids to eat ramen noodles every night. I think welfare is a great institution, but the fact remains that it is really hard to get a job when you are high. If you have ever smoked pot habitually, then you might understand what I'm talking about. This might just be the idea that forces those individuals to hit bottom and get their head together.
ReplyDelete