[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Health See other Health Articles Title: Welfare drug tests: Noble effort or unnecessary stigma? By Yaël Ossowski | Florida Watchdog TAMPA — The measure was intended to promote “personal responsibility” and put an end to millions in “misused” tax dollars. If welfare recipients expect to receive a check, warned Sunshine State lawmakers last spring, then they must submit their urine to the state and prove their bodies are clean of illegal substances. But data obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida reveals that the required drug tests saved no taxpayer money, and actually cost the state of Florida $45,780. Signed by Republican Gov. Rick Scott last June, the law in question targets individuals applying for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, a federal block grant program created by Congress in 1996 to provide short-term funds to impoverished families while parents look for work. For Florida, the block grant is $211 million, drawn from the federal treasury and transferred to the state where the money is sent out. According to the federal law, states are empowered to create their own eligibility requirements for the assistance program, and are granted authority to administer drug tests for welfare recipients. Before receiving funds, Florida law stipulates that TANF applicants must pay for a drug test at one of 340 state-approved facilities. If the test yields negative results, then the money is reimbursed and cash assistance benefits begin. On the other hand, if applicants test positive, they are barred from receiving benefits for one year — or until they complete a substance-abuse treatment program. In an interview with CNN last year, Scott defended mandatory drug testing, promising it would “protect children” and stop the government from “subsidizing” drug addiction. This came after the governor faced heat from ethical commissioners over his family’s 70 percent ownership of shares in Solantic, a health-care corporation Scott co-founded in 2011 that provides drug testing and services to Medicaid patients. The stock purportedly had been transferred to his wife, but increased pressure forced Scott to sell the shares at a discounted $60 million to avoid a conflict of interest, said Scott spokeswoman Amy Graham. Other proponents, such as the Foundation for Government Accountability, a free-market nonprofit, celebrated the law as fiscal victory for Florida taxpayers. “The drug testing law was really meant to make sure that kids were protected,” vice president Chris Cinquemani said in an interview. “That taxpayer generosity was being used on diapers and Wheaties and food and clothing.” Failed experiment? But despite the well wishes of the drug-testing advocates, the science seems to prove that it may have all been for naught. Of the 4,086 Floridians to apply for benefits from January to October 2011, only 108 failed the drug test, according to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. This represents a paltry 2.6 percent of welfare recipients testing positive for illegal substances, falling exceedingly short of the earlier warnings by Florida lawmakers of drug-addicted fiends on the government dole. The documents were uncovered by the Florida ACLU in the course of its lawsuit against the state. The ACLU claimed that mandatory drug screenings constitute an unreasonable search as defined by the Fourth Amendment, and are therefore unconstitutional. The ruling eventually favored the ACLU in October of last year, leading the U.S. District Court to issue a temporary injunction in the state, ceasing all drug testing mandates until a higher court takes up the issue. Noble intentions Despite the legal wrangling, many proponents still view mandatory drug testing for welfare benefits as an inherently genuine goal they view as necessary — fiscally and morally. The Foundation for Government Accountability, a nonpartisan nonprofit that promotes free-market public policies, released a report in September 2011, recommending other states adopt similar laws to promote “substantial” fiscal savings. Legislators in Wyoming passed a similar bill in February, leading Republican state Rep. David Miller to exclaim that the bill was essential because “we should not be rewarding people that are not behaving responsibly.” But for Florida, illicit drug abuse, whether abused by welfare recipients, forever pales in comparison to other substances. Seven Floridians a day die from prescription drug overdose, ranking Florida first in the nation, according to the Poison Center of Tampa. By analyzing individual autopsies, the Florida Medical Examiners Commission similarly released a study in 2007 concluding that three times more deaths were caused by prescription drugs than all other illegal drugs combined. Federal prosecutors, who once called Florida the center for the nationwide “epidemic” of prescription drug abuse, estimate that doctors in the state prescribe 10 times more oxycodone, a powerful painkiller, than all other states combined. Perhaps that is what prompted last month’s raids by the Drug Enforcement Agency on Walgreens pharmacies statewide — discovering excessive amounts of pain-killing drugs tied to a distribution ring. Moreover, recent studies from the United Kingdom prove that the most dangerous drug may be found in kitchens and grocery store, well in the reach of welfare dependents and children. The Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, an advisory committee focused on drug research, revealed the most dangerous drug is alcohol, taking into consideration its effect on the body and the community as a whole — by dependency, physical abuse and economic factors. These are drugs that are completely legal and accessible to Americans, without the stigma of a failed drug test. For Florida lawmakers, this raises an interesting question. If the U.S. Justice Department estimates that only 6 percent of Americans ages 12 and older actively abuse illegal drugs, and recent documents reveal that only 2.6 percent of welfare recipients test positive for drugs, at a cost of $45,780 to the taxpayers, how can requiring drug testing for welfare benefits achieve its original goals? While Florida lawmakers certainly intended to promote a better culture of personal responsibility and fiscal accountability, their efforts seem to have been lost to science and statistics. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: farmfriend (#0)
thanks for the highlight in red. rick scott, another disgusting cretin. there is no way that welfare should be contingent on drug testing. the 2 issues are not related. but, entitlement programs evoke such sentiments.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
Hardly a noble effort. People on welfare can't afford illegal drugs. This drug testing is going to be unspeakably expensive in the long haul and probably cut only 1% or 2% off the welfare roles, not even enough to offset the expense of the testing. How about drug testing other people who get money from the State govt -- like the legislators?? How many members of the State Assembly are hooked on painkillers or booze?
I feel the same about our valiant leaders. However, a fair number of welfare recipients are disabled and have "chronic pain". It's not uncommon to have them take half their oxycontin or morphine or methadone and sell the rest on the street for a pretty good living. Still it will cost more than it saves and it's demeaning and petty. A truly disabled person should not be treated like a criminal on probation.
What about drug tests for corporate welfare? Bankers, maybe?
“Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.”
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||