Florida’s drug testing program was ruled unconstiutional by a Federal judge. Gov. Rick Scott’s wife owns a chain of clinics doing the testing. A similar pilot program in Michigan in 2003 was tossed out by the Michigan Supreme Court.
State Rep. Jeff Farrington (R-Utica), House assistant majority floor leader
(VOD: Michigan Rep. Jeff Farrington (R-Utica), house assistant majority floor leader, introduced H.B. 5223 in Dec. 2011, which would require that all recipients of public assistance be drug tested and denied benefits if the tests are positive. (Click on Welfare drug testing 2011-HIB-5223[1]) The Department of Human Services has now drafted a proposal for such testing.
Individual hearings on the cut-offs of thousands of families from assistance are continuing. According to advocates from Michigan Legal Services, administrative law judges are ruling against the recipients.
The Senate Fiscal Analysis division just released a report predicting that the state will have a budget SURPLUS this year of almost $1 BILLION. It is time for the state’s unions, churches, community groups and others to unite in support of these victims of corporate greed, which has eliminated hundreds of thousands of jobs in Michigan.
Below is a column by a University of Houston doctoral candidate.
Mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients is unconstitutional
Published on: Wednesday, October 19, 2011
State House during vote to cut off public assistance; WHY NOT TEST LEGISLATORS FOR DRUGS?
Under the guise of ensuring prudent government spending and personal accountability, state Legislatures across the country are proposing that mandatory drug testing be a condition for receiving welfare assistance. Everything from food stamps to unemployment benefits would be awarded only after screening for illicit drug use, and supporters are championing this measure as a sensible means of preventing the waste of tax-payers’ dollars on “junkies” and “addicts.”
Whatever the intent, such drug testing policies violate the constitutional rights of those who are already facing financial hardship and simply will not stand up against legal challenge.
Courts have ruled that drug testing constitutes an unreasaonable search; here a technician tests urine taken under mandate.
In previous cases, the US Supreme Court has ruled that drug testing constitutes a form of search, and when carried out by a government agency, falls under the regulation of the fourth amendment. As a result, the prerequisite of probable cause must exist prior to conducting a drug test. Such conditions must be met on a case by case basis, and the blanket approach of screening all welfare applicants is overly presumptive.
In essence, states are taking the position that all welfare applicants are suspected drug users and are subject to being searched. There is no reasonable basis for such suspicion, hence the conviction that this form of obligatory drug testing is illegal.
Of course not all mandatory drug testing programs are constitutionally prohibited. Select government employees can be subjected to testing when there is a “compelling interest.” Jobs related to public safety or that have the potential to expose the public to danger meet this definition, and they justifiably warrant pre-emptive drug testing.
Additionally, private enterprises, which by definition fall outside the realm of government, are free to conduct random drug screening as a condition for employment.
Legality issues aside, drug testing mandates are oppressive, imprecise and largely ineffective. Welfare recipients rarely garner much public sympathy, but stigmatizing poverty by associating it with drug abuse is patently malicious.
While there is a definite correlation between drug use and poverty, there is no indication of causation. That is to say, similar conditions lead to both, but drug abuse is not a source of poverty and vice versa. And at a time when an increasing number of people are reliant on state and federal welfare, the link between the two is weakened further.
In addition, studies from the Department of Health and Human Resources have found that the unemployed and employed use illicit drugs at comparable rates, and in terms of absolute numbers, 70 percent of illegal drug users between the age of 18-49 are employed full-time.
Supporters of mandatory testing claim such policies will serve as de facto rehabilitation programs. This argument that screening welfare applicants will help curtail drug use is, at best, disingenuous. To begin with, the most commonly used testing procedures specifically focus on a short list of illegal substances and fail to identify the most commonly abused drug — alcohol.
More to the point, simply denying welfare benefits to drug users is unlikely to break the powerful grip of addiction. On the contrary, pushing people into further destitution will tend to increase drug use as their situation becomes more dire and hopeless.
The sentiment that drug users are undeserving of government aid is understandable, and mandatory drug testing may very well have a practical and positive impact on government welfare programs.
But the fact remains that this form of financial assistance must be allocated in a manner consistent with the Constitution. That some small percentage of welfare benefits will go towards the purchase of illicit drugs is a regrettable but necessary consequence of constraining government intrusiveness and maintaining personal freedom for all.
Marc Anderson is a 3rd-year cell biology Ph.D. student and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.
The Daily Cougar is the official student newspaper of the University of Houston, Texas.
Good article. This is my first time visiting here and I just wanted to say I have really enjoyed reading this article. I own a Drug, Alcohol and DNA testing facility and am always looking for good information that helps me communicate better with my clients. Your post on Michigan considers testing of public assistance recipients was interesting. I see a lot of debate on this subject fro every state in the nation. Thanks for the information.