Pubdate: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
Source: Nation, The (US)
Copyright: 2000, The Nation Company
Contact:  http://www.thenation.com/
Author: Herman Schwartz, professor of law at American University

FOOD FROM THEIR MOUTHS

The Poor Are Not In Fashion.

Not only are they ignored, they are continually being subjected to punitive
measures that, under the guise of reform, grind them down even more. One of
the nastiest of these measures is contained in the so-called Welfare bill of
1996. A floor amendment sponsored by Senator Phil Gramm, whose soft Texas
drawl belies one of the meanest spirits in a mean Congress, provided that
those convicted of felony drug violations be denied food stamps for life, It
swept through the Senate 74 to 24.

The harshness of this measure is unprecedented. Murderers, rapists, robbers
and violent assailants are not subjected to such a penalty, nor are those
found to be engaged in food stamp trafficking, fraud or other offenses.

It makes no difference if the person is sick, pregnant, young, a first or
minor offender, or cured of addiction and leading a blameless life - nothing
the offender, the sentencing court or any administrator can do can soften
the lifetime ban.

The hardship this ban can cause is immense, quantitatively and
qualitatively. In 1998 approximately 20 million people were on food stamps.
About 1.6 million drug offenders were arrested in 1998, of which a very high
proportion were for felonies (in some states, a $5 transaction can be a
felony). Although theoretically only the offender loses the benefits, in
reality the whole family suffers.

To compound the harshness, although only offenders lose the stamps, their
earnings are included in their families' income thereby reducing the
household food stamp allotment.

Necessarily, the blow falls only on the poor which in the drug trade means
the addict; the manufacturers, big dealers and distributors obviously do not
need food stamps.

The lifetime ban makes life particularly miserable for the very large number
of sick and disabled drug users.

A Philadelphia study of thirty-one women in a residential drug-treatment
center found that all thirty-one had significant physical health problems
and that twenty-nine had serious mental-health problems in addition to
alcohol or drug addiction.

Diabetes and hypertension are particularly common, as are sexually
transmitted diseases.

Many of the women need special diets, but without food stamps they cannot
get them.

Drug treatment efforts are also hurt by the Gramm amendment.

Residential centers usually require residents to turn over their food
stamps.

The amendment cuts off that subsidy, increasing costs. Women are hit
especially hard. They constitute a disproportionately high number of drug
offenders, and the number is increasing. In state prisons, the number of
women imprisoned for drug offenses rose from 2,400 in 1986 to 23,700 in
1996. Nearly 40 percent of today's female prisoners are in for drug
offenses, and more than two-thirds have young children.

And of course, blacks and Latinos are hit hardest of all, because of the
discrimination against them in our criminal justice system, which is most
flagrant in drug law enforcement. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
has just issued a report showing that although drug use rates per capita are
similar for minorities and whites - some studies even show drug usage among
young blacks to be lower per capita than among young whites - and although
blacks account for only 12 percent of the population, they make up 38
percent of drug arrests.

In addition, male and female minority drug offenders get more frequent and
longer prison terms than their white counterparts.

Despite its irrational cruelty, little can be done about the law. Lawsuits
before a judiciary still dominated by Reagan/Bush appointees are futile -
one such suit has already failed in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit. Another way out, not within the control of the offender, is that a
State may choose not to accept the ban, in whole or in part. Twenty-eight
have done so; ten, including New York, the District Of Columbia and Vermont,
have opted out completely and others, like Maryland and Illinois, only for
some offenders or under certain conditions. But some of the largest states,
including California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Massachusetts, retain
the total ban. And getting states to opt out is very difficult.

In some states, such as California, the governor has vetoed an opt-out bill
passed by the legislature.

So far, the damage from this law has been limited, because many of those
affected are still in prison. But over time, the number of people, and their
families, denied food stamps will swell.

The shame of widespread hunger in the richest nation of the world will then
be one more toll exacted by our stupidly harsh drug laws and our cruelly
opportunistic politicians.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk