Pubdate: Thu, 03 Nov 2011
Source: Miami Herald (FL)
Copyright: 2011 Miami Herald Media Co.
Contact:  http://www.miamiherald.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/262
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

DEMEANING UNNECESSARY TEST

Florida's Drug Test Requirement For Welfare Recipients Predictably 
Fails First Round In Court

It would be easy to praise Gov. Rick Scott and the Florida 
Legislature for the laudable goals of curbing drug use among welfare 
recipients by testing applicants and saving money by denying users 
aid. Easy to praise, that is, if wholesale testing really saved money 
and if applying for temporary cash assistance itself proves probable drug use.

In the face of contrary evidence, the best the governor and 
Legislature could hope to achieve with a new law was to build a 
barrier to help for those in need.

Florida had been there, done that with a pilot test of drug testing 
in 1998 and found few benefits for the poor or for taxpayers. The 
next year the federal courts declared unconstitutional a similar 
program in Michigan.

Yet, this year Mr. Scott proposed the drug-testing measure, and the 
Legislature cantered off to do it again with no indication that it 
now would be successful.

And a federal judge predictably has agreed with the Michigan ruling.

According to Judge Mary Scriven of Orlando, the testing requirement 
does not meet the exemption for "special need"  from the Fourth 
Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search. The courts have 
sanctioned government-required drug testing for workers in safety- 
and security-related jobs such as customs agents and train engineers, 
she noted.

But the courts have rejected laws such as Georgia's requiring drug 
tests of candidates for public office as an unwarranted intrusion into privacy.

The judge further noted that the Florida test results would not be 
held confidential and they would linger in state computers 
indefinitely. And she referred to the state's own failed pilot project.

Other studies on welfare families have had mixed results, some 
showing a somewhat higher incidence of drug use and others lower than 
the general population.

Since the Florida law took effect July 1, more than 7,000 applicants 
have been screened, and just 32 tested positive. Another 1,600 
applicants did not take the test.

Some likely refused because they would test positive, but all?

Applicants must pay $25 to $45 for the test at a lab and then wait to 
be reimbursed if the test is negative. That's quite an outlay for 
people so broke that they need a temporary monthly check of $364 for 
a family of four.

What's more, applicants who are taking medications under doctor's 
orders that might affect the result must prove it. This to-ing and 
fro-ing to offices and labs means they must have transportation.

Indeed, experts in the field cite lack of transportation, poor 
education and health problems " not drug abuse " as the reasons that 
people seek state assistance (let alone the economic crash).

Yes, it's easy to base welfare "reforms"  on stereotypes created 
before the 1996 welfare overhaul. That trimmed the rolls sharply with 
time limits for government assistance programs, limited benefits for 
children born while their parents are on aid and added a host of 
requirements for work.

Also included in the overhaul was curtailing aid to those with felony 
convictions for drug trafficking.

The Legislature could expand that to convictions for drug use within, 
say, a year or two of seeking government aid, and achieve its stated 
goal of keeping addicts off welfare.

Or was the true goal to impose a burdensome, demeaning test?

Legislators around the country have been racing to become 
state-sponsored nannies, with proposals even to ban cell-phone 
ownership by aid recipients (as if this makes job hunting easier).

Those steps may play well in Peoria, but they distract from the 
harder work of effective job training and other initiatives to enable 
work, such as low-cost day care and efficient public transportation. 
Shouldn't reducing the welfare rolls permanently be the goal?
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom