The idea of screening welfare candidates and recipients for drugs didn’t come out of the blue. Gov. Rick Scott hinted at it during his campaign. In fact, it was one of the few things we thought Scott was on the right track with.
Now the concept is coming to fruition.
There’s a House bill making its way through committee that would require every welfare recipient with a felony drug charge to take a drug test. With this bill being tossed around, however, we’re beginning to see problems with the plan.
At first blush, we liked the concept of ensuring people receiving state funds weren’t using them to further a drug habit. Forcing welfare recipients to keep clean could act as a deterrent against one of the worst contributors to the cycle of poverty. Maybe the promise of funds would help some people break their habits.
Then again, maybe not.
After all, stopping cold turkey doesn’t tend to work.
For our coffee-chugging readers, imagine going from drinking a pot one day to absolutely no joe the next. If the irritability and lethargy don’t get to you, the headaches will.
If someone can’t break the habit and loses their assistance, the state would recoup some of its money. Keeping that in mind, supporters of the bill seem almost sinister by betting on drug addiction as a way to fuel a budget cut.
It also seems cruel — although budget-friendly — to make people pay for their drug testing when they are applying for financial assistance. Of course, this makes sense for drug users, but the majority of people would be shelling out money they don’t have for a test that may not even be constitutional.
That’s right: The idea has been tested before in other states, and a court in Michigan even decided that it conflicted with the Fourth Amendment (that’s the one about unlawful searches and seizures, for those who need a Bill of Rights refresher).
There’s another, much larger can of worms to open up here, however.
If Florida can somehow legally dictate who gets welfare assistance based on drug test results, why wouldn’t the government try to test for other public benefits? For instance, should a child be allowed to attend a school funded with tax money if his or her parent has a narcotics problem? Should taking a drug test be part of receiving state financial aid?
Once again, with the tests funded by the subject, it would be beneficial for the state’s bottom line, but not for much else.
This proposal is one of the problems we’re seeing from running a state like a business. Drug addicts would be better served by receiving therapy, and all welfare recipients could benefit from job counseling. Heck, they might even get off the taxpayers’ dime, but it’s a pipe dream for now. Our lawmakers aren’t about to cough up the money to stop the cycle of poverty while they cut everything else to shreds.
We can only hope these proposals are reconsidered before they exacerbate an already alarming problem.
