Florida’s Welfare Drug-Screen Law: Discrimination, Politics, Or The American Way?

May 30, 2011
Written by Janice S. Ellis... in
Latest News, Publisher's Note
Please rate this article
Florida Governor, Rick Scott, signed legislation to implement drug screening for all adults applying for welfare.

The new law requiring all adults who apply for welfare to undergo drug testing could be a positive step toward real welfare reform, if other reforms receive equal priority and importance.


Florida’s Governor, Republican Rick Scott, signed legislation requiring adults who apply for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening. In signing the measure, Scott said, “While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction. This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars.”


The law specifies that persons, applying for welfare (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families {TANF}), who test positive for illicit drugs will not be eligible for funds for a year or until he/she undergoes treatment. Those who fail the test a second time would be ineligible to receive welfare assistance for three years. Applicants must also pay for the test, but will be reimbursed if they pass. (This law does not affect the federal food stamp program.)


Some Democratic politicians are calling it, “downright unconstitutional.” Some argue that if you test welfare recipients, where will the line be drawn? Will families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants/loans also have to take drug tests? Others argue that the law is an extreme and illegal invasion of privacy.


The Florida chapter of the ACLU noted that a previous attempt to test welfare recipients for drugs in Michigan was ruled unconstitutional, and indicated they are considering filing suit to challenge the Florida law.


Federal law allows states to screen applicants for drugs who apply for TANF, which provides a maximum of $300 per month cash assistance for needy families. Many states have considered the option, but decided testing all applicants was not cost effective, according to a study by the Center for Legal and Social Policy.


All of the above positions notwithstanding, if we really think about it, there are a few facts worth considering:



  • Most employers require drug testing of applicants. Is that unconstitutional and an extreme invasion of privacy?

  • Taxpayers, like employers, should not support drug use. Should the government, on behalf of taxpayers, apply a different standard to applicants who seek remuneration because of need?

  • While the government provides assistance, an employer provides a job, should either be used to support a drug habit — something that could hinder securing and maintaining gainful employment?

  • Should government welfare programs exist for those administrators and employees who might have an interest in their perpetuation? Is there a real interest in reducing the welfare roll?

  • What is the incentive to stop applying for TANF/welfare?

The last question raises an even more important issue: What will the governor of Florida, or other governors, the President and Congress do to pass policies and legislation to insure that people can indeed transition from welfare to gainful employment — level the playing field so that the laws are good for employers and employees, the haves and the have-nots, alike?


What do you think?
 

Tags:
Latest News, Publisher's Note