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?