The New York Times reported on Monday that at least three dozen state legislatures the majority of which are Republican-controlled have put forth initiatives to make drug testing a prerequisite for all manner of public assistance: welfare, unemployment and food stamps, to name a few. While at first glance this onslaught of new proposals seems sensible (why should taxpayers support drug habits of the poor?), a closer examination reveals that this flawed logic is based on pre-existing class and racial stereotypes and does nothing to solve any of the pressing issues this country faces.
The arguments for these new policies come at a time of staggering unemployment in the United States currently 9.1 percent, down from its peak of 10.1 percent in 2009 but more than twice as high as rates only four years ago. In the largely Republican-controlled state houses, these proposals have been supported by rhetoric about the misuse of public funds, excessive government spending and the increasing prevalence of drug testing in the work place. While these arguments align quite nicely with proclaimed right-wing preference for cutting welfare programs and government spending, a look into past and present initiatives reveals that the stated goals of these policies do not match reality.
The economic effect of making drug tests an eligibility requirement for public assistance appears marginal at best and negative at worst. The ACLU, for example, put out a report in the weeks following Florida's July adoption of a drug-testing policy that demonstrated the state was actually losing money from the initiative. The high cost of drug-testing kits outweighed the money not being paid to those who had tested positive. In the months since, the data remain open to interpretation and are being used by each side for their respective agendas, as the Times article noted. What remains most important to me, however, is that while a small percent of the monthly benefits for those who tested positive may have indeed gone to purchasing drugs, people applying to welfare still need to eat, still need a place to sleep and still need to provide basic care for their families. By rendering them ineligible for welfare, their chances of breaking the cycle of their poverty and drug use are drastically reduced a reality that can only be a further economic burden on already struggling states.
Secondly, initiatives requiring drug testing for benefits have been ruled unconstitutional in the past. A similar program was struck down in Michigan a decade ago, with the judge arguing that mandatory drug testing was a violation of a citizen's constitutionally guaranteed protection from unreasonable search and seizure. This logic is not difficult to follow. Unless we assume that being jobless is probable cause for drug use a gross instance of discrimination based on race and class we cannot reasonably require across-the-board testing.
Last, but perhaps most importantly, these proposed and enacted laws draw their strength from and reinforce incredibly negative and damaging stereotypes of the unemployed. Particularly given the near doubling of the joblessness rate in recent years, standard portrayals of benefits recipients as"welfare queens" and lazy, incompetent drug addicts do not match reality. Many unemployed Americans are simply victims of the recession struggling to weather out these bad economic times, and as the Times article discussed, many unemployed people are so busy trying to make ends meet that the idea of using or affording drugs seems ridiculous.
I do agree it is a tragedy to waste taxpayer's dollars on drug use. But the greater tragedy lies in the drug addiction itself. Barring those who do suffer from addiction from the help that may get them back on their feet will only further exacerbate our problems, solidify class divides and increase negative stereotyping.
To me, this issue reflects a growing and concerning trend in today's politics policies that are designed to appeal to a party base while not actually accomplishing their stated goals. While Democrat and Republican lawmakers at the state and national level grandstand over party ideologies to win re-election, real people with real problems are suffering in the streets. If we continue to allow these kinds of policies those supported by ideology and not fact we will all suffer the consequences and live in a worse world as a result.
