A few weeks ago, I opened my mailbox and received a pamphlet from a local politician asking the people in my house how we felt about several key issues. Later that night, I read it over with my mother.
Because both of us are loyal Democrats, it didn't take us long to come up with opinions on most of the issues. We didn't have to think a great deal to figure out how we felt about topics like health care, abortion, and same-sex marriage.
Then, we reached the last question, and that's where we were a bit perplexed. It asked whether or not welfare recipients should be drug tested. At this point, we gave each other a blank stare. This was something we hadn't heard much about before.
After looking into it more, however, I realized that in recent months, this has been a hot-button issue in several states, such as Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Florida. These states have proposed legislation that would force welfare recipients to take mandatory drug tests in order to keep their benefits.
After pondering the topic for a while, there were a few things that kept me from being able to support this bill. For one thing, the bill seems to be a rather blatant act of class warfare. The bill assumes that the simple fact that someone is on welfare means that he or she is likely to use drugs.
This is hardly the case. While there are certainly some recipients who have drug problems, there are also many others who simply need financial help at a given time and would never touch drugs.
To make someone who has never been arrested for drug possession in his life take tests on a regular basis simply because he is part of a segment of the population that is associated with drug use is simply unfair. It assumes the worst of the poor.
But what about welfare recipients who do have a history of drug use? Testing them might make more sense, but what would we do if they tested positive? Take away their benefits and leave them likely to become homeless? Throw them in jail? Either of these choices would simply expand the problem.
The only way this could work would be if the serious drug users were placed into a rehab facility following their positive tests. If this legislation worked to help welfare recipients who had drug problems, rather than simply punish them, I'd be far more likely to support it.
What's interesting about this bill is the spirit in which it is being proposed. Kentucky State Representative Lonnie Napier said he supported the bill because "it would save millions and millions." That says a lot about why this is really being done. It's not about helping impoverished people with drug problems; it's simply about cutting money from the budget and causing the poor to suffer in the process.
I understand the economy is still struggling, and many states need to save money, but this classist, presumptive piece of legislation is the wrong way to do it. If the bill was about helping drug users, I would support it, but that is clearly not the case. It is simply about finding a new way to throw the poor under the bus and to make sure they pay for the economy's problems while the wealthiest citizens stay unscathed.
Email: John.Hugar@ubspectrum.com
