Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 10/06/2008 9:55:49 PM PDT by SantosLHalper
Drug-testing proposal gets mixed response State House candidate wants to require it for anyone receiving government assistance By Jason Spencer jason.spencer@shj.com
Published: Monday, October 6, 2008 at 3:15 a.m. Last Modified: Monday, October 6, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. Some clapped, some looked confused, some looked downright apprehensive. A couple of women in the back of the room said a heartfelt “amen.”
Order a Reprint Weldon DavisBut when state House candidate Weldon Davis announced at a recent county Democratic Party rally that, if elected, he would push legislation to require drug testing on virtually anyone receiving government assistance — aside from those who are disabled — the mixed response the idea received is likely indicative of the welcome such legislation would receive in the Statehouse.
Davis said anyone receiving monthly welfare checks (now called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF), applying for food stamps or entering the public housing system should undergo drug testing. He believes legislation could be drafted so that it wouldn’t discriminate against anyone, though he is aware such a law would likely be challenged in court.
“In order to have the privilege to have a job, many people have to submit themselves to a drug screen — in order to pay taxes, pay their mortgage, put gas in their car, put food on the table,” Davis said. “So, I believe that people who are using the system should have to do the same thing.”
Davis, 51, said a few weeks ago while campaigning he met a woman whose husband was in the National Guard and had been deployed to Iraq. She told him that she had applied for food stamps, but was only eligible for $30 a month. In his mind, he juxtaposes this with personal experiences of being in line at a grocery store and having someone offer to pay for his purchase with food stamps in exchange for the cash he was going to use.
“We have people who know how to work the system, who are getting $1,000 a month in food stamps, driving around in a new car, and don’t have to get up to go to work? Something’s wrong with this picture,” Davis said.
Davis faces incumbent Rep. Lanny Littlejohn, R-Pacolet, in November. Littlejohn says he doesn’t have a problem with Davis’ idea, though it’s of the sort that would likely come up anyway in January when the Legislature convenes.
State Sen. David Thomas, R-Greenville, for example, introduced a bill in February that would have required random drug testing for anyone who receives unemployment benefits. The bill was promptly shuffled off to a committee, where it remained until the Legislature adjourned for the year.
“We’ve had that type of legislation done before, but I don’t think it passed,” Littlejohn said. “That probably gets introduced every year. It makes it to committee … where it generally dies.”
Putting it on the table Should Davis’ or anyone else’s bill to expand drug testing survive the South Carolina Statehouse, though, it likely would have to survive a few years’ worth of legal wrangling before full implementation.
One question mark could come with food stamps.
Food stamps are administered under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service agency. Food stamps are different than TANF, and the federal Food Stamp Act does not mention drug testing — though states can choose to opt out of a provision that allows felons convicted of certain drug offenses access to food stamps if they are in or have completed a substance abuse program.
But, according to the Food and Nutrition Service agency, no state has enacted a law requiring drug tests for food stamp recipients. So, that remains untested in court.
A way of life? The biggest challenge could come with welfare recipients, or those receiving TANF checks.
The 1996 Welfare Reform Act allows states to require drug testing for anyone receiving assistance.
A few states — Florida, Virginia, Louisiana, New York, among others — toyed with the idea or adopted a more reserved approach. But in October 1999, Michigan became the first state to require random drug testing of all welfare recipients, and of all those applying for welfare for the first time.
A lawsuit was filed within five weeks. The case eventually went to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which ruled the practice unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief on behalf of the plaintiffs in that case. Part of its argument was based on the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU’s Drug Law Reform Project, was one of the attorneys who filed that brief. Boyd, a Spartanburg native now doubling as the interim director of the new South Carolina office of the ACLU, would not comment for this article.
Following the Court of Appeals decision, though, Boyd issued a statement that, “This ruling should send a message to the rest of the nation that drug testing programs like these are neither an appropriate or effective use of a state’s limited resources.”
Such a policy in Michigan “hasn’t been pursued in some time,” a spokeswoman for that state’s Department of Human Services said.
Davis said he was sure the ACLU would challenge his proposal if it became state law.
“How is it an invasion of a person’s privacy if working-class South Carolinians have to submit themselves to a drug test in order to pay their taxes and feed their families? People are tired of people who don’t help themselves, and of people who find ways to twist the system and find ways to take their generosity and abuse it,” he said.
“Welfare was originally intended to help people in need. It wasn’t intended as a way of life.”
Davis believes that if a welfare recipient fails a drug test, they should be given a short period of time to get clean. After that, if they fail again, then their benefits should be eliminated, he said.
The right thing? Another big debate could come with public housing.
According to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, commonly called HUD, area housing authorities can require drug-testing as part of the application process — they’re neither required nor prohibited from doing so.
“As long as it’s discretionary, and it’s administrated in a way that doesn’t violate the federal Fair Housing Act, some authorities are trying it,” said Jim Grow, deputy director of the Oakland, Calif.-based National Housing Law Project.
“I wouldn’t say there’s any kind of tidal wave of it.”
Some properties owned by the Chicago Housing Authority, for instance, require drug testing. That’s largely because the Chicago Housing Authority relies on private property managers to oversee their units. The decision, then, is left up to the individual property manager.
Federal regulations already have in place a “one-strike” policy that allows housing authorities to evict an entire household if one of its members is convicted of a drug-related crime. That family cannot be allowed back into the system within three years unless the person convicted has completed or is enrolled in a rehabilitation program, or is no longer a part of the family.
The one-strike policy was put on hold when it was first introduced because it, too, had its fair share of legal battles before implementation.
Housing authorities also are allowed to establish admission standards based on alcohol abuse that might threaten “the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.” And housing authorities are required to check the criminal background records of their applicants — cost in South Carolina: $25 per person — and are not allowed to pass that cost along as part of an application fee.
Bill Faulkenberry, interim director of the Spartanburg Housing Authority, cited the potential cost burden, the potential breakup of a family and the privacy issue as areas of concern with Davis’ proposal.
“It’s unclear on what the purpose of this is. While we oppose drug use, we do have drug counselors, and it’s not a problem limited to our population and our economic market,” Faulkenberry said.
“We’re not against anything that would reduce the level of drug use in public housing or in our community in general, but that’s a fine line to walk on the issue of benefit to the public housing community versus the invasion of privacy.”
Davis said housing authorities likely would save money because a drug-testing policy would reduce the number of applicants and therefore free up dollars to pay for the tests.
As for breaking up families, he said, “That’s not the ultimate goal.”
But, “If you have one member of the family who is selling or trading food stamps to obtain drugs, or using money to buy drugs, then they’re not supporting the family to begin with. So you take that person out. That person is actually endangering the family to begin with,” Davis said.
“This may actually cut down on some of the child abuse that’s going on … and may help break the cycle of people being government dependent. It’s a generational thing — children grow up watching their mom and dad being taken care of by the state of South Carolina, and that’s what they’re used to. This is a way to entice people to do the right thing.”
This guys a Democrat? Hell just froze over.
Its a bad idea probably
Save the money for drug tests, just end welfare. End the NEED for illegal immigrant labor, just end welfare. Lower government spending, just end welfare. Lower taxes, just end welfare. Stop politicians from buying millions of votes with taxpayer money, just end welfare. Restore Americas work ethic, just end welfare. Lower the illegitimacy rate, just end welfare.
Prisoners and those on parole often get drug tested. Now they want to test people that are government dependents.
It comes full circle...
cost effective drug testing only works for pot, the crackheads and speedfreaks only need a few days to get clean.
Liberals would love to have a sensor probe up everyones budt and a traffic light camera on every corner, it just goes along with that whole socialist mindset
NO DRUG TESTS PERIOD!!!
Stupid idea. Its already bad enough drugs are illegal, but come on now.
Good job politicians, create some more unnecessary laws targeting peoples freedom. Way to go!
somebody in the legislature has a sense of humor ...
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Law = TANFL = There Aint No Free Lunch
The only people who should required to be drug tested are congresscritters. Preferably daily.
ANY legislator and any bureaucrat ANY time, fed, state or local. President, too. Until someone finally has the stones to END the war on the Constitution, AKA the war on (some) drugs. Most of them MUST be on drugs, the things they propose and do!
In the state of Georgia, a drug test is required during the Workers Compensation claim application process. The state and corporations save big money because of it. I wonder if other states have picked up the practice.
Yup. For the duration of the "war on drugs".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.