| Login | You have 0 item(s) in your Shopping Cart |
|
4/27/2009 - Mandatory Drug Testing for Texas Food Stamp Recipients Texas has recently enacted a new law requiring that food stamp recipients undergo drug testing. This new law is just one of many similar proposals regarding testing welfare recipients being debated in state legislatures around the country. With a fight between the state government and civil liberties groups likely, this is an important issue for the drug testing community to watch. The Texas law requires food stamp applicants who have convictions for certain crimes within the previous five years to submit to drug testing. If they test positive for controlled substances they will be denied benefits for 12 months. Those who do not test positive for controlled substances will be required to undergo monthly drug tests while receiving food stamps. The law goes into effect on September 1, 2009. Nationwide Efforts to Pass Similar Legislation This is not the first law of its kind. The U.S. Congress considered similar legislation in 2005 although the resolution died in committee. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 10 states (Florida, Arizona, Hawaii, California, Illinois, Iowa, Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia and New York) are considering random drug testing for food stamps, jobless checks and other state entitlements. Highlighted legislation includes:
An Expensive Business Drug testing for food stamps could prove to be very expensive. The number of Americans drawing unemployment benefits surpasses 5.7 million. More than 32 million, or one out of every 10 Americans, is receiving food stamps. Drug tests tend to cost between $50 and $150. Obviously, if state governments are paying for the tests, the costs will add up quickly. The State of New York, for example, currently has more than 2.2 million recipients of food stamps. At $100 a test it would cost more than $220 million to test each recipient once. Monthly testing could enter the billions of dollars before unemployment and other welfare programs are taken into account. To be fair, most states proposing legislation have far smaller populations than New York. Proponents of the legislation claim that while expenses would be incurred, the states would be saving money by not supporting and feeding drug addicts with food stamps and welfare money. Forcing the welfare recipient to pay for the test is also likely to face opposition. Especially where monthly drug tests would be required — such as in West Virginia — this would be prohibitively expensive. Critics argue that forcing applicants to pay $1200 a year to get welfare benefits defeats the purpose of welfare programs. However, the idea is not entirely without its champions. One state senator in Florida, Michael S. Bennett, is suggesting that all people receiving unemployment must undergo a self-financed drug test. "When, the thing is, that when you file for unemployment, basically you're saying 'I'm ready, willing, and — quote — able to go to work',” Bennett told Fox News. “If the person who pays into the unemployment has to pass a drug test to pay into it, surely the people who are taking out would not object to having to pass the same stringent test ... If you're not able to go to work because you can't pass a drug test, why should you draw unemployment?" Set-Up for an Interesting Debate Bennett’s views seem to be in the minority. However, logistical arguments aside, the legislation faces a different and possibly insurmountable enemy — civil liberties groups. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have announced an intention to fight the implementation of these laws. This call to fight the legislation is a set-up for an interesting constitutional debate. The recent history of the Federal courts is on the ACLU’s side. Federal courts have repeatedly struck down attempts at such legislation declaring them unconstitutional because they violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unnecessary search and seizure. The states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee have all lost court battles within the last decade. However, the cases have never reached the Supreme Court level. All four states abandoned their attempts after the Federal government threatened to withdraw all welfare funding. Thus far, an attempt to require drug testing for any form of welfare has not made it past a Circuit Court of Appeals. Texas and other states considering similar legislation may be able to alter their bills to agree with legislative limits laid down by prior court decisions or make a case that there is an exceptional public need for the testing. For example, the Federal drug testing of truck drivers does not violate the Fourth Amendment because there is a compelling public safety issue. If Texas can prove that welfare drug testing would dramatically improve public safety the law may go into effect unaltered. This debate is well worth watching. If Texas successfully implements its law, it will set a precedent allowing other states who want to enact similar legislation to do so. Obviously, an increase in these laws would be of strong benefit to the drug testing industry. However, if Texas fails to convince Federal judges that the law is constitutional it could severely limit the application of drug testing. Either way, this case should start an interesting debate for the summer…
| ||||||||||
