WELFARE : WHY LOSING FOOD STAMPS IS NOW PART OF THE WAR ON DRUGS

WASHINGTON--The nation's never-ending war on drugs, that perpetual
futility, has always fallen most heavily on poor people. This has usually
been the result of discriminatory enforcement or, as with laws against
crack and cocaine, an unfair penalty structure. The latest blow, however,
has led to a direct attack on the poor.

Under a floor amendment, proposed by Sen. Phil Gramm (RTexas), to the 1996
welfare law and quickly adopted, anyone convicted of a felony for violating
either a state or federal drug law after Aug. 22, 1996, can never get food
stamps again. It makes no difference if the offender is sick, pregnant, a
parent of a small child, in a treatment program, has been drug-free for
years, is a first-time offender, works or is seeking work, a student or
anything else. Nothing the offender can do will restore food-stamp
eligibility, and administrators are allowed no discretion.

There is one escape hatch: A state may choose not to go along with the
federal ban or modify it. So far, at least 27 states, including New York,
Florida and Ohio, have opted out in whole or in part. California has chosen
not to opt out.

For those caught by the law, the loss of food stamps can be little short of
catastrophic. For example:

* Henry Turner is a 50-year-old disabled Indiana man. His sole income is
Supplemental Security benefits, and he had been receiving food stamps since
1990. He suffers from arthritis, diabetes, gastritis and high blood
pressure. In 1997, he was convicted for possessing marijuana and now cannot
get food stamps. Treatment for his diabetes requires four fruits a day and
other special foods that he now cannot afford. He survives on whatever he
can get from friends and charities.

* A 40-year-old fisherman in Massachusetts with HIV became disabled after
contracting pneumonia and has been unable to work. In 1997, he was
convicted of a drug felony and thereafter denied food stamps. Now he cannot
pay for the food he needs, which leaves him vulnerable to severe weight
loss and viral infections, life-threatening conditions for people with HIV.
Inadequate nutrition also reduces the efficacy of his medication.

There are many other such cases.

Losing food stamps is especially rough on women, particularly black and
Latino. Children also suffer; in 1996, 89% of welfare families were headed
by a single mother. Many poor women are ill-educated, have physical or
mental disabilities and thus are forced to resort to selling drugs, one of
the few ways for them to make ends meet. As a result, women constitute a
disproportionately high number of drug offenders, and the number is
increasing: 40% of today's female prisoners are in for drug offenses.

The draconian food-stamp law also hurts those who try to help the poor.
Hunger is a growing national problem, even for many who are working. Many
jobs pay barely enough to cover rent. Food charities, which now number more
than 30,000, are overwhelmed by demand even as their food supplies are
shrinking. Food manufacturers, which formerly donated millions of tons of
surplus food, have learned how to make use of imperfect products and
accordingly have cut down on donations. This has also affected quality, as
pantries and food kitchens are forced to buy cheaper foods to stretch
shrinking budgets.

Residential drug-treatment centers are particularly hard hit. These centers
usually require residents on food stamps to turn them over to the
facilities, which then get the food. A large proportion of their clients
fall under the food-stamp ban for, as the director of one center observed,
"It's rare to find anybody with a drug addiction who doesn't have some type
of felony conviction." Residential centers in California already are having
trouble in obtaining enough food because of the law and may have to curtail
the number of people they treat.

The food-stamp cutoff may actually encourage crime. The person most
affected is the occasional minor offender. The big timer doesn't need food
stamps, and repeat offenders are likely to get meals courtesy of the prison
system, given the long-term sentences usually imposed on repeaters. Ex-drug
offenders have a particularly hard time getting work, and since even drug
addicts have to eat, without money or food stamps the temptation to steal
or deal drugs will be strong. As Latosha McGee, convicted of a drug felony
in California, said, "With no resources out there, it's easy to go back to
what we know."

The irrational severity of the law has led people like Turner, the disabled
Indiana man, to challenge the law's constitutionality. Since the early
1970s, however, federal courts have effectively denied the poor any
constitutional protection. To uphold a social-welfare law, the courts will
accept any justification that is "reasonably conceivable." It makes no
difference how basic the need, how harsh the law or how dire the
applicant's situation. Just as long as a government lawyer can concoct some
explanation that does not seem "patently arbitrary" to a judge, the law
will be upheld, even if the explanation has no basis and is contradicted by
evidence in the record.

It is thus no surprise that Turner lost his suit. The trial judge found it
"reasonably conceivable" that the law was intended to curb runaway welfare
spending, deter drug use or reduce illegal food stamp trafficking. The
judge cited no evidence to support his conclusions, nor could he, for none
was presented to Congress and there is nothing reliable in the record.

The food-stamp law is unlikely to produce substantial savings since more
than half the states have opted out or modified it, and more are being
urged to. Improved deterrence is just as improbable, for the loss of food
stamps jeopardizes drug-treatment programs and is thus likely to increase,
rather than decrease, drug abuse; an estimated 90% of imprisoned drug
offenders who don't get treatment will be behind bars again within three
years. Food-stamp fraud will not be reduced substantially, either, for
little of it is attributable to drug users.

In fact, there is little indication that any of these worthy purposes was
on anyone's mind during the few minutes the legislation was considered.

For millions of poor families, many with working members, food stamps are
the last bulwark against hunger. In 1997, 24 million people obtained about
$21 billion worth of food stamps. Meanwhile, the number of drug offenders
in prison has shot up. In recent years, more than 300,000 people have been
convicted of drug offenses each year. Though there is no way of knowing how
many will fall under the lifetime food-stamp cutoff, one estimate is that
the law could deny stamps to 200,000 people a year. In California, more
than one-quarter of the large prison population is in for drug offenses;
the number affected by the law is bound to be high, especially after
post1996 offenders are released.

Unhappily, once tough drug laws get on the books, it has proved almost
impossible to get rid of them; the failure to substantially modify the
harsh drug laws that former New York Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller pushed
through in 1966, which have done nothing to reduce drug abuse in the state,
are one example. But neither drug users nor the poor have any political
clout. We will have to live with this latest assault on good sense and
common decency for a long time to come.