DRUG TESTS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS? JUST CHEAP POLITICAL THEATER

As the money crunch punishes states coffers, legislators are callously
pushing drug testing for welfare and unemployment recipients.

With states across the country feeling the effects of the economic
crisis gripping the land, some legislators are engaging in the cheap
politics of resentment as a supposed budget-cutting move. In at least
six states, bills have been filed that would require people seeking
public assistance and/or unemployment benefits to submit to random
drug testing, with their benefits at stake.

In Arizona, Hawaii, Missouri, and Oklahoma, bills have been filed that
would force people seeking public assistance to undergo random drug
tests and forego benefits if they test positive. In Florida, a bill
has been filed to do the same to people who receive unemployment
compensation. In West Virginia, both groups are targeted.

In most cases, legislators are pointing to the 1996 federal Welfare
Reform Act, which authorized -- but did not require -- random drug
testing as a condition of receiving welfare benefits. But a major
problem for the proponents of such schemes is that the only state to
try to actually implement a random drug testing program got slapped
down by the federal courts.

Michigan passed a welfare drug testing law in 1999 that required all
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) applicants to provide
urine samples to be considered eligible for assistance. But that
program was shut down almost immediately by a restraining order. Three
and a half years later, the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an
earlier district court ruling that the blanket, suspicionless testing
of recipients violated the Fourth Amendment's proscription of
unreasonable searches and seizures and was thus unconstitutional.

"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," said the ACLU Drug Policy
Litigation Project head Graham Boyd at the time.

According to the ACLU's now-renamed Drug Law Reform Project, which had
intervened in the Michigan case, the other 49 states had rejected drug
testing for various reasons. At least 21 states concluded that the
program "may be unlawful," 17 states cited cost concerns, 11 gave a
variety of practical or operational reasons, and 11 said they had not
seriously considered drug testing at all (some states cited more than
one reason).

Random drug testing of welfare recipients has also been rejected by a
broad cross-section of organizations concerned with public health,
welfare rights, and drug reform, including the American Public Health
Association, National Association of Social Workers, Inc., National
Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Council on Alcoholism and
Drug Dependence, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs,
National Health Law Project, National Association on Alcohol, Drugs
and Disability, Inc., National Advocates for Pregnant Women, National
Black Women's Health Project, Legal Action Center, National Welfare
Rights Union, Youth Law Center, Juvenile Law Center, and National
Coalition for Child Protection Reform.

But that hasn't stopped politicians eager to take a stand on the backs
of society's most vulnerable. Using remarkably similar rhetoric,
legislators across the land are demanding that those seeking benefits
be tested.

In West Virginia, Rep. Craig Blair (R-Berkeley County) has created a
web site, Not With My Tax Dollars, to publicize his bill, which would
apply to anyone seeking welfare, food stamps, or unemployment
insurance. "I think it's time that we get serious about the problem of
illegal drug users abusing our public assistance system in West
Virginia," he wrote on the site. "We should require random drug
testing for every individual receiving welfare, food assistance or
unemployment benefits. After all, more and more employers are
requiring drug testing. Why not make sure that people who are supposed
to be looking for work are already prequalified by being drug free?"

In Florida, Sen. Mike Bennett (R-Bradenton) has sponsored a bill that
would require random drug testing of one out of 10 people seeking
unemployment benefits. Those people are supposed to be "ready, able,
and willing" to work, he told Tampa Bay Online. "If they can't pass a
drug test for unemployment compensation," Bennett said, "then they
can't pass a drug test at my construction business."

In Hawaii, Rep. Mele Carroll (D-District 13) introduced her "Welfare
Drug Testing" bill last month. "The idea came from knowing a lot of
families and members in the community who are on assistance that may
or may not use some of our public funds for their drug habit," Carroll
told KHON in Honolulu. "If the state is pouring money out there to
assist families, this could be a way to look at some of our families
who are on substance abuse. Make them accountable," she argued.

But such arguments didn't fly with any of the welfare rights, civil
liberties, or poverty and child care organizations the Chronicle spoke
with in recent weeks. They were unanimous in denouncing welfare drug
testing as ineffective, arguably unconstitutional, and just plain
mean-spirited.

"Drug testing welfare recipients is coming back?" asked an incredulous
Maureen Taylor, Michigan state chair for the National Welfare Rights
Organization. "That's ridiculous. The courts slapped it down when they
tried it here, and they should slap it down again. These politicians
think the reason people are poor is because they're on drugs, and
that's just stupid," she scoffed.

"We are in favor of a drug free America and we believe people who
exhibit strange behavior should be tested," said Taylor. "Elected
officials who propose such things would be an excellent place to
start. The politicians should lead by example."

"This is really bad policy," said Frank Crabtree of the West Virginia
ACLU. "These are the most vulnerable people in our society, and their
children are even more vulnerable. These are people of whom the
legislature has no fear. They have to deal with the problems of daily
life to such a degree that they are not as politically active, and
that makes this bill just seem like a bullying tactic."

Crabtree also addressed the legality of any such programs.
"Constitutionally speaking, I don't think the state can force you to
give up your right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures to
obtain public benefits," Crabtree said. "This would seem to fit that
category."

Crabtree saw the West Virginia bill more as political grandstanding
than a serious contribution to public policy. "If part of their
rationale is that there is more drug use among recipients of public
assistance, that argument fails," said Crabtree. "But this does appeal
to a certain kneejerk mentality, which leads me to think this is just
a lot of political posturing and pandering to a conservative
constituency."

"I oppose such legislation for both philosophical and practical
reasons," said Darin Preis, executive director of Central Missouri
Community Action, which works with poor families. "The proposal here
would have state social workers taking on yet another task for which
they are not prepared. This will add cost and more bureaucracy, and
with our state budget in the fix it is, I don't think we can pull this
off," he said.

"Philosophically, I think we should be holding people accountable for
what we want them to do, not for what we don't want them to do," said
Preis. "People want to take care of their families, to do the right
thing. It just doesn't make sense to me. Taking away benefits from
someone struggling with substance abuse issues isn't going to help
them; it will only make matters worse."

"These bills are a waste of money at a time when governments don't
have money to waste," said Bill Piper, national affairs director for
the Drug Policy Alliance. "And they're extremely discriminatory in
that they focus on someone smoking marijuana, but don't address at all
whether someone is blowing his check on alcohol or gambling or
vacations. The bottom line is that even if someone is using drugs,
that doesn't mean they should be denied public assistance, health
care, or anything else to which citizens are entitled. These bills are
unnecessarily cruel and they show that some politicians still think
it's in their best interest to pick on vulnerable people with
substance abuse issues."

The bills seeking to drug test people seeking unemployment benefits
are even more pernicious, Piper said. "Unemployment compensation is
something that people pay into when they're working, that's not a gift
from the state," he said. "If you are unemployed, you earned those
benefits and you shouldn't have to prove anything to anyone."

"Drug testing welfare recipients or people getting unemployment is a
terribly misguided policy," said Hilary McQuie, western director for
the Harm Reduction Coalition. "If you find people and cut them off the
rolls, what's the end result? You have to look at the end result."

Legislators proposing random drug testing of welfare or unemployment
recipients have a wide array of organizations opposing them, as well
as common sense and common decency. But none of that has prevented
equally pernicious legislation from passing in the past. These bills
bear watching.

Phillip S. Smith is the editor of Drug War Chronicle.