Local Comment

MAKE DRUG TESTING FAIR

Welfare Recipients Singled Out In U.S. Ruling; Data Show Illicit Use
Greater At Higher Incomes

The recent federal appeals court decision to permit drug testing of welfare
recipients unfairly singles out one group.

A policy like this, aimed at identifying a small number of people who use
drugs, reminds me of the person who loses his keys in the dark but looks
for them under the street light. It's a convenient but irrational strategy.

Instead of targeting the poor and disenfranchised, drug testing should be
an inclusive policy in which every American should be equally likely to be
tested. This is in line with the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
decision, which said Michigan's drug-testing program is constitutional and
based on a legitimate need to protect the children of recipients and the
public.

I propose two strategies that would protect all of our children -- not only
those of welfare recipients -- and identify the most likely drug users.

First, all home owners seeking a tax break should submit documentation
proving they are drug free. As an incentive for drug testing, its cost
could be deducted from local, state and federal taxes if the results are
negative. In addition, all test results should be presented at driver's
license renewals.

While these ideas may seem absurd, they are consistent with scientific data
from national surveys stating that most drug using youths and adults are
among middle and upper classes, not welfare recipients.

For example, according to the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse,
about 5.5 million people whose family income was under $10,000 reported
having used an illicit drug once in their lives. This number of people
corresponds to nearly 35 percent of those with this income.

On the other hand, over 21 million people with an income over $75,000
reported having used an illicit drug at least once in their lives. This is
about 45 percent of those within this income bracket.

Such programs would eliminate the difference between testing individuals
who receive welfare support and testing those who receive state support
through tax breaks and other subsidies.

If testing is an important step to help individuals, we need to make this
opportunity available to everyone. Far more children would be protected.

The plight of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his family is a case in point. His
daughter used drugs. She has been arrested. She served time in jail and has
been in and out of treatment. She has struggled with sobriety. She broke
the law.

Should her father's position and residence be in jeopardy until the family
properly addresses the problem?

If not, then why is it acceptable to assume "reasonable suspicion" or
"probable cause" among welfare recipients, but not among the non-welfare
population, where most drug users are found? Policies should be
consistently applied to everyone -- the haves and have-nots. If laws make
government services contingent upon drug testing, let's test all service
recipients.

It is no coincidence that drug testing only of welfare recipients is
adopted by lawmakers, because most welfare recipients don't vote. The
voices of welfare recipients do not influence policy makers' decisions the
way middle- and upper-class constituencies do.

But all of us should pay attention to correcting problems associated with
drugs, especially the lack of accessible, affordable and adequate substance
abuse treatment services.

Both outpatient and residential treatment programs are in short supply, and
few to none of them have the expertise or resources to meet the needs of
people living in or near poverty. Until we address drug use as a public
health problem rather than a criminal problem, the proper prevention and
treatment services will not be in place.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the welfare recipients who filed the
suit against the state's drug testing program are deciding whether to
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. But I look forward to the day when courts
look at substance abuse services and mandate that they be funded so they
are readily available and of high quality.

That would be a far more productive use of their energy than assuming the
poor have committed a crime because they are poor.