"While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Scott said. "This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars." -- Florida Governor Rick Scott on welfare drug testing.
Dear Neighbors:
 |
| Florida governor Rick Scott |
A few months ago, people across the United States gave a collective, joyful shout when a law was passed in Florida requiring welfare recipients to pay for and pass a drug test. I, however, did not rejoice. I was irritated and horrified that public funds were going to be used to further humiliate those who need public assistance. The process itself seemed pointless due to the fact that if the recipient was going to fail the test, a proxy recipient could be named on behalf of the children with no safeguards put in place. I saw this as an invasion of privacy, and I still do. I had many arguments about this with other people, all who insisted that this was the right thing to do. After all, we don't want them spending the money they're given for the benefit of their children to buy drugs, do we?
Turns out, most of them aren't. 98% of applicants tested were proven to be clean. This means that 98% of welfare recipients who were drug tested are going to receive a $30 refund for the test. Because private companies had to be paid to administer the test, the state of Florida will now lose approximately $360,000 per year. What else could they do with that money? Hmmm. How about retraining welfare recipients so they can get jobs and no longer need to collect money from the state? Or paying for childcare for those who really do want to work? Collecting welfare is not always a sign of laziness; often, it's due to those life-changing events that no one expects.
Joyce Curtis, who runs the Jubilee Center soup kitchen and pantry in Hollywood, said many of the families that visit her pantry for groceries work full-time jobs and lack transportation. Taking time off to take a drug test could cost them their livelihood.
 |
| Welfare applicants waiting in line to pee. |
You might ask why welfare recipients shouldn't be drug-tested when people who work are often subjected to the same thing. My answer is that NO ONE should be required to take a drug test in order to get a job. Currently, 84% of employers do require drug tests of new applicants, and 74% will test current employees either randomly or after an accident and with probable cause. Those tests are most likely to catch marijuana users, because THC is stored in fat cells for at least 45 days after use. Methamphetamines and heroin don't stay in the body for more than 24-48 hours after use. It's reasonable to require a drug test if an employee shows signs of being under the influence of something. Under our laws, that's considered probable cause. And why shouldn't we give employees the benefit of the doubt?
I'm infuriated by the fact that neither drug testing by employers or for welfare includes alcohol. Because it's legal to drink, no one performs random urine or Breathalyzer tests. An employee who is hung over is more likely to cause a problem at work than one who smoked marijuana the night before. According to The Mayo Clinic, hangover symptoms may include the following:
- Fatigue
- Thirst
- Headaches and muscle aches
- Nausea, vomiting or stomach pain
- Poor or decreased sleep
- Sensitivity to light and sound
- Dizziness or a sense of the room spinning
- Rapid heartbeat
- Bloodshot eyes
- Shakiness
- Decreased ability to concentrate
- Mood disturbances, such as depression, anxiety and irritability
In contrast, the effects of marijuana use are usually gone within three hours of smoking it. If I were an employer, I would be more concerned with the employees who go out drinking after work than the ones who go home and hit the bong. As for those who receive public assistance, it bothers me when I'm standing in line at the grocery store, waiting and waiting because the lady with the WIC vouchers got in the express line and is taking forever because she has to separate those items that WIC will pay for and those it won't. Like alcohol and cigarettes. I can't help but think -- if you can't afford to feed your children without public assistance, how can you afford to drink and smoke? Still, it's not up to me to make those decisions for her.
The debate over drug testing continues, however, and now it's landed in the laps of the next most villianized group -- teachers. We normally are not subject to drug testing of any kind. In Illini Bluffs School District in Illinois, teachers are on strike because of a proposed random drug testing policy. This has delayed the start of school by 8 days so far. Today, the union is supposed to mediate the new policy with the district. An article from the PJ Star included this quote: "No one here appreciates a random parent coming up and saying, 'Who in your school has a drug problem?'" said Tyler Hesh, a physical education teacher." That, of course, is the basis for the teachers' protest. They want their privacy protected. Not everything that a teacher does outside of work should be public knowledge; students and parents don't have a right to examine our lifestyles and our urine for things they don't like. Once again, the test wouldn't include alcohol. How many of you remember having teachers who showed movies a great deal? That's a proven hangover tactic. School districts should be more worried about alcoholism than drug use.
The bottom line is that every person in the United States is entitled to some privacy. When our government has to get inside of our bodies in order to obtain the information they want, it's going too far. Once the urine is in the hands of the testers, how does anyone know what they're really testing for? An employee who is taking medication for depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, ADHD or a rather embarrassing medical condition would not want that information revealed through a drug test. That's not to say that they'll test for other drugs, but there's also no guarantee that they won't. What I do on my own time is my business. As long as I do my job and do it well, no one has a right to inspect my urine for anything they don't like.
As for those collecting public assistance, they wouldn't need to do so if the money spent on the drug testing program was instead spent on the means to help those families become self-supporting. It's time that we started caring for others instead of constantly accusing people of doing things that we're probably doing ourselves.
I would pass a drug test. But that's not the point.
Drug-Free and Entitled to My Privacy,
Only 2% Failed Florida's Drug Tests
Peeing For The Job
Mayo Clinic -- Hangover Symptoms
Drug Test Sticking Point for Illinois Teachers
WELL SAID! Have you ever considered a career in writing?
ReplyDelete