One more indication the coming short session of the General Assembly won't be as peaceful as some might hope:
Two Indiana Republicans want welfare recipients to pass drug tests before they can receive benefits.
[. . .]
Other states including Missouri and Florida have pushed for the testing, but measures have run up against Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. At least one federal judge has placed a testing law on hold.
[. . .]
But the issue has resurfaced, and supporters of such a measure say it's a matter of fairness: Indiana residents scrapping for a paycheck shouldn't have their tax dollars go to welfare recipients who abuse drugs.
[. . .]
Ken Falk, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said the measure sounds like a clear violation of the Constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
There are plenty of reasons the drug-testing might not be a good idea. It would be expensive to administer, for one thing, and isn't likely to have any practical effect on drug abuse. But I wonder about the constitutionality issue. It hasn't been tested at the Supreme Court level, and it's anybody's guess how it would fare there.
A good question, I think: If it's OK for me to undergo a mandatory drug test as a condition of employment, why is it wrong to submit someone to one as a condition of getting welfare? I'm not crazy about the workplace tests, either, but it seems to me the same arguments apply to both cases. They should both be considered unreasonable or both be impermissible. It's like the case of motorcycle helmets and seat belts. The same arguments apply to both, and it's absurd that Indiana requires one but not the other. (Yeah, yeah, I know, different rules for private business and public policy, but still . . .)
It's hard to think dispassonately about the issue since it does feel unfair to think our hard-earned tax dollars might be supporting somebody's drug habit. But I haven't seen any evidence that drug use is any higher in the welfare population than the general population, so we'd be subjecting them to the same unreasonable invasion of privacy we don't think we should tolerate.
Comments
I don't think the same rationale applies for welfare as for employment. First, one is government whereas the other is primarily private business. Second, the employment rationale makes more sense because of concerns about job functionality and for the employer's respondeat superior liability for acts of the employee in the scope of employment that harm a third party.
We call them "drug tests," but honestly they're just marijuana tests. All illegal drugs except marijuana clear your system in a day or two. Grass can linger for a month. And marijuana, I think we all can agree, is cause for the least alarm. I'd rather hire a pot smoker than a tobacco smoker. Pot isn't addictive.
But both involve "searches" without a "reasonable basis" for believing one is necessary, and when confronted with what has been seen as blatant disregard of constitutional rights, the federal government has been known to interve ON BEHALF OF the individual, e.g. the right of a business to refuse service vs. somebody's right to sit at a lunch counter.
Employers aren't subject to the 4th amendment because you can choose not to work there.
I don't think it works out so well when people choose not to be governed by the standing government.
But aside from that, it's not really about keeping people off drugs. Drugs won the drug war from the start. It's more about fueling our Prison-Industrial complex. If not for the drug war, where would all those police, prison guards and etc. find employment? And how would private prisons continue to turn a profit? You need a constant influx of new prisoners for that business model to continue to function, after all.
I don't know, Mr. Swing. I find it difficult to understand how police, prison guards, etc., could have influenced President Nixon to declare war on drugs. I suspect it's simply the prudery of the American culture - the same thing that gave us Prohibition in the 20s. I don't think any modern president has considered the drug was a useful thing, but it is politically difficult to suggest ending it. Older, more socially conservative people are the most likely to vote.
I'm not saying those groups started it, I'm just pointing out that they benefit from it now.
This law isn't about reducing drug use. This is about being nasty to people who need welfare.
I can see why some people like this provision. Freedom is untidy. People who want to strip welfare recipients, government employees and others of their constitutional rights, though, ought to move to a country where all that untidiness does not exist.
Even field sobriety tests are insane. A person with an inner ear infection is not a bad driver - but he can't walk a straight line. A diabetic suffering from ketoacidosis can lapse into a coma at any moment, but he won't register 0.08 on a breathometer. The best test for impaired driving is to observe the driving. Duh.
Drug tests of licensed professions, of government employees and contractors, and of participants in government programs (including free public schools) is unconstitutional and offensive.
Personally, the only excuse for drug testing that passes muster for me is the public safety argument, like with airplane pilots. That being said, it is true that these drug tests really only catch pot smokers, therefore testing pilots doesn't even accomplish its goal of ensuring safety. A mandatory breathalyzer test would do a lot more toward those ends, imo.
With that one exception stated, I believe that all drug testing, whether by government or by business, is indeed an unreasonable search and thus, unconstitutional. I understand why testing welfare recipients SEEMS like a good idea to so many, but it's not. It is a political ploy that divides the people for short-term political gain - not unlike the Drug War itself, in my opinion.
Here's a novel concept, end welfare. No more problem.
And while we're at it, end personal bankruptcy protections. No safety net or erasing debt for moochers.
It's not really novel to ignore the general welfare, Tim. You may not remember why things changed. The people rose up and DEMANDED it. They said, as Americans tend to do, that government exists for the preservation of our natural rights AND the furtherance of the common good. When the existing structure fails to protect those rights or serve the common good, we seek redress.
BTW, ending welfare wouldn't end any problem. It would further exacerbate the income divide, for one. And drug-testing proponents would certainly demand testing for driver's licenses, social security checks, tax refund checks, etc. They ARE talking about all government benefits, that crowd - not just food stamps and living assistance.
Corey: give Tim a minute; he's likely still engaged in stuttering rage over being reminded that he's taken advantage of government financial assistance laws/programs himself in the past.
lets end the mortgage interest deduction. how about we tax organized religion?
Corey, you posit "The people rose up and DEMANDED it." Really?
Who would those people be? I don't remember anyone "rising up" and demanding anything. I don't remember people marching in the streets demanding free stuff (like they are today of course) but I do remember democrat politicians buying votes with hand outs. Welfare and the following Great Society giveaways were far more about buying voting blocks for the democrats than about the well being of the people.
Those on the government teet vote over and over for democrats to keep the checks coming, just like a dog shakes hands for his treat.
I must admire your bad memory, Tim. I forget a lot of things at mt advanced age, but they never seem to be quite as, uh, convenient. All I end up remembering is how to spell words like "teat" and, of course, the things that opponents remind me of. It must be nice to be able to not remember when it's convenient.
Harl, I grew up in the 60's and I vividly remember the anti war protests and demands as well as the civil rights marches, protests and demands but I'm having a hard time remembering the welfare marches, protests and demands.
Since you have a much better memory than I, please remind and enlighten us all.
I'm going to predict that this exchange will cause Leo to threaten mediation of angry exchanges.
Tim, you seem to be confusing the general welfare with welfare payments.
I was not referencing LBJ's Great Society at all, but the great American spirit that we've seen in the revolutionary movement, the abolitionist movement, the progressives movement, and the civil rights movement.
When the system cannot self-correct, the people step up. THAT'S the American Way, in my humble opinion.
General welfare of the people was interpreted as leave the people alone. Pre revolution, people were intimidated, taxed, no right to vote, etc. all these things affected their general welfare. What the people of 1776 wanted was to be left alone, keep the future government from encroaching on their general welfare.
I believe "provide for the general welfare" was meant to keep government away, allowing individuals to be free, not invite government in.