Conservatives Blow Off the Constitution to Degrade Poor People

[Tx4obama]

Politicians across the country have been ginning up support for the idea of mandatory drug testing for people receiving government benefits. They used to reserve this intrusion into the private lives of poor individuals for those they deemed the “least deserving,” those on welfare. But, recently, they have been willing to advocate that people receiving unemployment benefits, food stamps and even job training should be tested as well. It is part of the general strategy of the GOP to demonize government benefits and magnify the impression that people receiving benefits are drug abusers. The greater issue is that liberal pushback against this agenda has not been strong enough to prevent conservatives from defining the issue. If liberals do not begin to go on the offensive against the momentum conservatives are building, they will find themselves once again fumbling to defend against a narrative that conservatives have managed to determine.

According to the ACLU, during the 2011 legislative session there were bills in over 30 states for the testing of people receiving government benefits ranging from housing to welfare. This surge of support for mandatory drug testing of the poor is taking place despite past court rulings finding it unconstitutional. Specifically, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2003 that Michigan’s program to drug test welfare recipients violated the 4th amendment right that requires the government to have a compelling criminal case before searching an individual. It turns out that simply being in need of help is not a compelling reason for the government to conduct a search, particularly one as invasive as collecting bodily fluids. The judge pointed out that there was nothing to stop the government from next testing people who attended public school. Remarkably, it turns out that the ACLU has had to fight that battle against a Missouri public technical college that was requiring that all of its students be drug tested.

These facts haven’t deterred Republican legislators across the country from working overtime to pass laws for mandatory drug testing. Many liberals are familiar with Governor Rick Scott of Florida’s push to test welfare recipients, because it famously found fully 96% of applicants for welfare tested negative. Naturally, Florida’s testing program was halted by a court order, specifically because the blanket testing of people seeking help was judged to violate the 4th amendment. Less well known, Indiana has also passed a law requiring people who apply for job training and unemployment benefits to be drug tested which found only 2% tested positive. Georgia has a Senate bill that would test people applying for both welfare and Medicaid while a separate bill would require food stamp recipients to engage in “personal growth” activities. Kentucky has a bill that tries to get around the court rulings about unconstitutional illegal searches by putting caseworkers in charge of determining who seems to be “suspicious” and worthy of a drug test. Some states are even considering testing for nicotine. Yes, seriously, nicotine.

<SNIP>

http://www.politicususa.com/conservatives-degrade-poor-people/

A Good Read

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. That's an interesting issue.

To me, people who are have a hard time should be tested for diseases that are holding them back, and this includes mental illness and substance addiction. But the answer then becomes to treat them so they can better succeed, and this is where Republican support obviously fades away, because it feels like universal healthcare. The real thing worth noting here are the attempts to criminalize the disease of substance addiction, not the idea that we are scanning those who need support for possible diseases that are holding them back.

[Louisiana1976]

3. I agree with the OP--this is degrading to poor people.

How about drug testing legiislators instead?

[napoleon_in_rags]

4. I just see it from a different angle.

I can tell you that there really are street people who are street people because of mental health issues, who when they receive proper treatment could be holding down jobs and all the rest. I assume the same is true with addictions. So in that sense, detecting diseases for treatment along with providing assistance makes sense. This of course has little to nothing to do with what's being argued here though, what I am hearing here is people talking about kicking the "loser druggies" off welfare, without looking at drug addiction as something to be treated. I'm also hearing the idea that welfare people are generally drugs addicts, which the facts don't bear out either.

[saras]

2. Too many wrongs to count

Testing for nicotine: what are you going to do with the results? many employers already ban it.
Some think nicotine deserves schedule I status, whereas others think it should be legal.
I think both are true, which isn't merely me being weird, but why the issue is complicated - our system is wacky.
Worse, our system is wacky because some of the fundamental concepts are wrong or inappropriately loaded emotionally.

Example 1: the word "drugs" - what does it mean to you? do you assume it means the same to others? Illegal drugs is MUCH more specific but ignores everything but one narrow aspect, "addictive", "harmful" and such are subjective, and at any rate, all kinds of self-harm is allowed - people choose quality over quantity of life all the time. It's not AUTOMATIC that a particular harmful behavior SHOULD be banned, it is a political evaluation of costs and benefits to various populations.

wikipedia sez the DEA does this (bold added by me):

Placing a drug or other substance in a certain Schedule or removing it from a certain Schedule is primarily based on 21 U.S.C. §§ 801, 801a, 802, 811, 812, 813 and 814. Every schedule otherwise requires finding and specifying the "potential for abuse" before a substance can be placed in that schedule. The specific classification of any given drug or other substance is usually a source of controversy, as is the purpose and effectiveness of the entire regulatory scheme.

"The term 'controlled substance' means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986." 21 U.S.C. § 802(6) Some have argued that this is an important exemption, since alcohol and tobacco are the two most widely used drugs in the United States. More significantly the exclusion of alcohol includes wine which is sacramentally used by many major religious denominations in the United States.

"require food stamp recipients to engage in “personal growth” activities"
Like perhaps MDMA therapy for rape-induced PTSD? (pdf from maps.org)

See, I told you it wasn't simple.

[napoleon_in_rags]

5. Nicotine does deserve schedule 1 status.

People smoke because their is a chemical holding their brain hostage, so they will suffer and become dysfunctional without smoking. I speak from experience. There isn't even a high with cigarettes, just pure addiction.