Drug Testing Our Problems Away

Lawmakers in the State of Florida voted on a bill which would make drug testing mandatory for all that received benefits from Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).  This bill was signed into law by Florida Governor Rick Scott on last week.  This law, which will begin on July 1, makes Florida the only state that will make drug testing mandatory for its TANF recipients to obtain program benefits.  If a person tests positive for drug use, they will be denied benefits for a year. 

Beginning in July of 1997, TANF provides cash assistance to indigent American families with dependent children, for a maximum period of 60 months.  This program is administered through the United State Department of Health and Human Services.  TANF has its beginnings in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which was created during the New Deal.  This program was reformed into TANF following the debates which stated that the issuing of welfare benefits, over a long period of time and without having to work, decreases any efforts to obtain full-time employment and self-sufficiency. 

TANF sets forward the following work requirements necessary for benefits: (1) Recipients (with few exceptions) must work as soon as they are job ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance; (2) Single parents are required to participate in work activities for at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families must participate in work activities 35 or 55 hours a week, depending upon circumstances; (3) Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of benefits to the family; and (4) States have to ensure that 50 percent of all families and 90 percent of two-parent families are participating in work activities.

For the sake of clarity, I want to make it known that I want to and I hope to live in a drug-free America.  Also, I hope that people can pull themselves out a poverty ridden circumstance, get trained or educated, get gainfully employed, and raise their families in healthy environments.  With that being said, I don’t exactly see what problems this law solves.

Proponents of this law argue that they don’t want public assistance money spent on extra-curricular drug use.  There is nothing wrong with addressing this, but I think the framers of this law failed to realize that public assistance money isn’t the only money that is used to purchase drugs.  Habitual drug users will find a way to purchase drugs.  Not to be outdone, drug dealers will find a way to sell drugs.  The point I’m making is that no one is addressing the drug problem.  Many of the drugs consumed in the United States come from outside of the United States.  It seems that cracking down on interstate and international drug cartels may be the best way to solve the drug problem.  Eventually no drugs will equate to no drug users.

Secondly, this law targets drug use among poor and low-income people.  I will admit that I am not an expert on equal opportunity, but this just might be discriminatory and insulting.  It insinuates that only poor people should be drug tested to receive benefits.  To make a law like this equal and fair, we would have to require drug testing for all that receive public assistance.  This would include: college students with federal financial aid, farmers that receive federal subsidies, AIG and other Wall Street executives, retirees that receive social security, homeowners that purchase homes through USDA or FHA programs, and elected officials and public employees that receive grant funds from other public entities.  Public funds are intertwined in more than we can imagine.  However, the abuse of public funds does not begin and end with low-income assistance programs.

In 2003, there was a ruling by a federal appeals court that covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee which ruled that states cannot drug test public assistance recipients because it’s unconstitutional.  Ironically, in 2001, a pilot drug testing program in Florida was abandoned because it was not cost effective and it found that welfare recipients were not using drugs more than those who were not on welfare. 

The common issues that are present in this whole discussion are drug use and poverty.  By drafting reactive laws that stand to be overturned in a few years, we are only slowing down any real progress to address these issues.  The sizes of our solutions need to match or exceed the size of our problems. 

Running from Conversations on Race

A few weeks ago, I wrote an opinion column about celebrating the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War.  And as celebrations and remembrances go, different stories will be told and opinions will be established based on these stories.  With many Civil War discussions, the arguments and opinions are based on a number of issues.  The most popular issues would have to be states’ rights and the institution of slavery.  Inevitably, I discussed three causes of the Civil War and how slavery was the underlying theme. 

However, in identifying slavery as the underlying theme, I did not allow myself to go any further.  I didn’t see a reason to do so.  I did what many of us when approached with discussing race.  I ran from it. 

In my haste, I didn’t realize what America will be celebrating and remembering over the next 2 to 4 years.  In addition to the Civil War and its many battles, (some of) America will be remembering the Civil Rights Movements of the 1960s.  And I don’t believe this will be some random, thrown together celebration.  This country will be remembering the 50th anniversary of some of our most defining moments.  And everyone knows that 50th anniversaries are grand events in our American culture.  If a program or project is going strong for 50 years, and has a track record of positivity, we will applaud it and hope that is continues for 50 more years. 

Some of the key Civil Right moments that are up for 50th year anniversaries include: the Freedom Riders of 1961(which have been interviewed on a PBS documentary and the Oprah Winfrey Show); the March on Washington in which Dr. King gave his “I Have a Dream Speech” in 1963; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; the admittance of James Meredith into the University of Mississippi in 1962; the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination in employment and public places; and, sadly, the death of 3 civil rights workers in Philadelphia, MS in 1964. 

Since the Civil Rights Movement in America was largely, although not entirely, based on racial equality, we are going to have conversations that involve race while these historical events are being remembered.  It’s almost impossible to remember the Civil Rights movement without remembering why people were kept out of public institutions in the first place.  The challenge to having conversations based on race is that key groups are identified as being a part of the racial problem.  First, there are the victims that are affected by racist practices and attitudes.  Second, there are the oppressors that actively work toward keeping things the same and sometimes are oblivious to what is incorrect.  Lastly, you have the enablers that have the ability to impact and create changes, but they don’t.  The problem then becomes the realization of what group you belong to. 

I have been a part of and listened to numerous conversations on race.  Being from the Mississippi Delta, it can almost be considered a rite of passage.  But all the conversations I have been a part of play out the same way.  Glenn Singleton, who is an educator that promotes honesty and courage in conversations about race, explains it like this: “Typically, white people have a fear that something they say will be taken out of context or will be viewed as offensive by people of color.  I believe that it is important that white people move past their fear of offending and being corrected toward a place where they can understand the points of view being expressed by black people.  At the same time, black people need to recognize that their experiences are unique and to have patience and compassion as these points are translated to a white audience.”   

The key word is “understanding”.  We all understand that race is, quite possibly, the hardest topic to discuss in our society.  However, we have to allow ourselves to understand that we don’t all have the same American experience. 

Over these next few years, we need to get to a place where our true thoughts and experiences can be shared with each other.  At this place, difficult questions will be asked and they need to be truthfully answered.  I hope I see you there.