Drug testing is usually a sore subject. Whether it occurs in schools or the workplace, suspicion and resentment are among the most benign outcomes to hope for — getting sued in federal court is slightly worse.
On Monday, a federal judge temporarily blocked a new law in Florida that requires welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving welfare and benefits.
According to The Associated Press, Judge Mary Scriven did so on the grounds that it may violate the Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable searches and seizures clause.
The Forth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…”
“Probable cause” is what critics say the law lacks. But it appears that Scriven’s biggest objection is the non-confidential manner in which the results are held.
“This potential interception of positive drug tests by law enforcement implicates a 'far more substantial' invasion of privacy than in ordinary civil drug testing cases,” she wrote.
Apparently, the new law may be overkill anyway — when there is indeed suspicion that a welfare recipient is under the influence of drugs, they’re simply tested.
“There are plenty of options under federal law," Liz Schott, a welfare expert with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told NPR last year. “They don't need to change their laws to do it.”
Despite the controversy, Florida isn’t the only state with similar drug testing aspirations. In 1999, Michigan was the first state to enact random drug testing for welfare recipients, but it only lasted a few weeks before it was halted and eventually ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in 2003, according to The Associated Press.
And according to Time, many other states are considering similar laws, including Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Louisiana. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., even introduced the Drug Free Families Act of 2011, which would mandate welfare drug testing across the nation.
I suppose the question is this: Are we treating welfare as a right for all citizens in need, or is it a privilege?
If it is a right, then surely the government can only restrict people from it reasonably — meaning they cannot require drug tests indiscriminately, and probable cause must first be established.
However, if it is only a privilege — like having a driver’s license — then we should be able to set any standard of requirements or restrictions that we see fit. In order to receive a license, one must pass a series of tests and qualifications first.
Similarly, in order to receive taxpayer money, it shouldn’t be unfair to require proof of sobriety as a prerequisite. Nobody can force you to apply for welfare — it is a choice, after all, albeit often a desperate one.
This is the fundamental question that must be answered before the debate can continue.
Based on Judge Scriven’s decision, it would appear that she has already made the decision: The authors of any future bill simply need to change the confidentiality of the test results to reflect less of an invasion of privacy and the law becomes kosher.
Although it may seem harsh or demeaning, enough people resent the notion of “freeloaders” in America that perhaps drug testing is really a small price to pay for heightened integrity in a governmental program that desperately needs it.
Contact the columnist at djoconn1@asu.edu
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
