The problem with drug testing welfare applicants

The Indiana House of Representatives approved a bill late last month to drug-test welfare applicants. The bill was approved only after Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) amended the bill to include a drug test for state lawmakers.

The bill, originally proposed by Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville), was withdrawn and reworked because the amendment was considered potentially unconstitutional.

Seems like a double standard. The new amendment was easier on lawmakers, who would only lose job perks, such as parking spaces, if they failed a test.

The difference between a poor person losing welfare and a middle-class person losing a parking spot seems telling to me of the government’s willingness to overlook structural inequality.

This bill is predicated on the despicable idea that welfare applicants are more likely to use drugs than us normal and hard-working Americans.

It’s supposedly based on “reasonable suspicion” of previous drug charges but relies more on the government’s unreasonable suspicion of those it’s supposed to help.

Last year, after the first bill of this kind was briefly implemented in Florida, only 2.5 percent of welfare applicants tested positive.

McMillin asked, “Do you want to teach a man to fish, or do you want to give a man a fish?”

His rhetorical question might mean something if this man weren’t fishing on a lake without fish using a shitty rod and no bait.

The American Dream has little room for poor people, who, I assure you, don’t want to be poor. They’re not poor because they’re lazy.

Low-income people in this country, a highly racialized group, face a system fighting against them. Structural racism is a real thing, historically based on exclusion of people of color from privileged groups, differences in income, differential education and white privilege.

Structural sexism is also a reality.

Single mothers have difficulty accruing benefits and proving their value as families. Marriage is financially incentivized through tax benefits.

These oppressions are often interlocking and co-articulated so, consequently, poor folks have difficulty improving their circumstances. Welfare is meant to help these people.

Let’s think about this as smart, compassionate human beings.

Welfare applicants who do use drugs are not likely doing so just because it’s fun and easy to exploit the system and get high.

Welfare recipients are receiving the bare minimum in benefits from the state. Most of those dependent on welfare for more than five years do not have a high school diploma. The current job market is disastrous.

These people are in unfavorable circumstances, to say the least.

Keeping in mind the stunningly low results from Florida’s program and the fact of structural inequality, I wouldn’t be upset if more welfare applicants tested positive. In many cases, it’s not an irresponsible way to cope with an unfairly demanding situation.

Drug usage won’t necessarily impede the work of these people, too many of whom can only get low-wage service jobs.

Ever wonder why most of the jobs across campus don’t drug test? I doubt I’m surprising anyone when I say people can wait tables or bake cookies while high.

I’m not condoning rampant or self-destructive drug use. I’m not saying a few welfare recipients won’t abuse the system — though I can hardly blame them, as the system has abused them and kept them dependent.

But, regardless of our education and skill set, we face an uncertain future. If we ever come to depend on welfare, and I’m certain all too many of us will, shouldn’t we expect to retain our dignity?

Ideally, the government is in place to care for its citizens in need and protect them from debilitating circumstances. If the intent of welfare is to provide for disadvantaged populations, why is it now being asked to police and exclude citizens?

Why would the government have a vested interest in denying help other than to save money with the logic that poor people are bad people who earned their poorness?

Luckily, Indiana’s bill stalled after a split vote in the state Senate about the estimated $1 million cost of a drug-testing program. I’d much rather see this money go toward education programs for our youth or those already on welfare, so we can actually try to help our fellow humans.

At best, this bill is financially irresponsible. At worst, it’s institutionalized racism and classism that does no good for the people of Indiana.

— ptbeane@indiana.edu