Drug Testing TANF Recipients

Dear Readers, It is ironic that we, as a nation of opportunity, always turn on the downtrodden in times of trouble. Just recently we observed two (2) Georgia lawmakers, Rep. Jason Spencer, R-Woodbine, and Sen. John Albers, R-Roswell, propose an idea that, if it takes hold here in this state, would add another insult to the disadvantaged amongst us. They want all welfare recipients to be periodically drug-tested in order to be eligible for benefits.

The impulse may be from a good place. Drug abuse, both from the damage it does to the soul and the criminal activity that comes with it, can take a particularly heavy toll on the edges of our communities. So, the idea that we should wean the poor off of chemical dependency (which should, frankly include alcohol and tobacco, as well as obesity health choices), makes a lot of sense from a social engineering perspective.

Except that is not from whence this particular motivation comes. To quote them:

"Georgia taxpayers have a vested interest in making sure that their hard-earned tax dollars are not being used to subsidize drug addiction," Spencer said in a news release. "In these tough economic times, it is easy to understand that many deserving families need some temporary help until they can bounce back financially — that's why we have public assistance programs like TANF. This additional eligibility requirement will simply ensure that those funds are used for that intended purpose."

The goal, then, is about money not helping families.

TANF does not just go to support individuals, it provides support for families. Under this proposal, innocent kids could be robbed of critical financial support, because a parent's positive test for marijuana.

Moreover, why are we only drug testing TANF recipients? To be clear, why not test ALL recipients (including businesses and all employees) of public monies for illegal drugs? This would ensure that all public funds are used for their intended purpose. The reason not is because this would be a gross abuse of individual rights.

The final insult is the lack of publicly supported substance abuse programs. In these troubled times, Georgia has slashed its support of what was, already, an inadequate mental health system.

This idea is also blatantly unconstitutional. Just last month, in Florida, a Federal District Court Judge struck down a similar measure. Luis Lebron, a 35-year-old Navy veteran, and single father, sought welfare benefits for his family while finishing his college degree.

Florida passed a law, modeled after a Michigan law ruled unconstitutional a decade ago, requiring TANF recipient's, like Mr. Lebron to submit to mandatory periodic drug testing to qualify for benefits. Mr. Lebron refused the test.

Agreeing with Mr. Lebron, Judge Mary Scriven struck down this law. Ironically, Judge Scriven noted that studies have shown that welfare recipients actually abused illegal substances at nearly half the rate of the general population. Studies also showed that substance abuse amongst welfare recipients (marijuana being the primary substance abused) did not have any negative impact on employability.

In other words, drug abuse has no correlation with the length of time on welfare AND the instance of abuse is much lower amongst welfare recipients. Essentially, this law is aimed at something that is not a problem, unless your goal is to force welfare recipients (and them only) to be drug-free, without imposing such a restriction on the rest of us.

This means that Florida cannot show that its decision to violate the 4th Amendment is "reasonable." The State can neither show there is a substance abuse problem amongst TANF recipients and such abuse has no impact on the length of time receiving benefits. Lacking this nexus, Florida's scheme is unconstitutional.

Ironically, Reps. Woodbine and Albers floated their proposal after Florida's law was struck down. Yet, there are no signs of an epidemic of drug abuse amongst Georgia's TANF recipients. This suggests that Georgia's version of Florida's new law will also be invalidated by the courts.

Local attorney Jim Rockefeller owns the Rockefeller Law Center and is a former Houston Co. Chief Assistant District Attorney, and a former Miami Prosecutor.