By Barb Shelly, Kansas City Star editorial page columnist
The Kansas House has given first-round approval to an idea so loopy you wonder if somebody has slipped something into the water cooler.
The proposed legislation: Random drug testing for welfare recipients.
As explained in a Lawrence Journal-World account, sponsor Kasha Kelley, a Republican from Arkansas City, said she wants to protect taxpayers and children by identifying drug users and directing them into treatment. The bill requires two rounds of treatment before drug users have their welfare benefits suspended.
I'm all for expanding opportunities for treatment of substance abuse. But the House bill targets people not because they've commited crimes or neglected their children, but simply because they're poor.
It's "crazy and it's mean," as Marti Crow, a Democrat from Leavenworth, put it.
It's also incredibly impractical. The drug testing would cost $800,000 a year, according to one estimate. It would only be put into effect if the state has the money, which it certainly doesn't right now.
In fact, I think it's doubtful the state of Kansas would ever have money to test welfare recipients for drugs.
So why did House members spend two hours debating a bill that will probably go nowhere?
Delicious
Digg
Maybe they do. Random drug
Maybe they do. Random drug testing should be made for everybody. Why not! Considering that drug addiction also hits some of our official, lawmakers shouldn't make an exception. We should be all equal under the law, right?
Vick, Drug Rehab
It starts like this...
There is a constitutional difference between drug testing by an employer (even a governmental employer) and by the government in general. You enter into an agreement with the employer as an equal, and you always have the right to walk away from the bargain. The employer has no authority to compel you to be drug tested if you don't want to be; you can always walk away.
On the other hand, the government has immense and awesome sovereign powers, which is why our forefathers had the good sense to limit those powers by requiring the government to have probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed before it can conduct a search or seizure. Poverty is not probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
It is true that some people in poverty use drugs; it is also true that some people not in poverty use drugs. Kasha Kelley has a world-view that blames those who have problems without any actual evidence (just like she assumes that people without insurance for their kids all have cell phones and cable tv). That world view leads her to the conclusion that people in need have somehow forfeited their constitutional rights, that they are somehow "lesser" citizens because they have not had the ability, or luck, that she has had. So, she feels justified in conditioning the state's assistance on the surrender of those rights, since they are of so little value.
This economic situation should make everyone pause and consider how easily they could lose their job, their insurance, and need some of that assistance themselves. We probably all know working people, good people, who because of low wages or health conditions or a host of other causes may be receiving assistance with their child care, or food stamps, or medical benefits (even active duty U.S. soldiers have been known to qualify for food stamps). Most don't use drugs, and don't deserve to have their privacy invaded and their dignity insulted.
Remember, the constitution protects the rights of the innocent even more than the guilty.
Fiscal sense?
How does spending $800,000 make good fiscal sense?
Amen Darr
I could not agree with you more, why not test them for drug usage? It makes me mad as hell to think my tax dollars are being spent so some damned junkie can shoot it into his arm. $800,000 is chump change compared to the billions spent on welfare payments!
This is a great idea, kudos to Kasha Kelley!
See it makes good common and fiscal sense, no wonder the libs hate it.
Oh somebody says its "mean".
Employers require drug tests prior to hiring and many require random tests while employed. Welfare recipiants should consider the taxpayers as their employers, since that is where 100% of their money is coming from. As the employer taxpayers have a right to know that their money is not being used to support people using illegal drugs. The $800,000 would be money well spent.