Dickie Bell proposes drug tests for needy … is it really necessary?
By Lynn R. Mitchell | Friday, January 27th, 2012 | Politics, Shenandoah, VirginiaWhen the Staunton News Leader starts sounding more conservative than our Republican elected officials, it gets my attention. I’m talking about Del. Dickie Bell’s proposal to require drug testing of recipients of the Virginia Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program in order to receive benefits.
The News Leader’s editorial “Bill panders to prejudice” asked, “Because poor people use illegal drugs? And ‘needy families’ is a euphemism for addicts?”
On the surface, this sounds like a good idea but in the end it could cost Virginia taxpayers more money, specifically to the tune of $1.3 million.
Florida has a similar program that uses more than $1 million on drug testing but only 2% of the recipients fail the drug test.
In these hard economic times when the state is holding back money from localities that could be used to fund law enforcement, wouldn’t it be wiser to spend that money to put more deputies on the streets to catch drug dealers rather than fishing for offenders among those who have fallen on hard times?
The News Leader wondered about the money, too:
In just about every political campaign, the candidate says he or she must cut the waste out of the budget. As funds get tighter, services are slashed and more people are left hurting, you hear about cutting waste. Then something like this comes along and those same leaders find $1.3 million to drug test poor people?
As history has shown us regarding bills like the one Dickie Bell is promoting, it passes with funding from the state but then after a few years the program is thrown onto the localities as an unfunded mandate, and the state takes credit for saving $1.3 million in the budget at the expense of those localities.
Perhaps the spending for new programs needs to stop.
Cross-posted at LynnRMitchell.com
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
As SWAC Girl (an acronym for Staunton, Waynesboro, and Augusta County), Lynn has been writing in the Virginia political blogosphere since 2006. Active in area politics, she has coordinated campaigns and served in leadership for the past decade. The Shenandoah Valley of Virginia is one of the most beautiful places to call home ... the Republican Party carries her beliefs.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
14 Responses to "Dickie Bell proposes drug tests for needy … is it really necessary?"
Another way to look at it is the program discourages persons that would be on drugs from using, and so encourages those persons to spend their time and assistance on helping themself. More than efficiencies, shouldn’t help to those in need be calibrated to actually helping them? I believe the proposal merits serious discussion, and not flippant disregard, emphasizing the seen costs and ignoring the unseen costs.
Mike brings up a good point.
In the Florida case, where this same policy was implemented, around 98% of those who were tested (receiving benefits) passed the test. With all the millions spent on the tests, and the staff hours to implement the tests, nothing changed and no money was saved because the cost of the test significantly outweighed the savings. That being said, you can craft a program that accomplishes the goal without wasting money.
Instead of testing everyone blindly, what should be done is the implementation of some sort of trigger mechanism which would require a test if a person met certain criteria (shows certain warning signs). This can be done and would 1) decrease the cost of the program and 2) could be combined with a rehabilitation program to ensure that people are actually helped and not thrown out on the streets.
I too think it is a bad idea. The Florida example shows that. People with drug and alcohol problems are very likely to have DUIs and drug related crimes and are already forced to attend rehab programs as a condition of parole, and they DO take drug tests. Each circuit and locality (or localities combined) have different approaches and different levels of services not just related to drugs and alcohol but other counseling as well. I don’t see the point in adding another useless layer on top of this for no discernable reason other than it sounds good in a sound bite.
I’d agree that the Florida experience shows this to be a waste of money.
2%? I’d think you’d get more positive hits than that if you just randomly grabbed people off the street to test.
There’s also, of course, a legitimate probably cause issue with the idea.
And, I’m pretty sure more than 2% of the General Assembly would fail…if alcohol counts and if the test was given later than 9 p.m.
I had to take drug tests to get a dot license to transport explosives and high pressure gasses.. I got paid for the work I was involved with. I got taxed too. Some of those taxes go to needy individuals who should also get drug testing to recieve it.
It costs the taxpayers a lot of money to test the poor. I’m not in support of spending money which we really do not have to catch a minimum number of abusers. Using drugs is against the law and sooner or later, those folks will get arrested for that activity. We do not need to spend 1.4 million a year for that test.
BTW: I was tested randomly in the Navy and am currently tested with my current employeer, I fail to see where it stops anyone from abusing drugs or alcohol. Not really worth much value for the cost to the taxpayers.
William, call me cold and heartless. I volunteer from time to time to help needy people. Sometimes I give them work. If they show up in an escalade with stylin rims, WTF am I supposed to do? Ignore or hold out for people who truly need assistance?
I understand but only a minority of folks show up “in an escalade with stylin rims” and no amount of drug testing is going to stop that type abuse. The drug testing of the poor doesn’t check to see where you live, how much money you have in your pocket or what you drive. It is a drug test…
William, I was drug tested and did not complain. I paid taxes that people on welfare recieve. I want them to have a drug test too. What have they got to worry about if they are not on drugs?
If they smoke tobacco then they do not need tax money. I dont care if its humiliating..
Turbo: So you’re okay with randomly testing anybody who get’s tax money? Legislators? State employees? Students at state colleges?
Absolutely. If they want a hand up from me I want a blood test from them. If they get a job then the employer has a right to ask the same. Frankly I think we have a few legislators under the influence..
I used to work for the Commonwealth and had to take a few drug tests. I agree with turbo, if you receive a check from the government you should be subject to random drug tests. Put all the employees (including legislators), students, and other check recipients into one pool and randomly test a few % of them.
And here we go dumping millions of tax payers down the drain to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Great. So much for limited government.
Leave your response