Florida Brings More Thrills To Angry, Misinformed Voters
A colleague in New Zealand enthusiastically shared this post on his Facebook page, then emailed it to everyone he knows:
Hooray for Florida! Time for New Zealand next! I-95 and I-75 (the northbound interstate highways in the southeastern U.S.) will be jammed for the next month or so with druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida, because this is the first state in the union to require drug testing to receive welfare! Hooray for Florida!
In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, “If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.” Applicants must pay for the drug test, but are reimbursed if they test drug-free. Applicants who test positive for illicit substances, won’t be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment. Those who fail a second time will be banned from receiving funds for three years! Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional?
I don’t think any literate American deems this unconstitutional; the issue is that it’s totally misguided. Here’s an article that points out the fallacy of the idea, documenting how the millions of dollars spent testing root out only a handful of drug users, and thus the entire approach carries a huge net negative to the taxpayer. Note also that over 70% of food stamp beneficiaries are children under 12 years old.
The concept brings a huge sense of victory and righteousness to angry and ignorant people (and yes, there are a hell of a lot of them), but that’s where its appeal ends.
The framers of the constitution did not provide for welfare, but they did provide for an even administration of laws.
At this point we are looking at the unintended consequences of ill conceived laws. It could be argued that such a law would set a precedent where anyone who receives any federal funds, welfare, grants or loans should be drug free. Perhaps it would extend to all the individuals of any corporation which received government contracts, loans or grants as well. Under the principal that corporations are responsible for the acts of their employees such a corporation might be denied millions of dollars if Jean in accounting smoked a joint in the John or took a painkiller from a coworker.
If such a law could be justified on corporate or moralistic grounds then perhaps corporations should adopt a lesson intended for people and the one completely unblemished should be the one to advocate such a proposal (throw the first stone.)
Perhaps the intention is that people will leave the state, but suppose they stay. You then have a disenfranchised population, with no work, no income, probably no home, no food and possibly with a drug habit roaming the streets. It seems a brilliant idea designed to make increasing use of a militarized police force and corporate run prisons, but it is likely to make people less safe as it increases crime.
And what about false positives? Tests are so sensitive that eating a poppy bagel can allow a positive test for drugs. Many are familiar with picking up cigarette smoke on their clothes just by being near a smoker. Will simply proximity to drugs become a rational for denying someone food?
It is hypocritical. The legal drugs are probably doing more damage than the illegal drugs. Tobacco smoking and ingesting ethanol are also damaging but few suggest making them illegal. Many people, but not all, have learned from the history of prohibition; it can create more problems than it solves.
Think of the red tape that will result. If someone tests positive for a drug which is legal if prescribed, then it will be necessary to determine whether the drug was legally prescribed, whether the prescription was forged, whether the doctor adhered to the guidelines, etc. etc.
Also, would children be denied food because a parent walked past a marijuana smoker causing his blood to test positive for trace amounts of the drug?
I even object to employers’ testing employees for drug use unless there is good reason to suspect that an employee’s job performance is affected.
The above said, I have never in my life used an illegal drug or used a legal drug illegally. I have never even used the legal recreational drugs and strongly believe that people would be better off without them.
Craig,
The US has always had a strange interpretation of morals and public safety !
Maybe it’s a legacy of a Puritan heritage, or a long history of self-delusion and hypocrisy.
A nation where an 18 year old can’t legally drink on licensed premises, but can go to war,drive an automobile, buy and carry a gun etc.
This is a nation which preaches diversity and tolerance, but has along history of imposing weird ‘moral’ laws. A nation which prides itself as a defender of freedom, yet imprisons more of it’s citizens that most dictatorships.
A nation where academics and intellectuals demand freedom and independence from political control, yet fly the American Flag at half mast (or remove it altogether) upon the election of a President not to their liking.
A nation of people comfortable with a Walt Disney sanitized version of their own history, while smug in the delusion of a world envious of the ‘virtues’ of the US.
A nation that never tires of repeating the same mistakes. Just as the disastrous National Prohibition Act was being repealed, FDR and the federal government were passing the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act, outlawing marijuana etc.
The result of removing control of a medical problem from medical professionals, and giving it to law enforcement has proved to be not only a national disaster, but international.
The list of these contradictions goes on and on….
The US has always experienced a difficult attitude with welfare. The American ethos is to strive to better yourself, so being poor or unable to prosper is considered your own fault. The perception is that being poor is due to laziness, moral turpitude, degeneracy or a genetic predisposition for criminal tendencies.
Given the background it’s not surprising that Americans believe it the duty of society to punish the poor, not assist ! Punishing the poor with social isolation, or better still incarceration, is for the moral good of the poor.
On the other hand, private philanthropy, charity and good deeds for the poor, as long as practiced with condescension and moralistic preaching, is considered virtuous.
Basically, it’s a mess of confusion !
Because of this history, US society is ill equipped to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing society. Naturally, those paying the taxes have grown very tired of supporting those who appear to be arrogant freeloaders.
The “freeloaders” are angry also. Poorly designed “do-gooder’ programs have left the poor with no dignity, no hope, and no future. They are stuck in a poverty trap and see their lives wasted.
I wish America well as it wrestles with these problems.
I know this is going to come off as condescending, but this is easily the most astute thing I’ve ever received from your keyboard in all the years we’ve been conversing. I don’t agree with most of your ideas, but I most certainly learn very important things from you.
Craig,
It’s possible (or used to be) for a conservative not to be reactionary. Conservation should mean preserving the best of traditional values and accomplishments while reforming or terminating obsolete, redundant or erroneous practices or beliefs.
Learning from past mistakes, and forgetting past animosities is the only way forward for true conservatives.
This Christmas my far flung family will gather together for a traditional Christmas in the UK. Younger brother has organized for us to gather at the old family estate in England. It will be a great opportunity for his wife and three children to enjoy the traditional festivities with their Australian cousins.
My eldest son,his wife and four children will for the first time spend an English Christmas away from the Australian summer. My youngest son and his American fiance will arrive from America, while my daughter and I will arrive from the South Pacific.
Our oldest living relative, a cousin aged 98 who was born 4 days after the end of the Great War, is looking forward to seeing so many of his relatives. My younger brother has worked hard gathering more than 60 family members for this reunion.
He is a genial host (certainly better than me) and enjoys the role.
Looking back over the year, it’s certainly been an exciting year, and for those of who have prospered we should certainly celebrate our good fortune and rejoice.
However, at this time of the year, I always remind myself of why we celebrate ” Christ’s Mass” and try to share a little of our blessings with those less fortunate.
It’s not just a lack of prosperity that hurts so many at this time of year, but for the lonely and forgotten it can be a very sad time. Money is so easy to give, but spending a little time with someone left outside the warmth of human companionship cost little, but can be a priceless gift
I wish you and your family all the best for the holiday season, and best wishes to all my debating partners ! : ).