Our Observation

Alongside some important state bills, such as pain clinic and merit pay legislation, passed one that’s still making waves in the media.

A product of the state legislative session, which ended last week, House Bill 353 sets up drug testing for state welfare recipients. The legislation was sent to Gov. Rick Scott’s desk on May 5.

It makes sense: Drug testing is allowed in the workplace, so those accepting a welfare check should be drug tested as well to make sure the taxpayer money they are receiving is paying for food, clothing and shelter, not drugs.

The difference, however, is that it is a person’s choice to work for an organization that drug tests. It is a contract between the employee and the employer that the employee will not do drugs while working there. The welfare recipient-to-state relationship differs from this in that the state does not employ the recipient.

Assuming Scott will sign this bill, what will happen? Will welfare recipients who were using drugs magically stop so that they can get their check? Probably not. They are more likely to find another stream of revenue to pay for their habit and move on.

Another critique of this bill has been the requirement for the welfare recipient to pay for the drug test — a $35 bill — out of their own pocket. If the drug test comes back clean, they are reimbursed. This means that people who may have never used drugs in their lives and are indigent enough to qualify for welfare have to pay up front for it.

The essence of the welfare program is that people need this assistance. If we start drug testing before providing state-run services, what’s next? Should those abusing drugs simply be cut from society?

Perhaps a better use of the state’s resources would be to funnel more money into education — this legislative session cut $1.3 billion from the K-12 education budget, leaving $21.2 billion in spending for 2011-2012. A well-educated child is less likely to abuse drugs and more likely to become a productive member of society. Or, if drug abuse is such a problem in the pool of citizens receiving welfare, perhaps the state should invest more funds into rehabilitative and outreach programs.

Florida’s welfare program already includes many measures to ease the transition into the workforce for those receiving assistance. One of those is “substance and mental health treatment.” Instead of cutting off those who are abusing drugs, perhaps the state could focus on growing this part of the program to help create more productive citizens.

There are better ways to ensure that taxpayer dollars are helping those who cannot help themselves.