For the welfare of others

On March 4, the Indiana Senate approved a bill that requires welfare recipients with any drug conviction, no matter how old, to be drug tested.
It seems reasonable to me that the beneficiaries of a government program should have to work passed certain obstacles in order to attain the reward.

That is not saying they deserve this work.

Rather, it is to guarantee the legitimacy of their claims and to make sure that government money is used for the necessities of life rather than something that takes away from the quality of life.

However, opponents argue that the bill is unconstitutional.

Ken Falk, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, says, “Merely because you were convicted of an offense in the past doesn’t mean there’s justification for testing in the future”

It’s completely true. There is no reason to suspect someone who had a drug conviction in the past will be taking drugs now.

But it seems reasonable to suggest a humanitarian approach, focusing on the needs of the people rather than an assumption that a person, having made a mistake once, will make it again.

This bill, if used right, could offer a distinct opportunity to rehabilitate people with drug addictions.

First of all, this bill ­— as it is ­— will focus on a specific group of Indiana’s overall population, people who need to be on welfare and who have had a drug conviction in the past.

It will not require all people who require welfare and food stamps to survive to take a drug test, so they can continue receiving welfare without the burden of drug testing.
That leaves us with two groups — people with drug convictions but do not currently use drugs, and those with drug convictions who do currently use drugs.

I believe it is relatively fair to assume that a person who requires welfare and has a drug addiction would have some conviction in his or her past.

The people with drug convictions who do not currently use drugs will pass the drug
screening with flying colors and this will remain a minor inconvenience for them at worst.

However, this categorization could help a group desperately in need, a group of people addicted to drugs and who require food stamps to survive.

The government should subsidize a rehabilitation program for them and help them overcome their addictions and, after however long it may take, they will emerge with new lives. Then, allow them to apply for food stamps again ­so they can focus on working their way out of poverty ­and see what happens.

This is simplistic, of course. It doesn’t take account the poverty culture, barriers to economic development, the amount of government spending and a multitude of other problems. But we should at least try, for their welfare?

allenjo@indiana.edu
@Iam JoshAllen