During the past several months, there has been an abundance of heated debates regarding the controversial push to drug test “welfare” recipients.

Although welfare in this country no longer actually exists, many continue to refer to the program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, as “welfare.”

Florida Governor Rick Scott recently made headlines when he signed into law a measure which requires all recipients of the federal program TANF to be tested for drugs at the recipients own expense.

If the drug test comes back negative, the TANF recipient will be reimbursed.

“It is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,” Scott said, adding he feels this law will help prevent the misuse of tax dollars.

Although I am sure corporate drug testing labs are pleased and probably lobbied vigorously for the law’s passage, it seems as though it’s a greater misuse of tax dollars to spend large quantities of money paying for these drug tests.

A recent study released by the Washington-based Center for Legal and Social Policy confirmed this when they reported testing all recipients of TANF is not cost effective.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida is up in arms, challenging this law — and rightfully so — on the grounds that blanket drug tests are unconstitutional and a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protect citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.

These mandatory drug tests for impoverished recipients of TANF are in fact unreasonable, because it assumes everyone who is living below the poverty line has a drug problem, even when there is no cause or reason for the assumption.

Luis Lebron, a lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, put it best when he said, “It judges a whole group of people on their temporary economic situation.”

Recipients of TANF are already stereotyped as being lazy, leeching off the government, having multiple children and now we are stereotyping them as illegal drug users.

Plenty of other government programs — which dispense tax dollars to specific groups of people — do not require drug testing in order to receive their funding, such as student loans, federal Pell Grants, food stamps, unemployment benefits and veterans.

Some argue that recipients of all these programs should be drug tested, but if the goal is to save money, it seems rather counter intuitive.

Many tax payers don’t want to feel like their hard-earned tax dollars are being used to fund TANF recipients’ irresponsible and illegal lifestyle choices — and rightfully so.

I think it’s important to note that many recipients of TANF are themselves tax payers, as well.

However you choose to cut it, wasting money is wasting money. Some people may use their cash benefits to purchase drugs, but they also may use their cash benefits on alcohol, cigarettes or buying a new outfit.

Spending funds received from tax payers is irresponsible spending if you are using it on anything other than the intended effect.

If Scott’s aim is really to cut wasteful spending, maybe we should also be breathalyzing individuals every morning and checking their closets for new inventory.

Let’s face it, people are going to cheat the system. My point is it is unrealistic to make it impossible to cheat the system without pouring more money into the programs, thus defeating the purpose of cutting spending all together.

Regardless of whether these people are deserving of it or not, cutting them off of federal assistance will only push them further away from being able to stand on their own two feet, which is another aim of the program.

Individuals are able to better themselves, find a decent paying job and locate permanent housing when they have been kicked out of subsidized housing and are homeless jumping from shelter to shelter every night?

I wonder if this is really moving them farther away from being dependent on financial assistance.

I feel it’s wrong to take food, housing, and financial assistance away from impoverished families, even if they do smoke pot from time to time.

I understand it is illegal, but let the police handle it. After all, their services are funded by tax dollars, too.

By ANNIE MALKA

Profiles Editor

amalka@umail.iu.edu