D rug testing people before providing them with food assistance has nothing to do with saving states money and everything to do with humiliating illegal substance users.
Massachusetts is not among the seven or so states that require some or all low-income residents to pee in a cup before they are provided with food, but there’s a Congressman who wants to make it easier for all states to kick people when they’re down and hungry. In mid-February, Rep. Robert Adelholt (R-AL), chair of the House Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), introduced a measure that would allow all states to drug test those applying for food aid. Adelholt says that if the U.S. feeds fewer adults, dependants, and kids, the country could save more than $1 billion in a year.
If the SNAP program doled out goods or services that weren’t so urgently needed by millions of Americans, Adelholt might have a case for his hateful legislation. But the mission of SNAP is to help provide low-income families and residents with healthy food. Here are some reasons why taking food away from substance abusers is cruel, not helpful, and doesn’t save much money:
People who use drugs still deserve food
I’m not sure when this country decided that drug use is a moral failing, but this antiquated notion needs to go the way of the flat-earth theory. The American Medical Association calls drug addiction a disease, not a choice.
Proponents of drug testing will say that if people can afford drugs then they should be able to afford food, and therefore do not deserve the $271 a month the average food stamp recipient gets through public assistance, according to a 2014 U.S. Department of Agriculture report.
But we don’t test assistance recipients for the other “poor” ways they spend aid dollars. Perhaps we shouldn’t give food assistance to the overweight, or to people who smoke cigarettes, or have unprotected sex, or get their nails done at a salon, or drink alcohol.
We do too much drug-testing already
I have heard the argument that if people have to get drug tested at work, people on welfare should too. This assumes that drug testing at work should be universal. You don’t want pilots, politicians, CEOs, lawyers, and doctors running around doing their jobs high. But why a Walmart employee has to pee in a cup before being hired is beyond me. As a country, we should be working against this invasion of privacy, not seeking to proliferate it.
Many people on SNAP pay taxes
Another misconception about aid recipients is that because they need extra dollars a month to buy food, they contribute nothing to society. This is the old Welfare Queen myth created by Ronald Reagan, who in 1988 made drug-testing a requirement for some federal employees and created laws that allow companies to demand urine from employees.
Many people on SNAP work and care for dependents. According to the USDA, between 31 and 43 percent of food stamp households have earnings, and less than 7 percent of people on food assistance got any cash assistance from welfare in 2014.
Walmart employees cost American taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion annually because its workers must use government assistance programs such as healthcare and food stamps in order to survive, according to “Wal-Mart on Tax Day” by TaxFairness. If corporations paid a living wage instead of letting their profit margins soar, reliance on public assistance would decrease significantly.
Drug testing doesn’t always save money
Only two states have published data about how they’ve saved money with the program: Arizona and Utah. Arizona saved $3,500 in its first year of testing by kicking 26 people off assistance. Utah saved $350,000 in its first year by kicking 12 people off the program and suspending another 250 for three months. Mississippi, however, lost money on its testing, catching only two drug users in its first year. Each test cost the state more than $5,000, according to ThinkProgress.
Children suffer when assistance is denied
When a drug user spends every dime on meth, food stamps may be the only way for her dependants — children, elderly, or disabled people — to get a meal. Children shouldn’t be punished because they have a parent in the throes of addiction. And according to the USDA, 60 percent of SNAP recipients are children, the elderly or disabled.
In one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, there is no excuse for cutting food subsidies to low-income families. Taking food away from drug users is punitive, leaves children and elderly people hungry, and further stigmatizes the disease — none of which is worth Adelholt’s so-called savings.•
Contact Kristin Palpini at editor@valleyadvocate.com.
